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

[Marybeloved]

Anyways, the filioque still has to go away, even if interpreted correctly.

How authoritarian of you. Why should it bother you how others express their faith if they don’t express a heresy? Just an itch to control others? I thought per the rhetoric, that it was Rome that was power obsessed- Why try to usurp that role that you generously granted her? Or aren’t Bishops and patriarchs and synods really in charge of their flocks as many like to drill into our heads, per certain ecclessiologies?

 

[Wisely]

How authoritarian of you. Why should it bother you how others express their faith if they don’t express a heresy? Just an itch to control others? I thought per the rhetoric, that it was Rome that was power obsessed- Why try to usurp that role that you generously granted her? Or aren’t Bishops and patriarchs and synods really in charge of their flocks as many like to drill into our heads, per certain ecclessiologies?

IIRC one of the ecumenical councils stated that no one can change the creed except with another ecumenical council. I didn’t want to seem authoritarian lol.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The Muslims deny Jesus divinity yet your Catechism states that they believe in the same God as you do. So the same principle applies.

This is another example of intellectual dishonesty. Wisely, where in the CCC does it say that the Church says that Muslims worship the same God as we do?

Do you even have the sentence or even the paragraph number?

 

[CopticChristian]

Well yes. Interpret the filioque in an orthodox way an we have the same faith creed-wise.
The problem is that the RC doesn’t interpret it in the right way.

IIRC one of the Lateran Councils states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not from 2 principles but from 1.
This interpretation is wrong.

Anyways, the filioque still has to go away, even if interpreted correctly.

Wise,

You can ignore this if you wish…I understand your perspective…I suggest that to have others understand your perspective you consider this.

I do not agree with the interpretation of the filioque and from the Orthodox side as I see it we do not have the same Faith.

The problem is that from the Orthodox side as I see it we differ in interpretation and both sides see their interpretation as correct.

The interpretation from the Orthodox side concerning the Lateran Council would be considered wrong however I understand that is how the RC see it. We differ.

The filioque has to be resolved so that we can have an interpretation that we can both agree satisfies our Faith. Some would say correct, some would say wrong, some would say different. This is how I see it…

 

[Wisely]

This is another example of intellectual dishonesty. Wisely, where in the CCC does it say that the Church says that Muslims worship the same God as we do?

Do you even have the sentence or even the paragraph number?

Intellectual dishonesty?

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and **together with us ** they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

 

[Wisely]

Wise,

You can ignore this if you wish…I understand your perspective…I suggest that to have others understand your perspective you consider this.
…
The filioque has to be resolved so that we can have an interpretation that we can both agree satisfies our Faith.

I agree. For the moment we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Marybeloved]

The Muslims deny Jesus divinity yet your Catechism states that they believe in the same God as you do. So the same principle applies.

Your Bible says that pagan, polytheistic, idolatrous Greeks worshiped the same God as you do. So what? Anyone who worships the One, infinite, invisible, eternal creator of the universe is talking about the One and only God- There are no two, three or four such beings, just one- so Yes, Muslims and all other monotheists worship the One God. Are you saying that the Catholics and Orthodox have different “faiths” in the manner that Muslims and Christians do? Is that the point here? Well at least you picked a monotheist infidel group to liken us to, I once read an Orthodox here at CAF equating Catholics with Hindus- Still a false equalization though and a dishonest one, might I add. If you think that a common belief in Christ our God and savior and his saving grace and baptism in the Blessed Trinity means nothing and so your fellow Christians are in the same position as infidels, that is between you and Our Lord. I wonder if you’d have the courage to say that to Christ’s face though, or if it’s just argument for its own sake. If I misunderstood what you meant there, I apologize.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Intellectual dishonesty?

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and **together with us ** they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

As I said, your assertion,

" that they believe in the same God as you do"

it simply doesn’t follow from the paragraph. It clearly states that they “profess” to hold to that faith and adore the God of Abraham-as we do. It is a mark of charity not a theological statement. You’re ignoring an essential distinction and overstating it to try and make a cheap debate point.

The CCC is going by what Muslims and Christians do have in common: belief in the God of Abraham. That Muslims fail to recognize Jesus’ divinity is for them no different as Jews not being able to do the same. Yet I hardly believe you would say that the jews don’t worship the same God that we do. Because you would obviously be wrong.

Its rather easily noticed when you take into account the context of the paragraph, which you failed to do in your initial charge.

 

[Wisely]

Your Bible says that pagan, polytheistic, idolatrous Greeks worshiped the same God as you do. So what? Anyone who worships the One, infinite, invisible, eternal creator of the universe is talking about the One and only God- There are no two, three or four such beings, just one- so Yes, Muslims and all other monotheists worship the One God. Are you saying that the Catholics and Orthodox have different “faiths” in the manner that Muslims and Christians do? Is that the point here? Well at least you picked a monotheist infidel group to liken us to, I once read an Orthodox here at CAF equating Catholics with Hindus- Still a false equalization though and a dishonest one, might I add. If you think that a common belief in Christ our God and savior and his saving grace and baptism in the Blessed Trinity means nothing and so your fellow Christians are in the same position as infidels, that is between you and Our Lord. I wonder if you’d have the courage to say that to Christ’s face though, or if it’s just argument for its own sake. If I misunderstood what you meant there, I apologize.

I was trying to argue that while we worship the same One God, we still don’t have the same faith.
Just as Evangelicals, Gnostics, Muslims, Arians, Monothelites etc. Who worship the same One God but neither of them have the same faith.

Now, GreyP asked me where in the CCC says that the Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, and I gave him the paragraph. I wasn’t trying to make anyone seem as an infidel. If my words offended anyone though, I apologize too.

 

[Miriam1947]

Yes, Peter was chosen to be leader of the Apostles, in the same way as the Bishop is the leader of the Priests, not the other way. Read some Cyprian.

Weird, because our Bishop of Antioch is also a descendant of St.Peter. He is is first and oldest successor. But that doesn’t mean he gets special powers or else. He is just as equal as the other Bishops.

Eastern Orthodox excuse to justify the GS? Dates from the 10th century? Are you sure?
The Orientals always applied that “title” to their Pope of Alexandria after Chalcedon. Because their First among Equals (Rome) falled in heresy (according to them) and the other bishop following him too (Constantinople). Thats why the First among Equals position rested in the Pope of Alexandria.

Thats why the Orientals (and Easterners) don’t care about “being in communion with the Pope” because it isn’t necessary.

So where have they evangelized around the world and preached the gospel? Wasn’t that the primary mission from Jesus? Why are they separate ethnicities?

Are they really one church? Do they hold any councils? When was the last time they met? How are they growing? I am truly curious.

 

[fred_conty]

This is what “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” has to say. P.282-3

The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome. (de fide)

It said that 3 councils defined: “If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in the same Primacy anathema sit.”

“The dogma merely states that the Pontiff of Rome at any time is, in fact, the holder of the Primacy. On what legal title the association of the Roman Pontiff’s chair with the Primacy rests, is not defined.The more usual logical viewpoint is that it rests not on the historical fact that Peter worked and died as Bishop of Rome, but on positive ordinance of Christ or that the Holy Ghost – that it is, therefore, of Divine origin. If the connection of the Primacy with the See of Rome were of Church Law only, then a separation of the Primacy from the Roman Bishop’s Chair by the Pope, or be the general council would be possible: but since it is of Divine Law, a separation is impossible.”

And there is more explaination that follows.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

So where have they evangelized around the world and preached the gospel? Wasn’t that the primary mission from Jesus? Why are they separate ethnicities?

Are they really one church? Do they hold any councils? When was the last time they met? How are they growing? I am truly curious.

Miriam, you must be Roman Catholic - you know so little about the Christian East!

The Eastern Churches evangelized all throughout most of northern Africa, Eastern Europe, parts of Asia. They are one Church because they hold the same Faith, have the same Sacraments and Episcopacy and the same Eucharist.

The Roman Catholic Church has evangelized too - and also with the help of secular colonial powers which is likewise nothing to be too proud of. Such mass “evangelization” has led to Catholic cultures but hardly Catholic evangelization which is an ongoing discussion within the Latin Catholic Church (which is quickly losing western Europe along several fronts).

They are not “separate ethnicities” any more than Polish Catholics, or French Catholics or Italian and Spanish Catholics, or English Catholics are. These may not have had autocephalous Churches, but for all intents and purposes they have been historically.

The Orthodox have held seven Ecumenical Councils at the time when the Church was One and a number of local and territorial Councils afterwards. The Orthodox hesitate to call an Ecumenical Council and call it that without the West. But they do get together for things like the canonization of the hundreds and thousands of Orthodox New Martyrs who died for Christ under Bolshevism in 2000 AD - that was quite the memorable event.

As an Eastern Catholic, I know that the Eastern Christian experience led to a very deep evangelization in historic Rus’-Ukraine. The Slavic people there learned about their faith in Slavonic which made Christianity understandable to all classes of society - unlike the use of Latin in the West that made Catholicism more understandable to the higher, educated classes than to the lower ones (Vatican II, finally, corrected that). Protestantism as such could not have occurred in Orthodox countries in the way it did in the West - that is another topic.

Like you, I generalize. There is much more to be said in appreciation of the Orthodox East. But the tired RC charges against Eastern Orthodoxy that you’ve raised display our own Catholic inability to see things beyond our own parochial POV.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This is what “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” has to say. P.282-3

The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome. (de fide)

It said that 3 councils defined: “If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in the same Primacy anathema sit.”

“The dogma merely states that the Pontiff of Rome at any time is, in fact, the holder of the Primacy. On what legal title the association of the Roman Pontiff’s chair with the Primacy rests, is not defined.The more usual logical viewpoint is that it rests not on the historical fact that Peter worked and died as Bishop of Rome, but on positive ordinance of Christ or that the Holy Ghost – that it is, therefore, of Divine origin. If the connection of the Primacy with the See of Rome were of Church Law only, then a separation of the Primacy from the Roman Bishop’s Chair by the Pope, or be the general council would be possible: but since it is of Divine Law, a separation is impossible.”

And there is more explaination that follows.

Certainly, St Peter, like any other Apostle, would have functioned using his episcopal powers before establishing a regular bishop in the Sees he established. That does not mean he was “the bishop” of the place but that he was the Founder of the See and the consecrator of the bishop/primate. The bishops whom he established are most assuredly his successors, to be sure. The Roman Popes are successors of St Peter. And so are the Bishops/patriarchs of Antioch by the same token and the popes of Alexandria etc. Rome has always had a primacy among the Churches. That Rome was capital of the empire also factored into its ultimate role as mother and teacher of the Churches.

Alex

 

[Marybeloved]

Certainly, St Peter, like any other Apostle, would have functioned using his episcopal powers before establishing a regular bishop in the Sees he established. That does not mean he was “the bishop” of the place but that he was the Founder of the See and the consecrator of the bishop/primate. The bishops whom he established are most assuredly his successors, to be sure. The Roman Popes are successors of St Peter. And so are the Bishops/patriarchs of Antioch by the same token and the popes of Alexandria etc. Rome has always had a primacy among the Churches. That Rome was capital of the empire also factored into its ultimate role as mother and teacher of the Churches.

Alex

Do you know of any other sees St. Peter established other than Rome and Antioch? I have never heard of any other ancient church claiming him as founder apart from Alexandria through St Mark. Do they exist?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Do you know of any other sees St. Peter established other than Rome and Antioch? I have never heard of any other ancient church claiming him as founder apart from Alexandria through St Mark. Do they exist?

Yes, apart from Rome, Antioch and Alexandria which Pope St Gregory once referred to as the Petrine Sees, Constantinople, the New Rome, claimed it through St Andrew, Peter’s brother and then Kyiv in the northeast. Moscow took over that claim from Kyiv and called itself the “third Rome.”

Those were the major Sees founded by Peter directly or indirectly (not forgetting Jerusalem where at the Council of Jerusalem he clearly took a leadership role - even though the Church of Jerusalem could tell Peter what to do and “where to go” and he obeyed). In terms of smaller towns and villages throughout the East where St Peter established churches and consecrated their bishops, tradition indicates there were very many, in addition to the others the other Apostles established.

Rome was the only Apostolic, Petrine See in the West which situation lent itself to the Roman Pontiff’s eventual central role as the “chief administrative officer” of the Church. In addition, the constant infighting between the Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome/Constantinople and the Byzantine Emperor led them to look to Rome, which by then was an insigificant Christian centre save for it being the See of the Successor of Peter, to act as a referee they could both accept. The Eastern Sees were a hotbed of theological and political activity where only an external (and removed) Pope could be trusted to make the call as to when fair play was to be had and when it was not. We have the records of a pope chastising, in writing, a Byzantine emperor even going so far as telling him he was a “boor” and “unmannered,” an assessment of an imperial personage that would earn anyone else the death sentence.

As in pagan Roman times, so too in the Christian era, appealing to Rome when the intrigues of Byzantium overwhelmed one was a welcome thing. The minutes of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, an entirely Eastern Council, show how the Eastern bishops and the Emperor tried to outdo one another in praising Rome and her popes (even Vatican I, which is accused of dogmatizing the zenith of papal jurisdictional power, did not go so far in praising the role of the pope). And whenever the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Emperor needed the Pope of Rome to especially be on their side, they strained every muscle to underscore the Pope as St Peter’s direct successor and therefore that should the Pope decide in their favour, he was to be obeyed by the opposing side without question.

But I digress . . .

Alex

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, apart from Rome, Antioch and Alexandria which Pope St Gregory once referred to as the Petrine Sees, Constantinople, the New Rome, claimed it through St Andrew, Peter’s brother and then Kyiv in the northeast. Moscow took over that claim from Kyiv and called itself the “third Rome.”

Those were the major Sees founded by Peter directly or indirectly (not forgetting Jerusalem where at the Council of Jerusalem he clearly took a leadership role - even though the Church of Jerusalem could tell Peter what to do and “where to go” and he obeyed). In terms of smaller towns and villages throughout the East where St Peter established churches and consecrated their bishops, tradition indicates there were very many, in addition to the others the other Apostles established.

Rome was the only Apostolic, Petrine See in the West which situation lent itself to the Roman Pontiff’s eventual central role as the “chief administrative officer” of the Church. In addition, the constant infighting between the Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome/Constantinople and the Byzantine Emperor led them to look to Rome, which by then was an insigificant Christian centre save for it being the See of the Successor of Peter, to act as a referee they could both accept. The Eastern Sees were a hotbed of theological and political activity where only an external (and removed) Pope could be trusted to make the call as to when fair play was to be had and when it was not. We have the records of a pope chastising, in writing, a Byzantine emperor even going so far as telling him he was a “boor” and “unmannered,” an assessment of an imperial personage that would earn anyone else the death sentence.

As in pagan Roman times, so too in the Christian era, appealing to Rome when the intrigues of Byzantium overwhelmed one was a welcome thing. The minutes of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, an entirely Eastern Council, show how the Eastern bishops and the Emperor tried to outdo one another in praising Rome and her popes (even Vatican I, which is accused of dogmatizing the zenith of papal jurisdictional power, did not go so far in praising the role of the pope). And whenever the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Emperor needed the Pope of Rome to especially be on their side, they strained every muscle to underscore the Pope as St Peter’s direct successor and therefore that should the Pope decide in their favour, he was to be obeyed by the opposing side without question.

But I digress . . .

Alex

Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck goes so far as to call the Third Council of Constantinople “schizophrenic” in its dealings with Rome, on one hand heaping up great praise for the see of Rome and its then occupant (Pope Agatho), but on the other hand declaring anathema upon Honorius and making rather vicious statements concerning his memory.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck goes so far as to call the Third Council of Constantinople “schizophrenic” in its dealings with Rome, on one hand heaping up great praise for the see of Rome and its then occupant (Pope Agatho), but on the other hand declaring anathema upon Honorius and making rather vicious statements concerning his memory.

I would prefer to call that Council “objective” sir! If I were using modern language, perhaps even “calling a spade - a spade.”

And now I’m going off to do something really spiritual - I’m going to clean house on my day off so my wife doesn’t have to when she gets home from work!

Cheers, Alex

 

[Cavaradossi]

I would prefer to call that Council “objective” sir! If I were using modern language, perhaps even “calling a spade - a spade.”

And now I’m going off to do something really spiritual - I’m going to clean house on my day off so my wife doesn’t have to when she gets home from work!

Cheers, Alex

What a sweet thing to do.

 

[1AugustSon7]

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:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19921125en.html

The city of Rome isn’t even mentioned in this source. The debate seems to chiefly pivot on whether or not the Apostle Peter was in Rome and established a Church. I believe the Scriptures record that he was and logical deductions from the Scriptures also prove it.

According to Ireneaus both Peter and Paul were believed to have been in Rome, and the Roman Church was already famous in the Christian world;- and this as early as the second century A.D.

 

[Marybeloved]

Here’s another stupid question: what makes a bishopric a “see”? Or let’s start with: what the heck is a see to begin with as opposed to a diocese or a bishopric?