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

[Alexander_Roman]

I think your clutching at straws Alex.

Ahh bless…

I don’t see how - if you can explain it to me dispassionately, I am open to changing my opinion, as always. So far, no evidence has been presented to support the view that St Peter was ever a bishop of ANYWHERE. And he could not be, as an Apostle with a specific role.

So unless you can present an argument, keep your straws to yourself.

Alex

 

[highrigger1]

This is why the apostolic fathers typically did not ascribe a particular city (or the title of ‘bishop’) to the Apostles. To them, because of the bishop’s unique and non-transferable attachment to the Christian community in one location, it would have been inappropriate to call the apostles bishops, because doing so would have detracted from their special mission, which was universal, and not limited to one community.

cavar,

Peter was never a bishop anywhere and never ordained anyone. He was a great christiann however and a great example of a shepherd of the church. Any bishop wants to claim succession from him is fine to me. The pope is certainly such a successor.

I just want to get the history right. Peter did not found the Roman church and he was never a bishop. Peace, JohnR

 

[Nicea325]

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

Oh dear God! Help us! Now you are changing your stance AGAIN? You have said many times that the **CC NO LONGER TEACHES **Peter was a bishop of ROME! YOU SAID IT! Not likely? Then what CERTITUDE do you have it TEACHES this new position? You just fabricated it up and expect educated Catholics to buy it because of your few sources? Seriously?

Prove you wrong? Once you prove to us Irenaeus was repeating a MYTH & LEGEND in the year 180 AD,but after only you said INVENTED in the 3rd century?

Show me the HISTORICAL EVIDENCE it is a MYTH by the year 180 AD?

 

[highrigger1]

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.

farsight,

I recall it was taught in the Trent CCC. It is not taught in the present CCC.
I am not going to do any useless research. This is not a gotcha game. Your CCC does not teach that Peter was a bishop of Rome. Period. That is the point.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Nicea325]

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

Ridiculous? Why? Because the tides are not to your liking? Then exit the discussion.

 

[Nicea325]

farsight,

I recall it was taught in the Trent CCC. It is not taught in the present CCC.
I am not going to do any useless research. This is not a gotcha game. Your CCC does not teach that Peter was a bishop of Rome. Period. That is the point.

Peace, JohnR

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

 

[highrigger1]

Oh dear God! Help us! Now you are changing your stance AGAIN? You have said many times that the **CC NO LONGER TEACHES **Peter was a bishop of ROME! YOU SAID IT! Not likely? Then what CERTITUDE do you have it TEACHES this new position? You just fabricated it up and expect educated Catholics to buy it because of your few sources? Seriously?

Prove you wrong? Once you prove to us Irenaeus was repeating a MYTH & LEGEND in the year 180 AD,but after only you said INVENTED in the 3rd century?

Show me the HISTORICAL EVIDENCE it is a MYTH by the year 180 AD?

nicea,

That which cannot be shown to be true but is claimed to be true is a myth. The duty to show that it is true and not a myth is yours. That you cannot is my proof it is a myth.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

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

nicea,

Its not there. That should be enough for you. I do not have to prove to you that the RCC once taught that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. That is obvious. But it is not taught anymore. Peace, JohnR

 

[Nicea325]

nicea,

That which cannot be shown to be true but is claimed to be true is a myth. The duty to show that it is true and not a myth is yours. That you cannot is my proof it is a myth.

Peace, JohnR

Hey…highrigger!..I highly suggest you sign-up with Dancing with the Stars…your side-steps are most excellent! :dancing:

As of 4/24/12 you have been placed on ignore for indefinitely for your constant dodging and dancing. Good riddance! :tiphat:

 

[highrigger1]

Very true. Good post.

Our friend has built a typical Protestant straw man argument.

He shall be in my prayers.

mike,

If it is never mentioned as being so by anyone who could know and if all the evidence is against it being so that is sufficient proof that it is not so.

It is not a straw man argument. It is the argument of the historians where I got it from. They are putting it in their books. I can give you several. It is simply accepted history now that Peter was never a bishop of Rome. As far as I can tell the Catholic church does not teach it anymore. They know it is false to say Peter was a bishop of Rome.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

I’m with you but still I await to hear what he/she has to say on this. Hopfully we’ll get a response soon.

art,

So far I have backed it up with two top historians. I can provide more if you want.

It is plain history.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

Hey…highrigger!..I highly suggest you sign-up with Dancing with the Stars…your side-steps are most excellent! :dancing:

As of 4/24/12 you have been placed on ignore for indefinitely for your constant dodging and dancing. Good riddance! :tiphat:

nicea,

I presume you checked the CCC and found me correct. I presume also you checked with some history experts and found me correct on that too.

You should be a good sport and be happy to learn. I have been wrong and corrected and I am happy to learn. I am serious.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Farsight001]

farsight,

I recall it was taught in the Trent CCC. It is not taught in the present CCC.
I am not going to do any useless research. This is not a gotcha game. Your CCC does not teach that Peter was a bishop of Rome. Period. That is the point.

Peace, JohnR

In other words, you’re completely and utterly full of it. The CCC does, in fact, teach that Peter was a bishop of Rome, though teaching such a thing is not it’s purpose. And Trent? Didn’t have a CCC. Even if the CCC didn’t teach such a thing doesn’t mean that the CHURCH no longer teaches it anyway.

The point here, is that you have openly and freely lied repeatedly, excepting us to be so poorly educated and have such a simplistic comprehension of our own faith that we not be able to see straight through your charade. And now that you see we did, you are shocked at this turn of events, annoyed, and instinctively become defensive and wishy-washy in regards to your original claims, trying, by any means you can, to keep the upper hand, even though you never had it to begin with.

 

[highrigger1]

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.

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.

nicea,

Do you want more or better historians to confirm it to you? I have more but I do not want to waste my time.

I cannot ressurect Peter to tell you to your face that he was not a bishop of Rome so I guess I have gone as far as I can go to prove it to you.

Dont be angry. Be a good sport.

Peace, JohnR

 

[GaryTaylor]

As to the CCC it would be page 245 Section 936

Course you can always start with “Heirs to the Fishman” by John Peter Pham, and visit you local library. There is abundant historical evidence and not only in Christianity.

The Bible also tells the story if you read it carefully.

 

[Luvtosew]

As to the CCC it would be page 245 Section 936

Course you can always start with “Heirs to the Fishman” by John Peter Pham, and visit you local library. There is abundant historical evidence and not only in Christianity.

The Bible also tells the story if you read it carefully.

Your always so kind hearted.

 

[Farsight001]

Do you want more or better historians to confirm it to you? I have more but I do not want to waste my time.

You claimed that it was the general concensus of nearly all historians. You provided one historian who is, by his own admission, an outlier. So it’s not that we want more or better historians to confirm. It’s that we’re still waiting for what you promised us initially - evidence that nearly all historians are in agreement.

Now, we know this isn’t true because many of the posters here are themselves historians and are friends with historians and many know for a fact that the consensus is the opposite of your claim. So really, we’re not expecting you to follow through because it’s impossible, but perhaps there’s some hope for something to pop in your brain and realize how empty your arguments are.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Your always so kind hearted.

Yea this looks like one of those potentially ugly threads

 

[Patavium]

I am also still waiting for highrigger1 to produce the evidence… Keep googling highrigger1, maybe you will find something.

 

[Radical]

It appears that some here would like to see some more sources… A fellow called Snow typed out this summary which can be found here

*But for now, I’d like to post what I have run across in my studies about whether or not Peter was actually a monoepiscopal leader over the Church and Bishop of Rome.

He wasn’t - Catholic scholars agree:

1. “Let’s see what St. Ireneaus has to say on the subject back in the second century between the period of 175-190 A.D.

Adversus Haereses (1:27:1):

“Credo was the one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live in Rome at the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the espiscopal succession from the Apostles downward.” note: 100 plus years after the fact

and

1. An unquoted and un-cited and unquoted claim that Eusebius said that Peter was the 1st Bishops of Rome. (which would have been about 230 plus years after the fact.

I always enjoy the opportunity to add to my library and so a few trips to the bookstore and local library resulted in the following that indicate that I am far from alone in my assertion that the evidence for Peter as the first pope is lacking (and note that at minimum 5 of the historians below are Catholic - Cahill, McBrian, Duffy, Wills, Johnson, De Rosa - and a number of those were trained in the Catholic priesthood.)

1. “Vatican propaganda notwithstanding, Peter was never the “bishop of Rome… The first man who can be designated “bishop of Rome” with historical certainty is Anicetus, who stands eleventh in the Vatican’s somewhat fanciful list of early “popes…” Thomas Cahill, Pope John XXIII, Penguin Books 2002, pp1-2
2. Nothing is known of the length of his residence (in Rome): the story that it lasted 25 years is a 3rd century legend. Ignatius assumes that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over the Roman Church while Iraneus claimed they jointly founded it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is known of their constitutional roles, least of all of Peter as presumed leader of the community… In the late 2nd cent. the tradition identified Peter as first bishop of Rome.(J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford University Press, 1986 p6-7)
3. “The papacy was to claim that Peter was the first bishop of the church at Rome… No proof exists.” Brian Maynahan, The Faith - A History of Christianity, Doubleday, 2002, p41
4. “(The first succession lists, however, identified Linus, not Peter, as the first Pope. Peter was not regarded as the first Bishop of Rome until the late second or early third century.)” and “St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ca. 200) assumes that Peter and Paul jointly founded the church of Rome and inaugurated it’s succession of bishops (Against Heresies 3.1.2: 3.3.3). However, there is no evidence that Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop even though the “fact” is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics… Indeed, there is no evidence that Rome even had a monoepiscopal form of ecclesiatiscal government until the middle of the second century.” Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, Harper Collins 1997, pp29-30
5. “Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there (Rome) a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there is no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the death of the apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve.” Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinner - A History of the Popes, Yale University Press 1997, pp1-2
6. Peter and Paul, however, do not appear to have been monarchial bishops handing on office to their successors… The first bishop whose actions suggest monarchial status is Anicetus (c. 155-66).” Paul Johnson, The Papacy, Orion Publishing Group, 1998, p26
7. “According to legend, after leaving Jerusalem in the 40s Peter traveled through Asia Minor and eventually to Rome, where he was martyred under the emperor Nero after the great fire of 64. These legends, however, come from later developments in the Petrine tradition.” L. Michael White From Jesus to Christianity, Harper 2004 p272
8. “As to worldwide jurisdiction, did it ever cross Peter’s mind when preached to his little flock at Antioch or Rome that he had command over the whole Church? Such an idea had to wait until Christianity was integrated into the Roman Empire. Even then it took time for the papacy to grow to the stature that made such pretension plausible… So the early church did not look on Peter as Bishop of Rome, nor, therefore, did it think that each Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter.” Peter De Rosa, Vicars of Christ. Crown Publishers, 1988, p25
9. “That Peter founded the Church in Rome is extremely doubtful and that he served as it’s first bishop (as we understand the term today) for even a year, much less the twenty-five-year period that is claimed for him, is an unfounded tradition that can be traced back to a point no earlier than the third century… The tradition is only vaguely discerned in Hegesippus and may be implied in the suspect letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the Romans (c. 170). By the third century, however, the early assumptions based upon invention or vague unfounded tradition have been transformed into “facts” or history. D. W. O’Conner, Peter in Rome, Columbia University Press, 1969, p207*

cont’d