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

[Marybeloved]

What a thread!!!

My own understanding is that Saint Peter seemed to be head wherever he went. When the Church began on Pentecost, it was mainly only in Jerusalem and St.Peter is clearly the head of that community for anyone who reads Acts, until he has to escape persecution after the murder of another Apostle (One of the two St. James’ among the twelve) and he himself is imprisoned in Jerusalem by the Sanhedrin and Angels bust him out. He leaves Jerusalem and after that drops out of the radar of the narrative of the Sacred Book when he was it’s lead character up until that point. The History of his whereabouts after this are not perfectly clear, The Scripture only say that he went “to another place”, but I’ve seen some arguments that he went to Rome after he escaped Jerusalem. A few years later Peter is back in Jerusalem, somehow his head is not being as eagerly sought after by the Jewish leaders as had been before, because he’s present for the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Then somehow he goes to Antioch for some years, and later at some point, he goes to Rome where he was martyred in Nero’s persecution in which St. Paul was also killed. St.Mark, who was St. Peter’s disciple began the Church of Egypt (Alexandria) and it’s therefore numbered along with Rome and Antioch as the Apostolic Sees due to their Petrine connection, they’re all three considered Peter’s sees (I personally see Jerusalem as a Petrine See for the first 12 chapters of the book of Acts where St.Peter is clearly the head of the Christian Community in Jerusalem until he’s imprisoned and escapes Jerusalem after the murder of the Apostle St. James).

While the three sees are considered Peter’s, Rome is seen as such in a special way- why? Because Peter died in Rome. Why does that matter? Because only after Peter’s death can any one succeed to his special role as keeper of the keys. So that when St. Peter left Antioch, he took the keys with him and did not leave them back! When St. Mark founded Alexandria, he did not carry with him Peter’s keys. The keys went to another only at Peter’s death, and its Catholic tradition that they went to he who succeeded Peter in his last seat in the Church from which he was martyred. That’s my understanding.

Blessings!

 

[Luvtosew]

What a thread!!!

My own understanding is that Saint Peter seemed to be head wherever he went. When the Church began on Pentecost, it was mainly only in Jerusalem and St.Peter is clearly the head of that community for anyone who reads Acts, until he has to escape persecution after the murder of another Apostle (One of the two St. James’ among the twelve) and he himself is imprisoned in Jerusalem by the Sanhedrin and Angels bust him out. He leaves Jerusalem and after that drops out of the radar of the narrative of the Sacred Book when he was it’s lead character up until that point. The History of his whereabouts after this are not perfectly clear, The Scripture only say that he went “to another place”, but I’ve seen some arguments that he went to Rome after he escaped Jerusalem. A few years later Peter is back in Jerusalem, somehow his head is not being as eagerly sought after by the Jewish leaders as had been before, because he’s present for the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Then somehow he goes to Antioch for some years, and later at some point, he goes to Rome where he was martyred in Nero’s persecution in which St. Paul was also killed. St.Mark, who was St. Peter’s disciple began the Church of Egypt (Alexandria) and it’s therefore numbered along with Rome and Antioch as the Apostolic Sees due to their Petrine connection, they’re all three considered Peter’s sees (I personally see Jerusalem as a Petrine See for the first 12 chapters of the book of Acts where St.Peter is clearly the head of the Christian Community in Jerusalem until he’s imprisoned and escapes Jerusalem after the murder of the Apostle St. James).

While the three sees are considered Peter’s, Rome is seen as such in a special way- why? Because Peter died in Rome. Why does that matter? Because only after Peter’s death can any one succeed to his special role as keeper of the keys. So that when St. Peter left Antioch, he took the keys with him and did not leave them back! When St. Mark founded Alexandria, he did not carry with him Peter’s keys. The keys went to another only at Peter’s death, and its Catholic tradition that they went to he who succeeded Peter in his last seat in the Church from which he was martyred. That’s my understanding.

Blessings!

What are these keys,** physical keys**??? the keys are knowledge and I do believe more apostles than just St Peter had knowledge of Jesus Christ.

 

[Marybeloved]

What are these keys,** physical keys**??? the keys are knowledge and I do believe more apostles than just St Peter had knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Where do you get that the keys are knowledge? From the Bible?

 

[KathleenGee]

The keys are the words used by Christ, Who gave Peter the keys to heaven…meaning…the head of the Church has the keys to the living revelation of Christ in the Church to loosen and bind… authority.

As a cradle Catholic, I personally attest to the binding nature of my faith. In my earlier years, I got temptations or leadings that were on the sliding scale away from orthodoxy. I could literally experience in my soul, Christ’s presence binding me to my faith.

This binding of Christ is what makes celibacy, not an earlier discipline, then possible with the decision of the Church, as well as avoiding contraception through the nurturance of the sacraments, possible.

 

[Patavium]

The keys are the words used by Christ, Who gave Peter the keys to heaven…meaning…the head of the Church has the keys to the living revelation of Christ in the Church to loosen and bind… authority.

As a cradle Catholic, I personally attest to the binding nature of my faith. In my earlier years, I got temptations or leadings that were on the sliding scale away from orthodoxy. I could literally experience in my soul, Christ’s presence binding me to my faith.

This binding of Christ is what makes celibacy, not an earlier discipline, then possible with the decision of the Church, as well as avoiding contraception through the nurturance of the sacraments, possible.

Yes. The difference is that sola scriptura protestants go to the bible for a definite choice. This is unblibical. Where does it says in the bible to go to the bible? The bible is always sending us to the Church!!.

Now, why do protestants insist so much on discrediting the Catholic Church connection to the Early Church? simple, because they could never argue themselves a connection to the Early Church. It is unlikely. They never existed until WAY LATER down the road!. However, the argument fails. Why was LINUS a LEADER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH confirmed mentioned in the BIBLE?, and Why were christians told to Follow Linus? OH???

We don’t need to show that Peter is this and that. Linus, and other earlier leaders of the Church are part of the ORIGINAL group that was taught by the early father of the Church. Unlike protestant Churches that have to claim succession with new definitions that ignore TIME (are their pastors mentioned in the bible? so much for sola scriptura huh?).

 

[JHow]

TOP historians? :whacky:

I think they are the same “top men” who are studying the arc of the covenant.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

grey,

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

Peace, JohnR

A “bishop” is an “overseer”. Peter was a Bishop of the Church as well as being an Apostle. The terms are not nutually exclusive. If the common understanding that Peter named his successor as the bishop of the largest and most important city in the Empire at the time, then you have an obvious conundrum on your hands.

Or by what right did St. Clement of Rome have to write a letter to the church at Corinth before teh end of the first century because they were misbehaving and dismissing their bishop and presbyters? If all Christian churches are as autonomous as protestant “churches” are today, what right did he have to interfere? That is, unless he was exercising a right delegated to him and conferred upon him by Peter’s office and authority?

Peter WAS buried on Vatican Hill near Nero’s circus and his grave was marked by a flag stone called the “Trophy of Gaius”. The basilica bearing Peter’s name was later built on top of that tomb and even today you can go down and visit Peter;s final resting spot. In ROME, on Vatican Hill, under St Peter’s.

To deny this is to accept foolishness.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

What are these keys,** physical keys**??? the keys are knowledge and I do believe more apostles than just St Peter had knowledge of Jesus Christ.

No, the “keys” are the authority of his office. Just as David had a prime minister who had the “keys” to David’s house(Isa 22). Peter was Jesus’ Prime minister to such a degree that Jesus united Peter to HImself in grace & authority(Matt 16:18). Peter passed this office on to other approved men(2 Tim 2:2).

The Apsotles always had Peter speak to Jesus for them. And Jesus gave to Peter a mission that He did not give to the others.

You really ought to take all of Scripture into account when you posit things about Jesus or the Apostles.

 

[GaryTaylor]

A “bishop” is an “overseer”. Peter was a Bishop of the Church as well as being an Apostle. The terms are not nutually exclusive. If the common understanding that Peter named his successor as the bishop of the largest and most important city in the Empire at the time, then you have an obvious conundrum on your hands.

Or by what right did St. Clement of Rome have to write a letter to the church at Corinth before teh end of the first century because they were misbehaving and dismissing their bishop and presbyters? If all Christian churches are as autonomous as protestant “churches” are today, what right did he have to interfere? That is, unless he was exercising a right delegated to him and conferred upon him by Peter’s office and authority?

Peter WAS buried on Vatican Hill near Nero’s circus and his grave was marked by a flag stone called the “Trophy of Gaius”. The basilica bearing Peter’s name was later built on top of that tomb and even today you can go down and visit Peter;s final resting spot. In ROME, on Vatican Hill, under St Peter’s.

To deny this is to accept foolishness.

Right the context of the debate hinged on the word “Bishop” in the CCC which is a “moot” arguement in light of the CCC/history/oral Tradition and Scripture.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

No, the “keys” are the authority of his office. Just as David had a prime minister who had the “keys” to David’s house(Isa 22). Peter was Jesus’ Prime minister to such a degree that Jesus united Peter to HImself in grace & authority(Matt 16:18). Peter passed this office on to other approved men(2 Tim 2:2).

The Apsotles always had Peter speak to Jesus for them. And Jesus gave to Peter a mission that He did not give to the others.

You really ought to take all of Scripture into account when you posit things about Jesus or the Apostles.

Amen

 

[Luvtosew]

No, the “keys” are the authority of his office. Just as David had a prime minister who had the “keys” to David’s house(Isa 22). Peter was Jesus’ Prime minister to such a degree that Jesus united Peter to HImself in grace & authority(Matt 16:18). Peter passed this office on to other approved men(2 Tim 2:2).

The Apsotles always had Peter speak to Jesus for them. And Jesus gave to Peter a mission that He did not give to the others.

You really ought to take all of Scripture into account when you posit things about Jesus or the Apostles.

I respectfully disagree. No authority was given to Peter that was not given to the other apostles.
I do take all scripture into account. And I do not take it literally meaning I don’t take one verse and run with it.

 

[KathleenGee]

I pray and reflect on comments shared with us by our Protestant brethren.

I also see the great lengths they go to refuse any ecclesial authority given us by Christ. The Bible in text form is not a person.

If we were to use the Bible alone, then Christ should have passed out Bibles at the very beginning and not even bother to have apostles.

Peter and the Eucharist…plain and literal…but this time, they refuse it.

In the meantime, watching ETWN, ‘Journey Home’, how many Protestant ministers are joining the Church because they are connecting the dots and studying history in its intended context. I continue to pray for the return of our separated brethren and their gifts.

 

[stewstew03]

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).

I’ve read Meier and Brown. Their main point is that there is no historical evidence that the specific title “bishop” or “pope” was used with St. Peter. But, as I said on the other thread, the lack of nomenclature doesn’t empty the blessed apostle of his authority over Rome or the early Church in general.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Do you even read what you post? You just posted contradictions.

Appeal to Ridicule:

“X, which is some form of ridicule is presented
(typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.”

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

argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) - When the premises of an argument affirm that nothing has been proved about something, and the conclusion makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits an appeal to ignorance.

 

[stewstew03]

I respectfully disagree. No authority was given to Peter that was not given to the other apostles.
I do take all scripture into account. And I do not take it literally meaning I don’t take one verse and run with it.

That’s not true. I’ll re-post what I wrote on the other thread:

Historians such as Brown (and others) unanimously conclude that Peter served as a representative figure of Christian discipleship. Apart from historical evidence, Holy Scripture supports their view that Peter is given special attention among the apostles. Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (from Jesus, no less), and called the “rock” on which Christ’s Church will be built (see Matt. 16:18-19). Furthermore, Peter’s confession is singled out and he is called “blessed” for having received revelation from the Father. And apart from Peter’s role in salvation (the power to bind and loose), we can also see (and historians recognize) Peter’s role in resolving problems for the post-Easter church (Matt 17:24-27).

Finally, Brown and his protestant colleagues note in [their book] Peter in the New Testament, that there is a “Petrine trajectory” that manifests in Scripture (and in the early Church). This “trajectory” describes Peter’s image in the early Church as pastor, missionary, martyr, confessor of the faith, receiver of special revelation, and guardian of the faith (read: bishop). No other apostle, including Paul, is regarded with such high esteem as Peter. Indeed, in 2 Peter we see Peter interpreting Pauline tradition. (See 2 Peter 3:15-16).

 

[CopticChristian]

I respectfully disagree. No authority was given to Peter that was not given to the other apostles.
I do take all scripture into account. And I do not take it literally meaning I don’t take one verse and run with it.

Sew,

You then are among the minority view. 2000 years of this belief are counter to the population that deny this belief…the fruits of this belief should be contrasted with the fruits of denial of this belief and the effects. I am with order…disorder causes chaos and to deny this belief brings chaos…

 

[GKC]

I’ve read Meier and Brown. Their main point is that there is no historical evidence that the specific title “bishop” or “pope” was used with St. Peter. But, as I said on the other thread, the lack of nomenclature doesn’t empty the blessed apostle of his authority over Rome or the early Church in general.

Though this thread has developed as I expected, I will suggest again the first chapter of Eamon Duffy’s SAINTS AND SINNERS, for anyone who can locate it. About 46 pages, good history.

GKC

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I respectfully disagree. No authority was given to Peter that was not given to the other apostles.
I do take all scripture into account. And I do not take it literally meaning I don’t take one verse and run with it.

So X is assumed to be true.
Therefore, evidence a must be thrown out, since they do not prove X to be true.
Therefore Y is false?

To clarify, what you are saying is this:

“I reject the evidence that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, which demonstrates a transfer of power specifically to Peter, because I KNOW Peter was not given any more authority than the other apostles. So I disagree, because you have not proven to me that I’m wrong.” / “Since I assume X is true, whatever evidence you provide showing X is false, must be wrong.”

This is a burden of proof fallacy, which involves a person making an argument and then placing the burden of proof on the person with the opposing view. Any statements you make require no proof from you, because they are to be assumed as being true. But the other person must be the one to provide the evidence for their point of view, which is almost always just flat out rejected because it doesn’t support your own view.

Please provide evidence that supports the statement: “No authority was given to Peter that was not given to the other apostles.” You should be able to do this by simply pointing out the particular passages of the bible where the other apostles were given ‘keys to the kingdom’. Also acceptable are historical records from the early church indicating that others shared your point of view.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I think they are the same “top men” who are studying the arc of the covenant.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Sew,
You then are among the minority view. 2000 years of this belief are counter to the population that deny this belief.

Argumentum ad populum - appealing to popular belief. Just because a majority of people share one belief doesn’t make it true.

The majority of people used to believe bloodletting was a way of ridding the body of disease. Just because the majority believed it, didn’t make it true.

Sew,
…the fruits of this belief should be contrasted with the fruits of denial of this belief and the effects. I am with order…disorder causes chaos and to deny this belief brings chaos…

argumentum ad consequentiam - the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action

I’m not taking sides with Sew, I just think it would be prudent not to resort to fallacious arguments. Let those who oppose you do that, if they wish. You presented your evidence well, and they rejected it, and have not provided any evidence to show that you are wrong. You can rest your case.