Peter was never a bishop of Rome or at Rome, CC does not teach it anymore

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by highrigger1:

Wait a minute? I thought it was INVENTED in the 3rd century as a MYTH & LEGEND? Now you add Irenaeus who said the following in 180AD? Which one is it? Third or before? But MODERN scholars know better? Definitely not Math!

St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, 3,1,1, 180 A.D., J208 “…in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” St Irenaeus, "

:

nicea,

Irenaeus did not say Peter was the first bishop of Rome. That was not declared until Third century.

He copied 1 Clement saying that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome (which we know is false) But that is not to say Peter was a bishop of Rome.

I stand by my statements and the historians I quoted. Raymond E Brown is generally considered the “dean of NT scholars”

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

=Art321;9218378]Responding to the title of this thread, the CC has now and always taught that the St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. Hopfully this will help:

art,

It does not because it does not say that. To say one is a successor does not mean Peter was a bishop of Rome. The CCC does NOT say that Peter was a bishop of Rome last time I checked it.

All pastors and bishops are successors of Peter and the apostles since they have taken on the tasks of the apostles.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

Yeah unfortunately our brother highrigger1 believes otherwise? I have no idea where he/she is getting such information from?

nicea,

From the CCC. It plainly does not say that. Peace, JohnR

 

[jlhargus]

nicea,

From the CCC. It plainly does not say that. Peace, JohnR

mark

 

[highrigger1]

Curious he is not trying to back it up. Over 100 posts in three days, he certainly has the time.

justa,

I always try to back up my statments. This is easy to back it up. The CCC simply never says Peter was a bishop.

To say the Pope is a successor of Peter does NOT state that Peter was a bishop anywhere nor does it need to. I have no dispute that the Pope is a successor of Peter as any bishop or pastor who has taken on the tasks of Peter and the apostels are successors.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Cristiano]

nicea,

Irenaeus did not say Peter was the first bishop of Rome. That was not declared until Third century.

He copied 1 Clement saying that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome (which we know is false) But that is not to say Peter was a bishop of Rome.

I stand by my statements and the historians I quoted. Raymond E Brown is generally considered the “dean of NT scholars”

Peace, JohnR

First you what do you exactly mean when you say that Peter and Paul did not found the Church of Rome? Are you saying that Peter and Paul were never in Rome?

I also think that you are making a big difference between being the bishop and leader of a Church in a city and being a bishop with his own diocese. Bishops as leaders and teaching authorities of Churches in the cities existed well before the concept of diocese. There was no diocese of Rome at the time but there was the Church of Rome and Peter was its bishop.

 

[highrigger1]

Again, no indication Peter was a bishop of Rome, only that he originated the Church of Rome and we know he consecrated St Clement who was a disciple of both Sts Peter and Paul.

Sorry to burst your bubble . . .

Alex

alexander,

More bubbles to burst. Neither did Peter or Paul originate the Roman church. Clement was no more than a baby when Peter and Paul died. Not a disciple at all. Where did you get that.

Here is Raymond Brown to explain.

^ Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P. (1983). Antioch and Rome: New
Testament Cradles of Christianity. Paulist Press. p. 98. “As for
Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what
he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the
original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and
therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense).
There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local
ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church–a claim not made till
the third century. Most likely he did not spend any majortime at Rome
before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been
only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that
Peter came to the capital.”

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

The foundation from and Apostle was not the only criteria of determining the primacy of a See. It also had to do with the population and relative importance of the city as well. Rome was a larger & more important see than Antioch, on top of the fact that Peter was martyred and buried in Rome(along with Paul being executed & buired outside of Rome’s walls).

grey,

None of that is evidence that Peter was a bishop either in Antioc (not) or Rome (not)

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

First you what do you exactly mean when you say that Peter and Paul did not found the Church of Rome? Are you saying that Peter and Paul were never in Rome?

I also think that you are making a big difference between being the bishop and leader of a Church in a city and being a bishop with his own diocese. Bishops as leaders and teaching authorities of Churches in the cities existed well before the concept of diocese. There was no diocese of Rome at the time but there was the Church of Rome and Peter was its bishop.

cristiano.

Historians say that Peter and Paul were likely in Rome but late in the 60s. Peter was never a bishop in Rome or anywhere.

There was a church of course so Peter could not have founded it, but neither is there any firm evidence or proof that Peter was a bishop there. In fact there is a lot showing he was not. There was no monarchical bishop in the Roman church until mid second century. Tht is what the historians say. All I have read say that and I have read most of the top ones.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

Sources please…

nicea,

I have so many I cannot count them all. Here is one.

Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

“The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be
handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no
successor. The idea that there is an “apostolic succession”
to Peter’s fictional episcopacy did not arise for several
centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively
called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even
so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes.”

Garry Wills book What Paul Meant p166
Discussing the 1 Clement and Ignatius letters.

“It is interesting that neither Clement nor Ignatius describes Peter and
Paul as anything but emissaries. Ignatius is the bishop of Antioch, where he
too has been betrayed by Brothers, and he makes much of the bishops office,
addressing the bishops in every other locale he writes a letter to - but
no bishop in Rome. Peter was never the bishop of Rome. Of course he was
a latecomer there, even later than Paul, who did not include him in
the Brothers he addressed in the letter to Rome.”

Peace, JohnR

 

[Cristiano]

nicea,

I have so many I cannot count them all. Here is one.

Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

“The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be
handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no
successor. The idea that there is an “apostolic succession”
to Peter’s fictional episcopacy did not arise for several
centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively
called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even
so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes.”

Garry Wills book What Paul Meant p166
Discussing the 1 Clement and Ignatius letters.

“It is interesting that neither Clement nor Ignatius describes Peter and
Paul as anything but emissaries. Ignatius is the bishop of Antioch, where he
too has been betrayed by Brothers, and he makes much of the bishops office,
addressing the bishops in every other locale he writes a letter to - but
no bishop in Rome. Peter was never the bishop of Rome. Of course he was
a latecomer there, even later than Paul, who did not include him in
the Brothers he addressed in the letter to Rome.”

Peace, JohnR

Gary Wills is really anti-catholic in his behaviors. He appears to have a strong agenda against papal infallibility. I would not count him as a reliable Catholic reference to say that Peter was not a Bishop.

 

[highrigger1]

As a Catholic, I don’t understand Peter being the first bishop. Anyone who denies Peter being in Rome makes no sense though, agree with that. Peter was a traveling apostle who started churches not just in Rome but in Antioch as well. Could it be that he was not the first pope but the selector of the first pope instead? Otherwise, how would we explain Antioch? Can their church which is Orthodox also claim Peter as their first bishop? They would have to be able to using the same logic. Then Primacy becomes a can of worms…

rben,

No evidence Peter was a bishop anywhere and he did not found the churche in Rome or Antioc. He probably did visit Rome however after Paul.

Neither did he select the first pope, There were no monarchical bishops in Rome until mid second century. The EO (some) does presume Peter was the first bishop but they disagree on his authority.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Nicea325]

nicea,

From the CCC. It plainly does not say that. Peace, JohnR

I do not think so! No offense but you maing things up highrigger1! Why haven’t you produced the documents from the CC clearly declaring it? Show us? Let me read them? You have not DONE NOTHING of the sort proving your weak argument!

All you do is repeat the same stuff over and over and over and dance around direct challenges.

It is obvious you are not educated in the field of History.

 

[highrigger1]

Gary Wills is really anti-catholic in his behaviors. He appears to have a strong agenda against papal infallibility. I would not count him as a reliable Catholic reference to say that Peter was not a Bishop.

cristain,

Catholics think that of him because of his historical conclusion on Peter but I have many more. Here is another.

^ Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P. (1983). Antioch and Rome: New
Testament Cradles of Christianity. Paulist Press. p. 98. “As for
Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what
he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the
original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and
therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense).
There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local
ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church–a claim not made till
the third century. Most likely he did not spend any majortime at Rome
before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been
only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that
Peter came to the capital.”

I have found that all the reputable historians I read are saying the same thing. Gary Wills is a good historan and his books are very inspiring. I think he just ticked a lot of Catholics off because he is honest and speaks bluntly. His history expertise is shown that he is a pulitzer prize winner in history on a different subject. Those historians are very careful about their reputation. He would not fudge history and make other historians disrespect him. I would also say his books are given favorable reviews by Catholic organizations. His conclusions are not radical but normal. Many Catholics do not keep up with history.

Peace, JohnR

 

[jlhargus]

It does not because it does not say that. To say one is a successor does not mean Peter was a bishop of Rome. The CCC does NOT say that Peter was a bishop of Rome last time I checked it.

True, to say one is a successor does not mean Peter was a bishop of Rome. However the bishop of Rome IS the successor of Peter. It would make no difference if Peter was or was not actually bishop of Rome. Whomever is Peter’s successor holds the the keys and can bind and loose on his own authority, Mt16:19. All the apostles including Peter, Mt18:18, were given the authority to bind and loose but they can only do so in union with the holder of the keys.

All pastors and bishops are successors of Peter and the apostles since they have taken on the tasks of the apostles. Peace, JohnR

Bishops are the successors of Peter and the apostles by laying on of hands in an unbroken line from apostles to bishops to bishops. But only one of the apostles was given the keys of the kingdom. Only one bishop holds those keys the bishop of Rome.

 

[Nicea325]

nicea,

I have so many I cannot count them all. Here is one.

Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

“The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be
handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no
successor. The idea that there is an “apostolic succession”
to Peter’s fictional episcopacy did not arise for several
centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively
called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even
so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes.”

Garry Wills book What Paul Meant p166
Discussing the 1 Clement and Ignatius letters.

“It is interesting that neither Clement nor Ignatius describes Peter and
Paul as anything but emissaries. Ignatius is the bishop of Antioch, where he
too has been betrayed by Brothers, and he makes much of the bishops office,
addressing the bishops in every other locale he writes a letter to - but
no bishop in Rome. Peter was never the bishop of Rome. Of course he was
a latecomer there, even later than Paul, who did not include him in
the Brothers he addressed in the letter to Rome.”

Peace, JohnR

You have posted the same quote over and over and over and over believing that is ample proof. Sorry to burst your ego and confidence but that is not how it works. I already rebuked the above quote and with EASE and then you stated it was a MYTH invented in the 3rd century and then state Irenaeus was also repeating a MYTH…in the year 180 AD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by highrigger1
It does not because it does not say that. To say one is a successor does not mean Peter was a bishop of Rome. The CCC does NOT say that Peter was a bishop of Rome last time I checked it.

THEN SHOW US THE DECLARED DOCUMENTS BY THE CCC SUPPORTING THIS POSITION? When do you plan to show us the CONFIRMED FACT?

I am finding your arguments and statements a of waste of time.

 

[highrigger1]

I do not think so! No offense but you maing things up highrigger1! Why haven’t you produced the documents from the CC clearly declaring it? Show us? Let me read them? You have not DONE NOTHING of the sort proving your weak argument!

All you do is repeat the same stuff over and over and over and dance around direct challenges.

It is obvious you are not educated in the field of History.

nicea,

I am supposed to produce a statment from the CCC that says Peter was NOT a bishop? Not likely. Why dont you prove me wrong by producing a statement that Peter was a bishop of Rome. It does not. That is my claim. Prove me wrong.

And saying the pope is a successor of Peter is NOT saying that Peter was a bishop.
It depends on the definition of successor which is not defined. My pastor is a successor of Peter because he has taken on the tasks of the apostles.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

True, to say one is a successor does not mean Peter was a bishop of Rome. However the bishop of Rome IS the successor of Peter. It would make no difference if Peter was or was not actually bishop of Rome. Whomever is Peter’s successor holds the the keys and can bind and loose on his own authority, Mt16:19. All the apostles including Peter, Mt18:18, were given the authority to bind and loose but they can only do so in union with the holder of the keys.

Bishops are the successors of Peter and the apostles by laying on of hands in an unbroken line from apostles to bishops to bishops. But only one of the apostles was given the keys of the kingdom. Only one bishop holds those keys the bishop of Rome.

jlhargas,

Laying of hands was simply to be selected for a mission. It was not ordination and has nothing to do with bishops. The NT does not mention such.

I agree that the Pope is a successor to Peter because that includes all bishops and pastors who have taken on the task of a shepherd of the church.

The keys is another issue for another thread. They do not mean what you think.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And a lack of mentioning does not negate it either. I do not recall reading where many post-Apostolic fathers discuss the complexity of the Trinity…does it mean they never did?

First of all, this response is nonsensical, period.

This thread is quickly becoming one where there are those who deny Peter was even at Rome etc. and that would be silly as well.

The point of the argument against St Peter actually being the first Bishop of Rome is that he was an Apostle with all the powers of a bishop but who: 1) established the Church at Rome (the fact that others preached Christianity there prior to him or that St Paul also ordained clergy does not take away from that); 2) Consecrated the first Primate of the Church of Rome in addition to others who became successors of that first Primate; 3) was not himself the bishop of the place since, as an Apostle, that was not his role and; 4) also established Churches and consecrated their primates and bishops in many other places.

There can be NO doubt that the Pope of Rome is St Peter’s successor as the successor of the Apostle himself. Whether or not Peter was the Bishop of Rome has NO bearing on that. The fact that Peter was the founder and consecrator of the Bishops of Rome is what is important.

If someone wants to believe he was the first Bishop of Rome - fine, I say. This thread is getting to be ridiculous.

Alex

 

[Farsight001]

nicea,

I am supposed to produce a statment from the CCC that says Peter was NOT a bishop? Not likely. Why dont you prove me wrong by producing a statement that Peter was a bishop of Rome. It does not. That is my claim. Prove me wrong.

And saying the pope is a successor of Peter is NOT saying that Peter was a bishop.
It depends on the definition of successor which is not defined. My pastor is a successor of Peter because he has taken on the tasks of the apostles.

Peace, JohnR

YOU claimed that the CC no longer teaches Peter was a Bishop. It is your responsibility to provide evidence of your claim. Diverting blame onto others and overall avoiding questions and arguments against your stance and merely repeating yourself over and over and over again is cowardly behavior and is, more importantly, not conducive to proper discussion, which is the very purpose of this forum. So provide a source that supports the notion that the CHURCH no longer teaches that Peter was a bishop, or stop wasting our time.