Peter's Successors

[oliver927]

even now, the successor to st. peter can choose to be the bishop of a diocese other than the diocese of rome.

can you please clarify what you mean?

 

[phil19034]

What does Peter’s death in Rome have to do with the Bishop of Rome having special authority? And in what way is Peter’s successor in Rome different to his successor in Antioch? And is there any evidence that Peter intended there to be any differentiation between these two types of successors?

I think you are getting hung up on the City of Rome.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. That is the special charism that is passed on.

HOWEVER, the Popes also fulfill a secondary role of being the local Bishop of their See. When Peter was in Antioch, the Pope was seated there. But when Peter moved to Rome, he stopped being the Bishop of Antioch, but he didn’t stop being the Vicar of Christ.

For example: Let’s imagine, God forbid, that Rome is totally destroyed by terrorists when Pope Francis is in England. In the aftermath, the Pope decides to reassign the Archbishop of Buenos Aires and he moves back to Buenos Aires.

For that point on, the Vicar of Christ would be living in Buenos Aires, so the Pope would also be the Bishop of Buenos Aires.

Due to (lower case t) tradition, the Pope has stayed in Rome. There isn’t really anything theological about staying in Rome. I believe the Popes stayed their simply out of tradition and for logistical reasons. HOWEVER, due to (upper case T) Tradition, the immediate successor to the Pope, the one who replaces the Vicar of Christ after his death or resignation, receives the Petrine Charism to become the Vicar of Christ…

It’s also worth remembering that Peter has the title of “Prince of the Apostles.” All other Popes have the title of “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles”

gcatholic.org/hierarchy/pope/index.htm
I pray I’m making sense.

 

[boomerang]

Just because someone has apostolic succession from Peter, it does not mean that person is the pope. All the priests in the Catholic Church have apostolic succession from Peter, all 400,000 of them. Only one is elevated to pope. You can’t have multiple popes. It doesn’t matter if the bishop of Antioch has succession from Peter. He was never elected pope. The men who were elected pope chose to remain in Rome where Peter is buried.

 

[e_c]

When Peter appointed Evodius, did Evodius become co-Pope, or anti-pope, or was he really the only pope now with Peter being Pope Emeritus?

It has to do with where Peter died. Until he was dead, there could not be a new occupant of his unique office… an office which transcends geography (think Avignon!)…

 

[mercuriel]

I think you are getting hung up on the City of Rome.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. That is the special charism that is passed on.

HOWEVER, the Popes also fulfill a secondary role of being the local Bishop of their See. When Peter was in Antioch, the Pope was seated there. But when Peter moved to Rome, he stopped being the Bishop of Antioch, but he didn’t stop being the Vicar of Christ.

For example: Let’s imagine, God forbid, that Rome is totally destroyed by terrorists when Pope Francis is in England. In the aftermath, the Pope decides to reassign the Archbishop of Buenos Aires and he moves back to Buenos Aires.

For that point on, the Vicar of Christ would be living in Buenos Aires, so the Pope would also be the Bishop of Buenos Aires.

Due to (lower case t) tradition, the Pope has stayed in Rome. There isn’t really anything theological about staying in Rome. I believe the Popes stayed their simply out of tradition and for logistical reasons. HOWEVER, due to (upper case T) Tradition, the immediate successor to the Pope, the one who replaces the Vicar of Christ after his death or resignation, receives the Petrine Charism to become the Vicar of Christ…

It’s also worth remembering that Peter has the title of “Prince of the Apostles.” All other Popes have the title of “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles”

gcatholic.org/hierarchy/pope/index.htm
I pray I’m making sense.

Very helpful comment - thank you.

Would the primacy have passed automatically to whoever was appointed bishop of the area after Peter died?. To use Antioch again, if Peter had died there, would the successor to the role of bishop automatically assume the succession of the Petrine charisms too?

 

[simspt]

Catholicism teaches that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter; Orthodoxy teaches that all the bishops are, in a sense, successors of Peter.

Isn’t it true that Peter was initially the first bishop of Antioch who then appointed his successor in Antioch before moving to Rome?

Why is Peter’s successor in Rome ‘better’ than Peter’s successor in Antioch?

The first link is a good article written by a Protestant who without being polemical discusses objections to the Catholic claims of early Church structure and governance. The second link is a well researched response from the Catholic position. After reading both articles and especially the comments section of each you should have a nice spring board or launching pad for more investigation.

calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/

calledtocommunion.com/2014/06/the-bishops-of-history-and-the-catholic-faith-a-reply-to-brandon-addison/

 

[jlhargus]

The testimony of Ignatius and Irenaeus about the Roman Church’s primacy (based upon Peter and Paul) shows why Rome was the First See even back then.

It does not explain, however, why Peter’s successor in Antioch does not have the same charisms as Peter’s successor in Rome does according to Catholic teaching.

Simple answer there could be no successor to Peter’s Office of the keys till Peter died. Peter’s successor in Antioch only succeed Peter as Bishop of Antioch but not holder of the keys.

 

[steve_b]

The testimony of Ignatius and Irenaeus about the Roman Church’s primacy (based upon Peter and Paul) shows why Rome was the First See even back then.

It does not explain, however, why Peter’s successor in Antioch does not have the same charisms as Peter’s successor in Rome does according to Catholic teaching.

for space, here’s looking at some past conversations

Here’s the ancient ranking of sees #16

See also #123 , #869

If Antioch was the chair of Peter, like Rome is the chair of Peter, we should see the Church give deference to that. Did the Church East and/or West live and operate according to that fact? No

 

[susanlo]

Yes, Evodius and Ignatius of Antioch were both likely appointed by Peter.

However even Ignatius gave recognition to the bishop of Rome.

When did Ignatius give recognition to the bishop of Rome?

Peter did end up in Rome along with Paul.

Per Irenaeus of Lyon, together, Peter and Paul established the church there with preeminent authority with which all other churches must agree.

Paul was in Rome near the end of his life. The church in Rome had already been established by someone else, but I am sure Paul did a lot for the church when he was there too.

They also gave the office of the episcopate (bishops) to Linus- the second pope.

The bishop of Rome was the last court of appeals among bishops as well.

Lastly, the church founded in Rome has never chosen schism.

Irenaeus says that Peter and Paul placed Linus in the office of the episcopate. So if Peter (and Paul) made Linus the Bishop of Rome in his lifetime, did the keys transfer at that time? Or for a short period was the Bishop of Rome not the supreme authority, but somehow everyone realized at the time of Peter’s death that the Bishop of Rome would be the one to have his role?

 

[Wesrock]

It’s more about being Bishop of Rome that grants the charism, not so much apostolic “descent” from Peter simply by appointment to Bishop. It is succeeding into his See, if I understand it right. Peter made Rome his seat. He may have established Antioch, but it wasn’t his seat.

And, in addition to that, the blood of Peter and Paul, in a sense, christened the city. The blood of two of the preeminent apostles appointed directly by Christ died there, along with numerous other Christian martyrs at the same time. I suspect this second point will generate more questions, though, but special honor is due that, though I might distinguish this from giving primacy, which is more the first point.

 

[Wesrock]

When did Ignatius give recognition to the bishop of Rome?

Well, it’s not so direct as that, but I think what was meant (and is true) is that Ignatius’ letter to the Romans gives more praise and honor to Rome in his opening address than he does any other city in the letters we have from him. Why does he do this? Well, you know what Catholics believe. Even so, the praises he sings of Rome are more extensive and stand out if you wish to compare to his other letters.

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.*

 

[mattp0625]

When did Ignatius give recognition to the bishop of Rome?

Paul was in Rome near the end of his life. The church in Rome had already been established by someone else, but I am sure Paul did a lot for the church when he was there too.

Irenaeus says that Peter and Paul placed Linus in the office of the episcopate. So if Peter (and Paul) made Linus the Bishop of Rome in his lifetime, did the keys transfer at that time? Or for a short period was the Bishop of Rome not the supreme authority, but somehow everyone realized at the time of Peter’s death that the Bishop of Rome would be the one to have his role?

Yes the keys transferred at that time.

I am not certain it said: …placed Linus in the office…

It said: …committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…which is the collective body of bishops.

This was after describing the church with preeminent authority.

Then, the holder of that office had successors.

The Catholic Church is reflected by the existence of the magisterium with apostolic succession and the Eucharist. While there were believers in Rome, the office of the bishops, apostolic succession (authority), and the Eucharist did not exist there until Peter arrived from Antioch.

Another post above covered Ignatius’s words, who also strongly wrote about the Eucharist and loyalty to the bishop.

 

[Wesrock]

Well, Peter may have established the church of Rome but still traveled a bit before returning. I’ve seen some interesting thoughts on that subject, his disappearance in Acts, his connections with a Roman centurion, the reportedly earliest churches in Rome. Very interesting, though all circumstantial, of course.

 

[Karen107]

Well, Peter may have established the church of Rome but still traveled a bit before returning. I’ve seen some interesting thoughts on that subject, his disappearance in Acts, his connections with a Roman centurion, the reportedly earliest churches in Rome. Very interesting, though all circumstantial, of course.

This link may help understand. Being the first Pope is inconsequential to Rome being the location where the Church was established because it was Jesus who established the papacy, not the location of Peter.

catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

I furthermore believe that Peter was arrested and taken to Rome unwillingly and was crucified there. I don’t remember where I heard or read about that. Someone said that Peter went to Rome as written in the early historical writings. I have no reason to doubt. At any rate it doesn’t negate Peter as the first Pope chosen by Jesus Himself, and the Papal authority passed onto Linus upon Peters death. I don’t believe St. Peter personally established the Church in Rome rather it was the Church who did. But people can correct me on that. Antioch was one of the first places Peter and Paul traveled to discuss the Church (see incident in Antioch in the scriptures) but Rome was really where the Church got established so later Popes would be the Bishop of Rome. Remember when the Church was being established upon Peter that Christianity was illegal and just coming into itself.

Why would it be circumstantial? Rome was the center of power and so Rome was the place that Christians needed to convert lest they let Christianity die. St. Paul was very important to the Church. He was handpicked by God to convert Rome and the surrounding regions and had the skills to do it. Open your bible up. Read the letters to the Romans about St. Pauls urging to convert Rome and the beginnings of the Church in Acts. Don’t jump around as people do but read about the history of the early Church. Well the Christians efforts were successful. It took a bit of time to make Christianity legal but that’s where Emperor Constantine allowed the Church to meet for the first time officially legally and the Nicene Creed was written in the third century. It was also where the first ‘legal’ Churches were built in the Roman Empire. The problem with the Emperor was that he thought if God was behind him that he would become stronger but that wasn’t the case, God isn’t to be used like that, and the Roman Empire fell leaving in it’s path the papal states. That was weak in physical might because it was a religious entity so that was reduced down to Vatican City as the surrounding powers took over the land. This is all in the history books.

 

[Wesrock]

What I said was circumstantial is that Peter’s disappearance in Acts led to Peter himself traveling directly to Rome in secret at that time and establishing the first Christian Church there, possibly in the house of Saint Pudens. He was certainly working in Rome (again?) years later and for his martyrdom.

 

[Karen107]

What I said was circumstantial is that Peter’s disappearance in Acts led to Peter himself traveling directly to Rome in secret at that time and establishing the first Christian Church there, possibly in the house of Saint Pudens. He was certainly working in Rome (again?) years later and for his martyrdom.

I haven’t read that. Direct me to the scriptures please?

 

[Karen107]

Nevermind I found this… Sorry I misunderstood your post. Thanks for the information.

ccel.org/ccel/edmundson/church.xii.iii.html

 

[Wesrock]

I haven’t read that. Direct me to the scriptures please?

Peter’s martyrdom isn’t in scripture, and as I said, the case for Peter going to Rome much earlier is only circumstantial. I saw the case made in the Lectio - Peter series, parts 9 and 10, delivered by Dr. Tim Gray. It’s available on formed.org, if you have access. It also looks like he wrote about it a little in Walking With God: A Journey Through the Bible. Looks like you can read some of the relevant material in a google preview here: books.google.com/books?id=boHlAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT257&lpg=PT257&dq=tim+gray+peter+pudens+going+to+rome&source=bl&ots=w4GQnEtKqV&sig=fKWcwCJN_titBkC939mdSjZMjPo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHkurkg8nPAhUn_4MKHVUECToQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=tim%20gray%20peter%20pudens%20going%20to%20rome&f=false

 

[Karen107]

Peter’s martyrdom isn’t in scripture, and as I said, the case for Peter going to Rome much earlier is only circumstantial. I saw the case made in the Lectio - Peter series, parts 9 and 10, delivered by Dr. Tim Gray. It’s available on formed.org, if you have access. It also looks like he wrote about it a little in Walking With God: A Journey Through the Bible. Looks like you can read some of the relevant material in a google preview here: books.google.com/books?id=boHlAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT257&lpg=PT257&dq=tim+gray+peter+pudens+going+to+rome&source=bl&ots=w4GQnEtKqV&sig=fKWcwCJN_titBkC939mdSjZMjPo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHkurkg8nPAhUn_4MKHVUECToQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=tim%20gray%20peter%20pudens%20going%20to%20rome&f=false

Thanks! Very cool stuff!

 

[mattp0625]

I would like to offer something that may not be as pertinent or too simplistic:

Jesus stated that before Abraham was, I am. We take that to mean he existed before Abraham.

Let’s assume we agree that Jesus, as part of the Trinity, always existed in heaven.

If so, then He knew who he was before and after He became man.