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

[GKC]

I do not propose to participate in this thread, but some folks may be familiar with the eminent RC historian Eamon Duffy. I recommend a reading of chap. 1 of his SAINTS AND SINNERS: A HISTORY OF THE POPES. It a good quick look touching on some of these points; runs about 46 pages.

GKC

 

[CopticChristian]

I do not propose to participate in this thread, but some folks may be familiar with the eminent RC historian Eamon Duffy. I recommend a reading of chap. 1 of his SAINTS AND SINNERS: A HISTORY OF THE POPES. It a good quick look touching on some of these points; runs about 46 pages.

GKC

G,

Thanks. I am assuming that Contarini will weigh in as the residen Historian. Contarini has always had a balanced approach.

I find this confusing and when I am confused this means that there is something that is not being explained properly. It means that there is something missing. I look here…

fisheaters.com/eusebius.html

Book II, Chapter 25 of “Church History”
written by Eusebius of Caesaria (A.D. 265-340)
The Persecution under Nero in which Paul and Peter were honored at Rome with Martyrdom in Behalf of Religion

t is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: “But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.”

And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: “You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.”

I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed.

and here…

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.xv.html

1. And coming to the city of Rome,383383 Rome was a great gathering place of heretics and schismatics. They were all attracted thither by the opportunities for propagandism which the city afforded, and therefore Eusebius, with his transcendental conception of heresy, naturally makes it the especial seat of the devil. by the mighty co-operation of that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as a god by the erection of a statue.384

So what gives. Are we looking at differing translations of Eusebius where one says one thing and another something else?

This is from this Catholic Answers website concerning Peter…

catholic.com/tracts/peters-roman-residency

 

[GKC]

G,

Thanks. I am assuming that Contarini will weigh in as the residen Historian. Contarini has always had a balanced approach.

I find this confusing and when I am confused this means that there is something that is not being explained properly. It means that there is something missing. I look here…

fisheaters.com/eusebius.html

Book II, Chapter 25 of “Church History”
written by Eusebius of Caesaria (A.D. 265-340)
The Persecution under Nero in which Paul and Peter were honored at Rome with Martyrdom in Behalf of Religion

and here…

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.xv.html

So what gives. Are we looking at differing translations of Eusebius where one says one thing and another something else?

This is from this Catholic Answers website concerning Peter…

catholic.com/tracts/peters-roman-residency

Contarini might indeed have something pertinent to add. As for me, I recommend reading Duffy.

Watch out for Eusebius. He was an Arian. Consider that in the context of the second quote. I am not judging him, but others have.

GKC

 

[Radical]

Radical,

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

by “addressed” I trust you mean that some posters squawked w/o producing any list of renowned scholars that in any way challenged Snow’s contention that (the scholarly consensus is that) Peter never was the bishop of Rome…if so, I expect Snow’s point will be similarly “addressed” here…I can’t help but note that highrigger1 has managed to enlist the support of a renowned scholar or two…the Catholics have enlisted spurious epistles and their (obviously self-serving) interpretations of the scriptures and the ECFs…given those options, I’ll take the reputable scholars any day (and those scholars don’t believe that those self-serving interpretations are valid).

 

[Patavium]

by “addressed” I trust you mean that some posters squawked w/o producing any list of renowned scholars that in any way challenged Snow’s contention that (the scholarly consensus is that) Peter never was the bishop of Rome…if so, I expect Snow’s point will be similarly “addressed” here…I can’t help but note that highrigger1 has managed to enlist the support of a renowned scholar or two…the Catholics have enlisted spurious epistles and their (obviously self-serving) interpretations of the scriptures and the ECFs…given those options, I’ll take the reputable scholars any day (and those scholars don’t believe that those self-serving interpretations are valid).

Which comments were not satisfactory to you in the answers of that thread?

provide evidence, and we will try to answer.

Thanks,

 

[AbideWithMe]

G,

Thanks. I am assuming that Contarini will weigh in as the residen Historian. Contarini has always had a balanced approach.

I find this confusing and when I am confused this means that there is something that is not being explained properly. It means that there is something missing. I look here…

fisheaters.com/eusebius.html

Book II, Chapter 25 of “Church History”
written by Eusebius of Caesaria (A.D. 265-340)
The Persecution under Nero in which Paul and Peter were honored at Rome with Martyrdom in Behalf of Religion

and here…

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.xv.html

So what gives. Are we looking at differing translations of Eusebius where one says one thing and another something else?

This is from this Catholic Answers website concerning Peter…

catholic.com/tracts/peters-roman-residency

Coptic----

It looks like the second quote from Eusebius (in the second link) is talking about Simon Magus; note 385 (which I assume is Schaff’s commentary on Eusebius’s text) might be helpful?

I think the Fisheater’s portion of Eusebius in the first link is simply a different chapter than what’s in the second link.

 

[highrigger1]

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”.

gary,

Of course there is no mention in the NT of apostles as bishops.

Regaring your CCC quote notice it does NOT say Peter was a bishop of Rome. I have no problem that the pope is his successor. I believe all pastors and bishops are succeeded from the apostles. He is the shepherd of the church. Same for the bishops of my church.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

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).

I know about Irenaeus. I dont know what you are getting at. Peace, JohnR

 

[Farsight001]

gary,

Of course there is no mention in the NT of apostles as bishops.

Regaring your CCC quote notice it does NOT say Peter was a bishop of Rome. I have no problem that the pope is his successor. I believe all pastors and bishops are succeeded from the apostles. He is the shepherd of the church. Same for the bishops of my church.

Peace, JohnR

Gary said quite the opposite regarding the NT mentioning bishops and provided citation to back it up.

And the CCC quote says, EXACTLY that Peter was a bishop of Rome. What is your malfunction, man?

 

[PeterJohn]

gary,

Of course there is no mention in the NT of apostles as bishops.

Regaring your CCC quote notice it does NOT say Peter was a bishop of Rome. I have no problem that the pope is his successor. I believe all pastors and bishops are succeeded from the apostles. He is the shepherd of the church. Same for the bishops of my church.

Peace, JohnR

You believe alllllll pastors have succeeded from the apostles? Where is that biblically?

 

[Nicea325]

Gary said quite the opposite regarding the NT mentioning bishops and provided citation to back it up.

And the CCC quote says, EXACTLY that Peter was a bishop of Rome. What is your malfunction, man?

It is called stubborness. I am done with that dude! It is pointless,it is like a scratched CD,keeps repeating the same words over and over.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

You believe alllllll pastors have succeeded from the apostles? Where is that biblically?

 

[highrigger1]

Gary said quite the opposite regarding the NT mentioning bishops and provided citation to back it up.

And the CCC quote says, EXACTLY that Peter was a bishop of Rome. What is your malfunction, man?

far,

CCC does not say that exactly. Why dont you quote it? It says the pope is a successor of Peter which I do not deny but it does NOT say Peter was a bishop of Rome.

Not sure what you say about Gary. Whats the point. Peace, JohnR

 

[Patavium]

It is called stubborness. I am done with that dude! It is pointless,it is like a scratched CD,keeps repeating the same words over and over.

My opinion of high is that he doesn’t know what to believe. I think he is confused as his belief contradict themselves, and change constantly. It is ok. We have been there.
God bless you on your journey, high.

 

[highrigger1]

Waiting for them,

Thanks,

Numerous hisorians about Peter

^ Cullmann, Oscar (1962). Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd ed…
Westminster Press. p. 234.
““In the New Testament [Jerusalem] is the only church of which we
hear that Peter stood at its head. Of other episcopates of Peter we
know nothing certain. Concerning Antioch, indeed … there is a
tradition, first appearing in the course of the second century,
according to which Peter was its bishop. The assertion that he was
Bishop of Rome we first find at a much later time. From the second
half of the second century we do possess texts that mention the
apostolic foundation of Rome, and at this time, which is indeed
rather late, this foundation is traced back to Peter and Paul, an
assertionthat cannot be supported historically. Even here, however,
nothing is said as yet of an episcopal office of Peter.””
^ Chadwick, Henry (1993). The Early Church, rev. ed… Penguin Books.
p. 18. “No doubt Peter’s presence in Rome in the sixties must
indicate a concern for Gentile Christianity,but we have no
information whatever about his activity or the length of his stay
there.That he was in Rome for twenty-five years is third-century
legend.”
^ J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes (Oxford University
Press, 1996), p. 6.
“Ignatius assumed that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over
the Roman church, while Irenaeus claimed that they jointly founded
it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is
known of their constitutional roles, least of all Peter’s as presumed
leader of the community.”
^ Building Unity, Ecumenical Documents IV (Paulist Press, 1989), p.
130. “There is increasing agreement that Peter went to Rome and was
martyred there, but we have no trustworthy evidence that Peter ever
served as the supervisor or bishop of the local church in Rome.”
^ “most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant,concur that
Peter died in Rome”
Keener, Craig S., The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary, p. 425, n. 74,2009 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
^ “[M]any scholars … accept Rome as the location of the martyrdom
and the reign of Nero as the time.” Daniel William O’Connor, “Saint
Peter the Apostle.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia
Britannica Online. 25 Nov. 2009 [2].

Christianity, The First Theree Thousand Years
Darmaid MacChulloch, p 294
“Moreover it was in Damasus’ time that Peter came to be regarded
not merely as the founder of the Christian Church in Rome, but
also as its first bishop. Ironically, it was actually a North
African bishop, point-scoring against his local Donatist opponents
by stressing the NA Catholic links to Rome, who is the first person
known to have asserted on the basis of Matt 16:18 that 'Peter was
superior to the other apostles and alone received the keys of the
kiingdom, which were distributed by him to the rest.”

Hope you need no more. Peace, JohnR

 

[AbideWithMe]

This is one ugly thread…

Raymond Brown was a highly respected Catholic scholar. That’s all I’m going to say before I get out of this nasty thread. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown

 

[Farsight001]

Numerous hisorians about Peter

^ Cullmann, Oscar (1962). Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd ed…
Westminster Press. p. 234.
““In the New Testament [Jerusalem] is the only church of which we
hear that Peter stood at its head. Of other episcopates of Peter we
know nothing certain. Concerning Antioch, indeed … there is a
tradition, first appearing in the course of the second century,
according to which Peter was its bishop. The assertion that he was
Bishop of Rome we first find at a much later time. From the second
half of the second century we do possess texts that mention the
apostolic foundation of Rome, and at this time, which is indeed
rather late, this foundation is traced back to Peter and Paul, an
assertionthat cannot be supported historically. Even here, however,
nothing is said as yet of an episcopal office of Peter.””
^ Chadwick, Henry (1993). The Early Church, rev. ed… Penguin Books.
p. 18. “No doubt Peter’s presence in Rome in the sixties must
indicate a concern for Gentile Christianity,but we have no
information whatever about his activity or the length of his stay
there.That he was in Rome for twenty-five years is third-century
legend.”
^ J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes (Oxford University
Press, 1996), p. 6.
“Ignatius assumed that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over
the Roman church, while Irenaeus claimed that they jointly founded
it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is
known of their constitutional roles, least of all Peter’s as presumed
leader of the community.”
^ Building Unity, Ecumenical Documents IV (Paulist Press, 1989), p.
130. “There is increasing agreement that Peter went to Rome and was
martyred there, but we have no trustworthy evidence that Peter ever
served as the supervisor or bishop of the local church in Rome.”
^ “most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant,concur that
Peter died in Rome”
Keener, Craig S., The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary, p. 425, n. 74,2009 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
^ “[M]any scholars … accept Rome as the location of the martyrdom
and the reign of Nero as the time.” Daniel William O’Connor, “Saint
Peter the Apostle.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia
Britannica Online. 25 Nov. 2009 [2].

Christianity, The First Theree Thousand Years
Darmaid MacChulloch, p 294
“Moreover it was in Damasus’ time that Peter came to be regarded
not merely as the founder of the Christian Church in Rome, but
also as its first bishop. Ironically, it was actually a North
African bishop, point-scoring against his local Donatist opponents
by stressing the NA Catholic links to Rome, who is the first person
known to have asserted on the basis of Matt 16:18 that 'Peter was
superior to the other apostles and alone received the keys of the
kiingdom, which were distributed by him to the rest.”

Hope you need no more. Peace, JohnR

No mention in any of those supporting your claim that the CC no longer teaches that Peter was bishop of Rome. You’re diverting and avoiding. Quit childishly wasting our time and get out with it. Or are you too prideful to admit you’ve got nothing to stand on?

 

[AbideWithMe]

No mention in any of those supporting your claim that the CC no longer teaches that Peter was bishop of Rome. You’re diverting and avoiding. Quit childishly wasting our time and get out with it. Or are you too prideful to admit you’ve got nothing to stand on?

Please be charitable, farsight.

 

[PeterJohn]

Numerous hisorians about Peter

^ Cullmann, Oscar (1962). Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd ed…
Westminster Press. p. 234.
““In the New Testament [Jerusalem] is the only church of which we
hear that Peter stood at its head. Of other episcopates of Peter we
know nothing certain. Concerning Antioch, indeed … there is a
tradition, first appearing in the course of the second century,
according to which Peter was its bishop. The assertion that he was
Bishop of Rome we first find at a much later time. From the second
half of the second century we do possess texts that mention the
apostolic foundation of Rome, and at this time, which is indeed
rather late, this foundation is traced back to Peter and Paul, an
assertionthat cannot be supported historically. Even here, however,
nothing is said as yet of an episcopal office of Peter.””
^ Chadwick, Henry (1993). The Early Church, rev. ed… Penguin Books.
p. 18. “No doubt Peter’s presence in Rome in the sixties must
indicate a concern for Gentile Christianity,but we have no
information whatever about his activity or the length of his stay
there.That he was in Rome for twenty-five years is third-century
legend.”
^ J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes (Oxford University
Press, 1996), p. 6.
“Ignatius assumed that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over
the Roman church, while Irenaeus claimed that they jointly founded
it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is
known of their constitutional roles, least of all Peter’s as presumed
leader of the community.”
^ Building Unity, Ecumenical Documents IV (Paulist Press, 1989), p.
130. “There is increasing agreement that Peter went to Rome and was
martyred there, but we have no trustworthy evidence that Peter ever
served as the supervisor or bishop of the local church in Rome.”
^ “most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant,concur that
Peter died in Rome”
Keener, Craig S., The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary, p. 425, n. 74,2009 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
^ “[M]any scholars … accept Rome as the location of the martyrdom
and the reign of Nero as the time.” Daniel William O’Connor, “Saint
Peter the Apostle.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia
Britannica Online. 25 Nov. 2009 [2].

Christianity, The First Theree Thousand Years
Darmaid MacChulloch, p 294
“Moreover it was in Damasus’ time that Peter came to be regarded
not merely as the founder of the Christian Church in Rome, but
also as its first bishop. Ironically, it was actually a North
African bishop, point-scoring against his local Donatist opponents
by stressing the NA Catholic links to Rome, who is the first person
known to have asserted on the basis of Matt 16:18 that 'Peter was
superior to the other apostles and alone received the keys of the
kiingdom, which were distributed by him to the rest.”

Hope you need no more. Peace, JohnR

This is not proof of anything! These men simply have faith in their statements. That’s called not proof. Archeologists can prove lots of stuff. Do you believe in evolution?

 

[PeterJohn]

Numerous hisorians about Peter

^ Cullmann, Oscar (1962). Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd ed…
Westminster Press. p. 234.
““In the New Testament [Jerusalem] is the only church of which we
hear that Peter stood at its head. Of other episcopates of Peter we
know nothing certain. Concerning Antioch, indeed … there is a
tradition, first appearing in the course of the second century,
according to which Peter was its bishop. The assertion that he was
Bishop of Rome we first find at a much later time. From the second
half of the second century we do possess texts that mention the
apostolic foundation of Rome, and at this time, which is indeed
rather late, this foundation is traced back to Peter and Paul, an
assertionthat cannot be supported historically. Even here, however,
nothing is said as yet of an episcopal office of Peter.””
^ Chadwick, Henry (1993). The Early Church, rev. ed… Penguin Books.
p. 18. “No doubt Peter’s presence in Rome in the sixties must
indicate a concern for Gentile Christianity,but we have no
information whatever about his activity or the length of his stay
there.That he was in Rome for twenty-five years is third-century
legend.”
^ J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes (Oxford University
Press, 1996), p. 6.
“Ignatius assumed that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over
the Roman church, while Irenaeus claimed that they jointly founded
it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is
known of their constitutional roles, least of all Peter’s as presumed
leader of the community.”
^ Building Unity, Ecumenical Documents IV (Paulist Press, 1989), p.
130. “There is increasing agreement that Peter went to Rome and was
martyred there, but we have no trustworthy evidence that Peter ever
served as the supervisor or bishop of the local church in Rome.”
^ “most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant,concur that
Peter died in Rome”
Keener, Craig S., The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary, p. 425, n. 74,2009 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
^ “[M]any scholars … accept Rome as the location of the martyrdom
and the reign of Nero as the time.” Daniel William O’Connor, “Saint
Peter the Apostle.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia
Britannica Online. 25 Nov. 2009 [2].

Christianity, The First Theree Thousand Years
Darmaid MacChulloch, p 294
“Moreover it was in Damasus’ time that Peter came to be regarded
not merely as the founder of the Christian Church in Rome, but
also as its first bishop. Ironically, it was actually a North
African bishop, point-scoring against his local Donatist opponents
by stressing the NA Catholic links to Rome, who is the first person
known to have asserted on the basis of Matt 16:18 that 'Peter was
superior to the other apostles and alone received the keys of the
kiingdom, which were distributed by him to the rest.”

Hope you need no more. Peace, JohnR

Also, are you going to trust Christian writers of today about this issue or perhaps Christian writers of St. Peters era?