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

[Nicea325]

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.”

Yeah…ONE God. How is that different? Orthodoxs,Catholics,Lutherans,Anglicans,Methodist,etc are believe in ONE God.

Father…Son…Holy Spirit…ONE GOD.

 

[rikkk1958]

This is just an opinion from all the posts I have read so far.

St. Peter was the foundation Stone. Therefore, if there is no proof that he was called the first Bishop of the Church, his title as the first Vicar of Jesus Christ can not be denied. The man Jesus appointed to build His Church, and Churches were built according to the instruction to him by our Lord Jesus Christ. The First Vicar of Christ appointed to lead, so must he appoint his Successor. We know that “Pope” means as the Vicar of Christ and only that this title word came later. The succession begun after him, therefore the succession was due because of him. Whoever suceeded him is a successor, therefore the Vicar of Christ continued in succession which we now call “Pope”.

The argument if Peter was called Bishop is valid if there is no evidence to support it but what matter is that we know that St. Peter was in Rome and known to be the leader because of His appointment from the Lord and whoever succeeded him according to the tradition of the Church is the legitimate successor as the Vicar of Christ. This in my view will deny any other Ministers or Pastors who personally claims to be a successor.

 

[Nicea325]

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?

An episcopal see (Latin: episcopalis sedes) is, in the original sense, the official seat of a bishop. This seat, which is also referred to as the bishop’s cathedra, is placed in the bishop’s principal church, which is therefore called the bishop’s cathedral

 

[Miriam1947]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

The Pope (from Latin: papa; from Greek: πάππας (pappas),[1] a child’s word for father)[2] is the Bishop of Rome and the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church.[3] In the Catholic Church, the Pope is regarded as the successor of Saint Peter, the Apostle. The current office-holder is Pope Benedict XVI, who was elected in a papal conclave on 19 April 2005.[nb 1]

The office of the pope is known as the papacy. His ecclesiastical jurisdiction is often called the “Holy See” (Sancta Sedes in Latin), or the “Apostolic See” based upon the Church tradition that the Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul were martyred in Rome. The pope is also head of state of Vatican City,[4] a sovereign city-state entirely enclaved within the city of Rome.

The papacy is one of the most enduring institutions in the world and had a prominent part in human history.[5] The Popes in ancient times helped in the spread of Christianity and resolve various doctrinal disputes.[6] In the Middle Ages they played a role of secular importance in Western Europe, often serving as referees between the monarchs and averting several wars.[7][8][9] Currently, in addition to the expansion of the Christian faith and doctrine, the popes are dedicated to ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, charitable work, and the defense of human rights.[10][11]

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is just an opinion from all the posts I have read so far.

St. Peter was the foundation Stone. Therefore, if there is no proof that he was called the first Bishop of the Church, his title as the first Vicar of Jesus Christ can not be denied. The man Jesus appointed to build His Church, and Churches were built according to the instruction to him by our Lord Jesus Christ. The First Vicar of Christ appointed to lead, so must he appoint his Successor. We know that “Pope” means as the Vicar of Christ and only that this title word came later. The succession begun after him, therefore the succession was due because of him. Whoever suceeded him is a successor, therefore the Vicar of Christ continued in succession which we now call “Pope”.

The argument if Peter was called Bishop is valid if there is no evidence to support it but what matter is that we know that St. Peter was in Rome and known to be the leader because of His appointment from the Lord and whoever succeeded him according to the tradition of the Church is the legitimate successor as the Vicar of Christ. This in my view will deny any other Ministers or Pastors who personally claims to be a successor.

Actually, the title Vicar of Christ came after (some three or four hundred years after) the title of pope traveled to Rome from Alexandria via North Africa.

 

[Marybeloved]

An episcopal see (Latin: episcopalis sedes) is, in the original sense, the official seat of a bishop. This seat, which is also referred to as the bishop’s cathedra, is placed in the bishop’s principal church, which is therefore called the bishop’s cathedral

So it’s just a diocese? Why do people use it as if it’s special? As if only some special churches like Rome, Constantinople, etc are “sees”? Or am I just seeing my own things?

 

[Skeptic92]

So it’s just a diocese? Why do people use it as if it’s special? As if only some special churches like Rome, Constantinople, etc are “sees”? Or am I just seeing my own things?

They are Apostolic Sees, that have direct Apostolic Founding. I believe you are referring to the ‘Pentarchy’, which are the five Ancient Patriarchates; Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch & Jerusalem. They are seen as having special honour (and authority) as they have history dating back to the first century and direct governance (or founding) by Apostles (St Peter, St Andrew, St James and St Mark).

 

[guanophore]

  1) John submitted to Peter? Nope, Equals don't submit to equals.

This idea does not seem to be consistent with the teachings of Christ.

" Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ." Eph 5:21-22

For you were called to freedom brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another. Gal 5:13-15

1. Sure, Peter was an Apostle but Evangelist? Nope. And prophet? Maybe, but definitely not on John’s level.

And this sounds very much like pitting one against another.

2 Cor 10:12
12 Not that we venture to class or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another, and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.

The Apostle teaches that these kinds of comparisons demonstrate that persons using them have “no understanding”.

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chlo’e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga’ius; 15 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. 16(I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 1 Cor 1:10-17

These arguments about which Apolstle is greater is expressly forbidden in the Holy 'Scriptures, and is a poor witness to the gospel.

Certainly there is much work to be done so that we can be unified, and be of like mind. Pitting the reputations of aposltes against one another will not help bring about that unity.

Jesus gave certain gifts and responsibilities to Peter that he did not give to others, and He gave certain gifts and responsibilites to John that He did not give to anyone else. Both Apostles would say that these gifts and responsibilities do not make one better or more important that the other.

 

[guanophore]

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

There is a flaw in this reasoning, Wisely. The Jews denied the divinity of Jesus too, but they clearly believe in the same God we do. They only have recieved a limited revelation of the One God, as have the Muslims, who are children of Ishmael. They believe in the God of Abraham.

Gen 16:10-13
10 The angel of the LORD also said to her, “I will so greatly multiply your descendants that they cannot be numbered for multitude.” 11 And the angel of the LORD said to her, “Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ish’mael; because the LORD has given heed to your affliction. 12 He shall be a wild *** of a man, his hand against every man and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.”

The sons of Ishmael comprise the nation of Islam today.

Jesus taught that “salvation is of the Jews”, so obviously, the Jews were worshipping the same God we do. They, alone with the sons of Ishmael, only have part of God’s revelation of Himself, since they reject Christ.

I am glad you are stuyding the CCC

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.”

Muslims, like Jews and Christians, are monotheists. There are also other religions that are monotheistic. Do you not believe there is One God, and that He is to be adored, is merciful, and will judge mankind on the Last Day?

It seems like you are just looking for spurious reasons to separate your faith from others, even when there are commonalities. Had you considered focusing on what unifies, rather than what divides?

 

[guanophore]

This is just an opinion from all the posts I have read so far.

St. Peter was the foundation Stone.

So are all the Aposltes and prophets.

Therefore, if there is no proof that he was called the first Bishop of the Church, his title as the first Vicar of Jesus Christ can not be denied.

It is certainly denied. Many evangelicals will claim that Jesus sent the HS as His vicar on earth. This position is quite defensible in the Scripture.

The man Jesus appointed to build His Church, and Churches were built according to the instruction to him by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus never appointed Peter to build the Church. It is Christ who is the builder. Peter was the Kepha upon which the building would happen. And it can easily be shown that St. Paul planted and instructed more Churches around the known world than St. Peter. Paul did this according to instruction given to him by Christ.

The First Vicar of Christ appointed to lead, so must he appoint his Successor.

Actually, the Pope doe snot appoint his successor. After the Pope’s death, the college of Cardinals does that.

We know that “Pope” means as the Vicar of Christ and only that this title word came later. The succession begun after him, therefore the succession was due because of him.

On the contrary, the succession is because of the HS, who moved Peter to choose a person to fill the office of Judas, who abandoned his apostolic mission.

Whoever suceeded him is a successor, therefore the Vicar of Christ continued in succession which we now call “Pope”.

Every apostle has a line of bishops who succeeded him. There is a valid line of bishops from Antioch that goes back to St. Peter, as well as the one in Rome.

The argument if Peter was called Bishop is valid if there is no evidence to support it but what matter is that we know that St. Peter was in Rome and known to be the leader because of His appointment from the Lord and whoever succeeded him according to the tradition of the Church is the legitimate successor as the Vicar of Christ. This in my view will deny any other Ministers or Pastors who personally claims to be a successor.

Indeed, this is what the CC believes and teaches. St. Paul was also in Rome, and labored there with Peter to establish the foundation of the Church. It was because of these two great apostles that Rome became a beacon of orthodoxy for the early Christians.

 

[guanophore]

I meant it in the RC way. “It is absolutely necessary for salavtion that blah blah human being to be in communion with Roman Pontiff” We don’t believe that, so in THAT SENSE it isn’t necessary to be in communion with the Pope.

Can you show where you are getting this? I especially don’t remember the “blah, blah, blah” part in any official document.

 

[Nicea325]

So it’s just a diocese? Why do people use it as if it’s special? As if only some special churches like Rome, Constantinople, etc are “sees”? Or am I just seeing my own things?

Indeed. Well the five ancient Sees are recognized having a special place due to honor,authority and their founders as Apostles.

 

[Wisely]

Can you show where you are getting this? I especially don’t remember the “blah, blah, blah” part in any official document.

Papal Bull Unam Sanctam
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

And you know the funny part?

I’m a human creature
It’s necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff
I’m not his subject nor in communion with him

Therefore, I can not get salvation

But at least this sounds Catholic, unlike Vatican II’s retcon.

 

[guanophore]

Papal Bull Unam Sanctam
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

And you know the funny part?

I’m a human creature
It’s necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff
I’m not his subject nor in communion with him

Ok, that is the quote I thought you were referring to. Yes, you are a human creature, and since the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter, who was given responsibility for the flock of God, all who are members of the flock of God are subject to him. You most certainly ARE a subject of the Roman Pontiff, if you are a baptized member of the Church founded by Christ. I will grant that you are a rebellious subject, but a subject nonetheless.

Just as Christ is Lord of the heavens and the earth, not all who dwell in the earth recognize His lordship, but such denial does not in any way detract from the fact that He is Lord.

In the same way, the successor of Peter who has been given the charge to feed and care for the flock is responsible for all the sheep, whether they know it or not, and whether they acknowledge it or not.

 

[PJM]

=Nicea325;9218273]Originally Posted by highrigger1:

When did the CC stop teaching Peter was a bishop of Rome? Documents please…

highrigger1:

Wait a minute? I thought it was INVENTED in the 3rd century as a MYTH & LEGEND? Now you add Irenaeus who said the following in 180AD? Which one is it? Third or before? But MODERN scholars know better? Definitely not Math!

St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, 3,1,1, 180 A.D., J208 “…in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” St Irenaeus, "

Against Heresies", chapter III, “…the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.”

TOP historians? :whacky:

My friends,
What we seem to have here in a lack of “common Catholic Understanding of the term Bishop”

All Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops retian the term / title of “bishop”, while at the same time holding on to the honourms accorded them in “higher Office.”

Peter would have been a “bishop” in status wherever he was located. How ever because the Terminology “pope” had yet to be introduced. Still Peter was actually, factually, and in reality the Bishop of Rome as that was the SEE of the Catholic Church at the time.

God Bless,
Pat/ PJM

 

[Alexander_Roman]

My friends,
What we seem to have here in a lack of “common Catholic Understanding of the term Bishop”

All Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops retian the term / title of “bishop”, while at the same time holding on to the honourms accorded them in “higher Office.”

Peter would have been a “bishop” in status wherever he was located. How ever because the Terminology “pope” had yet to be introduced. Still Peter was actually, factually, and in reality the Bishop of Rome as that was the SEE of the Catholic Church at the time.

God Bless,
Pat/ PJM

Not at all . . . You are absolutely right about the various ranks of bishops in the Church. But Peter and the Apostles had the powers of bishops (and a few others as well), but would not have limited themselves to the role of a bishop in any See at any time. They were MORE than bishops, regardless of rank. That was not their role as Apostles.

As for the “See of the Catholic Church” - there were a few Sees throughout the world. Rome was the ONLY Apostolic See in the West and by far not the only one founded directly by St Peter.

The Apostles, including St Peter, established Churches/Sees and consecrated their bishops. The Pope or Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. And so is the patriarch of Antioch, and that of Alexandria etc. The fact that Sts Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome and the fact that Rome was the capital of the Roman “oikumene” also need to be considered as having contributed to the pre-eminent role of the pope as teacher and supreme governor of the Church.

Alex

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not at all . . . You are absolutely right about the various ranks of bishops in the Church. But Peter and the Apostles had the powers of bishops (and a few others as well), but would not have limited themselves to the role of a bishop in any See at any time. They were MORE than bishops, regardless of rank. That was not their role as Apostles.

As for the “See of the Catholic Church” - there were a few Sees throughout the world. Rome was the ONLY Apostolic See in the West and by far not the only one founded directly by St Peter.

The Apostles, including St Peter, established Churches/Sees and consecrated their bishops. The Pope or Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. And so is the patriarch of Antioch, and that of Alexandria etc. The fact that Sts Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome and the fact that Rome was the capital of the Roman “oikumene” also need to be considered as having contributed to the pre-eminent role of the pope as teacher and supreme governor of the Church.

Alex

Your objection reminds me of a late medieval Greek commentator who complained that the Italians “took the apostle to the world and turned him into the bishop of one city”. I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote here.