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

[Radical]

continuing:

*10. “In fact, the first Roman bishop in any meaningful sense was probably Soter, 166-74…” Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, 1976, p61

1. “Well if Peter alone of the Twelve left Jerusalem, can the claim of succession be derived from him as bishop of Rome? So defenders of the papacy have claimed. But Brown asserts that “Peter never served as the bishops or local administrator of any church. Anitioch and Rome included.” Gary Wills, Papal Sin, Doubleday 2000 p158 - Wills quotes Raymond E. Brown, SS., Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church, Paulist Press, 1975, p70.
2. The question of whether Peter was indeed the first bishop of Rome has recently gained popular prominence due to the American best seller by papal critic and dissenter Garry Wills who vigorously dismisses the entire idea as myth. Although simplistically and sensationally presented, Wills’ thesis relies on the view of many, albeit more subtle, critical scholars that Peter could not have been a bishop at Rome because there were no bishops in Rome until the middle of the second century A.D. This view that Peter could not have been a bishop appears to be the common or majority view among critical scholars. Oswald Sobrino, J.D., M.A. (Catholic author “Catholic Analysis 2006” who also writes on the web)

To be fair, in addition to the 11 books and 1 web paper I checked above, I have one book - that I bought autographed by the author - A History of the Popes - Vicars of Christ by Charles A. Coulombe, MJF Books, 2003. The author discusses at length Peter’s extra-biblical activities in depth including details of Peter’s supposed years in Rome without a single citation nor without mentioning, as do the 12 sources cited above, that there is no historical record of it for over a hundred plus years later. *

That is where I’ll leave off of Snow’s summary. Peter in Rome and Peter being the bishop of Rome = two different things.

Here is another quote that may interest you:

It seems that (with respect to the situation at the time of 1st Clement) there is a “general agreement among scholars that the structure of ministry in the church of Rome at this time would have resembled that in Corinth: with a group of presbyters sharing leadership, perhaps with a differentiation of roles among them, but with no one bishop in charge.” (p 100)

"There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as those in Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only during the course of the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church.

One conclusion seems obvious: ** Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’ Clearly, such a simplistic approach to the problem will not do. **On the other hand, many reputable Catholic scholars, who share the consensus regarding the gradual development of the episcopate in the early church, remain convinced that we do have solid grounds for holding that bishops are the successors of the apostles. Such scholars agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles ‘by divine institution.’ At the same time, they insist that the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian literature is crucial, and must be treated with scholarly integrity. It is counterproductive to put forth arguments that will not stand the test of critical exegesis or historical investigation." (Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 2001, 15-16.)

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Yeah…highrigger1 is full of himself/herself and the constant refusal to answer this:

mike,

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

What this clown does not realize is that I currently work for the CC and NOT once has the church said what he/she claims. EVER!

 

[Radical]

Sources please…

for what? for the works that another poster listed w/o indicating their source? The spurious works were:

the epistle to Mary; and

the letter to the Trallians (long version)

 

[Nicea325]

for what? for the works that another poster listed w/o indicating their source? The spurious works were:

the epistle to Mary; and

the letter to the Trallians (long version)

Well you made the claim,precisely why I asked.

 

[Patavium]

Radical,

read the thread you quoted from. Those points are addressed there.

 

[highrigger1]

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.

nicea,

I can give you some more but I think that would not satisfy you anyway.

Would you please provide proof that the historian I gave you is a self admitted outlier?

No I stand by my statements. I can usually provide quite good back up when asked. Of course dont ask the impossible. Can you back up your own assertions? - like the one that the historian I provide is a self admitted outliar? Is that impossible?

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

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

pat,

I dont google. I have the books and I can back up my assertions. I provided historians to show all the facts. Do you want more? I can provide them.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Patavium]

nicea,

I can give you some more but I think that would not satisfy you anyway.

Would you please provide proof that the historian I gave you is a self admitted outlier?

No I stand by my statements. I can usually provide quite good back up when asked. Of course dont ask the impossible. Can you back up your own assertions? - like the one that the historian I provide is a self admitted outliar? Is that impossible?

Peace, JohnR

If you have more sources provide them.

We are waiting.

Thanks

 

[Patavium]

pat,

I dont google. I have the books and I can back up my assertions. I provided historians to show all the facts. Do you want more? I can provide them.

Peace, JohnR

Waiting for them,

Thanks,

 

[highrigger1]

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.

gary,

Quote it exactly. I dont think you are right I cannot find it. Bible does not say Peter was ever a bishop. Peace, JohnR

 

[jlhargus]

nicea,

I can give you some more but I think that would not satisfy you anyway.

Would you please provide proof that the historian I gave you is a self admitted outlier?

No I stand by my statements. I can usually provide quite good back up when asked. Of course dont ask the impossible. Can you back up your own assertions? - like the one that the historian I provide is a self admitted outliar? Is that impossible? Peace, JohnR

From what I can find on Gary Wills he is not only a critic of Church history but of Church teaching. He is critical of teachings such as papal infallibility, teaching of the church on homosexuality, abortion, etc.

 

[Patavium]

From what I can find on Gary Wills he is not only a critic of Church history but of Church teaching. He is critical of teachings such as papal infallibility, teaching of the church on homosexuality, abortion, etc.

Don’t worry, jlhargus.

highrigger1 is going to provide more sources

 

[GaryTaylor]

gary,

Quote it exactly. I dont think you are right I cannot find it. Bible does not say Peter was ever a bishop. Peace, JohnR

No your right the Bible in complex in the dialogue between Jesus, Peter and Paul which is content/context bouncing between the Gospels and Epistles. So we talking Apostles their. No mention of them [Apostles] as Bishops.

The CCC 936; The Lord made St Peter the visable foundation of the Church. He entrusted the Keys of the Church to him. The Bishop of the Chruch of Rome, the successor to St Peter, is “head of the college of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ and pastor of the Universal Chruch on earth”.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I do not think that he is clutching at straws. The problem is with how you define the bishop of a place. If the individual is the bishop of a diocese than Peter was not the bishop of Rome. However, bishops existed well before the first diocese (Ostia 3rd century) and obviously the Church of Rome existed before that too, and so people can really fiddle around with the definitions.

I believe the correct term is ‘splitting hairs’

 

[sallybutler]

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia ( newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV )

I*t is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.*

It includes information about the different sources.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Course the works of Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons exist at the Vatican. There are many forged works out here also. Some found to be from the 15th century. And so forth

Benedict did a address on St Irenaeus in 07 and states

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Continuing our catechesis on the Church Fathers, we turn now to Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, a great theologian and bishop at the end of the second century. In his writings, Irenaeus clearly sets forth the contents of the apostolic faith and appeals to the Church’s living tradition in order to defend that faith from false teachings. He thus emphasizes the regula fidei: the “rule of faith” contained in the Apostles’ Creed and in the Gospel proclaimed by the Church’s Bishops. The Gospel Irenaeus preached was the Gospel preached by his teacher Polycarp, who in turn received it from the Apostle John in an unbroken line of succession going back to Christ himself. Irenaeus also writes of the unique authority of the Church of Rome as founded on the Apostles. This zealous pastor illustrates for us three important characteristics of the Apostolic Tradition: it is “public”, because it is available to all through the teaching of the Bishops; it is “one”, because its content remains the same despite the variety of languages and cultures; and it is “pneumatic”, because, through it, the Holy Spirit continues to enliven and renew the Church even today.

This is the “life” of the Church, that which makes the Church always young, that is, fruitful with many charisms. Church and Spirit are inseparable for Irenaeus. This faith, we read in the third book of “Against Heresies,” “which, having been received from the Church, “we do preserve”, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth also. … For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace” (3,24,1).

 

[Patavium]

Yes,

We are still waiting for highrigger1’s new sources

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Do we seriously need to split hairs over titles and who was appointed to what and where? Yes, the church in it’s infancy had not yet defined a lot of things, so why would anyone think that the bible would have any explicit information about the structure of the Church or it’s leaders. One would expect only allusions to such things, and indeed there are plenty.

Peter being the humble servant of God he was, was obviously not one to bestow upon himself a title; neither was anyone at that time. That was left up to the members of the church to bestow titles to certain people and to form the hierarchy of the Church-- that took some time to establish, and I don’t recall the teachings of Jesus ever specifying any clear rules on that. When Jesus built the Church he started it with Himself, the foundation, and then laid the first stone (Peter). And each person added is figuratively a new brick in the building of the structure. Would you stand at the top of a tall building and debate that the cornerstone is not a cornerstone, because when the builders laid it they happened to call it something else?

Does it matter at all if Peter ever went to Rome? Does that diminish his position of authority somehow or discredit the papal succession? If Peter had no position of authority over others in the Church then why is it Peter that Paul goes to see in Galatians 1 and 2 (twice), and why is this used to prove he has authority to preach the gospels if Peter had no authority to give? Why in Acts 15 does Peter stand up and make the ruling for the Church at the first console of Jerusalem? Because no one specifically called him pope or bishop, we are just supposed to gloss over the allusions that give us a gimps of the early hierarchy of the church?

Furthermore, the fact that the bible doesn’t mention anything about Peter going to Rome does not constitute proof that Peter never was in Rome. This is Argumentum ad ignorantiam (a logical fallacy): “There is no sufficient proof that Peter ever went to Rome and died there, therefore he did not go and the Catholic Church is a sham (Non sequitur)”.

 

[Patavium]

Do we seriously need to split hairs over titles and who was appointed to what and where? Yes, the church in it’s infancy had not yet defined a lot of things, so why would anyone think that the bible would have any explicit information about the structure of the Church or it’s leaders. One would expect only allusions to such things, and indeed there are plenty.

Peter being the humble servant of God he was, was obviously not one to bestow upon himself a title; neither was anyone at that time. That was left up to the members of the church to bestow titles to certain people and to form the hierarchy of the Church-- that took some time to establish, and I don’t recall the teachings of Jesus ever specifying any clear rules on that. When Jesus built the Church he started it with Himself, the foundation, and then laid the first stone (Peter). And each person added is figuratively a new brick in the building of the structure. Would you stand at the top of a tall building and debate that the cornerstone is not a cornerstone, because when the builders laid it they happened to call it something else?

Does it matter at all if Peter ever went to Rome? Does that diminish his position of authority somehow or discredit the papal succession? If Peter had no position of authority over others in the Church then why is it Peter that Paul goes to see in Galatians 1 and 2 (twice), and why is this used to prove he has authority to preach the gospels if Peter had no authority to give? Why in Acts 15 does Peter stand up and make the ruling for the Church at the first console of Jerusalem? Because no one specifically called him pope or bishop, we are just supposed to gloss over the allusions that give us a gimps of the early hierarchy of the church?

Furthermore, the fact that the bible doesn’t mention anything about Peter going to Rome does not constitute proof that Peter never was in Rome. This is Argumentum ad ignorantiam (a logical fallacy): “There is no sufficient proof that Peter ever went to Rome and died there, therefore he did not go and the Catholic Church is a sham (Non sequitur)”.

Amen

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Amen

After I wrote that I found this:

“She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. Greet one another with a kiss of love.” - 1 Peter 5

Wasn’t Babylon the code word for Rome back then? After all, Babylon was gone by the time Peter was born. Why would he be writing from a city that no longer existed?