St. Peter was Pope before he was Bishop of Rome, right?!

[Alexander_Roman]

The Pope as Bishop of Rome, is the Pope for the universal Catholic Church.No other Bishop has this state.

Benedict XVI teaches that the Pope (Bishop of Rome) should not be considered any longer the Patriarch of the West. This was surprising to many. catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601225.htm

The Pope is not only the Bishop of Rome, he is also the “Bishop” of the universal Church.

In fact, this would be impossible, IF by this you mean the Churches of the East. The only way the Bishop/Pope of Rome can be seen as a “universal bishop” is as the bishop over the universal Latin Church of which he is the head and over which he exercises direct and immediate primacy of jurisdiction.

The Churches of the East would only agree to what was extant in the first millennium of the Church - that the Bishop of Rome could serve as jurisdictional arbiter in local Eastern Church conflicts when a) a universal canon of the church was plainly broken, b) a theologian called on the Pope to hear his case when he was in conflict with his Primate and c) when a Particular Eastern Church were to call on the Pope to intervene.

If Rome and the Eastern Churches could agree, once more, to this arrangement, we would soon have one undivided Church.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

One reason Pope Benedict has rejected the title “Patriarch of the West” has nothing, in fact, to do with the Orthodox East (whose churchmen were understandably confused by his announcement).

It has to do with Pope Benedict’s ecumenical vision for the West where Anglicans and Lutherans will want, one day, to be in union with Rome but with their own Particular Churches.

We should recall that St Anskar, the Apostle to the North, dreamed of a “Northern Catholic Patriarchate” for all of Scandinavia and Germany, located in Hamburg.

Catholic theologians working with Anglicans have also said that Canterbury functions much like a “Patriarchate.” Hopefully, Canterbury, one day, will become a Catholic Patriarchate in the West, using the Sarum Rite (together with the Hereford, Bangor, York and Durham traditions as well).

The Church of Spain, using the Mozarabic Rite, also considered itself to be a Particular Catholic Church of the West.

Alex

 

[peresieh]

Check your Church history. Eusebius states that Peter and Paul appointed Linus Bishop of Rome. Peter and Paul appreared to have joint authority over the universal Church. Peter was Bishop of Antioch. Linus was the first Bishop of Rome.

 

[JohnVIII]

Check your Church history. Eusebius states that Peter and Paul appointed Linus Bishop of Rome. Peter and Paul appreared to have joint authority over the universal Church. Peter was Bishop of Antioch. Linus was the first Bishop of Rome.

I wish I could remember were I read this, I think it was in the history by Eusebius, but there was another ‘Peter’ in Antioch who was one of ‘The Seventy’ (and the 70 were sometimes called ‘apostles’). It was this Peter who was the first bishop of Antioch, not the Apostle Peter; although he was ordained by the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Peter did stay in Antioch for a number of years, but he was not made a bishop in Antioch. If he was made bishop, as many say he was, it would not have been right for him to leave his See and go to Rome.

The Apostles’ mission was different from that of bishops (and the term “episcopus” is borrowed from the Latin pagan tradition of “mayor” - the same is true of “metropolitan”).

Bishops had to be stationary in the cities and towns where they were. The Apostles were anything but stationary - they were missionaries out to establish new churches and communities of believers everywhere…

Alex

Think of an apostle becoming ‘stationary’ when he was martyred!

In fact, this would be impossible, IF by this you mean the Churches of the East. The only way the Bishop/Pope of Rome can be seen as a “universal bishop” is as the bishop over the universal Latin Church of which he is the head and over which he exercises direct and immediate primacy of jurisdiction.

The Churches of the East would only agree to what was extant in the first millennium of the Church - that the Bishop of Rome could serve as jurisdictional arbiter…

Alex

I think the main problem the East has with accepting a ‘universal bishop’ is the ‘bishop’ part. To the East there can be no such thing as a bishop who’s See is the whole world. But if you leave the ‘bishop’ part out of it and just see the Pope as ‘The Successor of St. Peter’ (who also happens to be the bishop of Rome as well), then of course this man who holds the Keys as the successor of St. Peter is the universal teacher of the whole Church.

I think there’s no doubt that Rome was prepared to be the place that the successor to St. Peter would reside. But I don’t think it was all put together until St. Clement. We don’t read of Rome doing much of anything until the world heard that St. Clement became the Bishop of Rome. To me this seems to imply that St. Clement had at least some sort of protégé in the Church before he was made bishop of Rome. And why wouldn’t he!? After all it was a recorded fact of out history that St. Peter choose St. Clement to be his successor! And think about this from the standpoint of assuming that an apostle was never becomes a bishop - if it is in fact true that apostles never become bishops, then just what kind of ‘successor’ was St. Peter talking about when he said that St. Clement was to be his ‘successor’? What else could it be except that St. Clement was to hold the Keys of the Kingdom after St. Peter died. If every assumption made here is correct then the successor to St. Peter does not have to also be the bishop of Rome. Although, I’m sure it must have been big news in the Christian world the day that everyone heard that St. Clement became the bishop of Rome!

 

[diggerdomer]

There certainly is the line of thought that sees both St Peter and St Paul as the founders of the Church of Rome (their common feast is the patronal feast of the City of Rome, to be sure).

The East has never seen any of the Apostles as bishops of any city. They certainly had the powers to consecrate bishops and priests, and did so everywhere. St Peter consecrated bishops and priests for many villages and towns in the East, including the city of Antioch which has always considered itself, as well, as “a See of St Peter.”

The Apostles’ mission was different from that of bishops (and the term “episcopus” is borrowed from the Latin pagan tradition of “mayor” - the same is true of “metropolitan”).

Bishops had to be stationary in the cities and towns where they were. The Apostles were anything but stationary - they were missionaries out to establish new churches and communities of believers everywhere.

St Peter consecrated the first Bishop of Rome who, together with his successors, spoke with Peter’s authority, and Peter certainly, with St Paul, founded the Church at Rome. But the first “Pope of Rome?” That would have to be ironed out in the East-West ecumenical dialogue.

The view that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome, but did not head it as its bishop(s) in no way damages the primacy of the Roman Pontiff either.

Alex

The Catholic Church does not teach that either Peter or Paul founded the Christian Church in Rome. Clearly, from the Bible, Paul did not, as he wrote to Christians in Rome before he even got there. Similarly from the Bible, we have clear evidence that Peter ministered in Jerusalem and Antioch, but nothing about his presence in Rome until, possibly, later than other Christians were there.

 

[diggerdomer]

In fact, this would be impossible, IF by this you mean the Churches of the East. The only way the Bishop/Pope of Rome can be seen as a “universal bishop” is as the bishop over the universal Latin Church of which he is the head and over which he exercises direct and immediate primacy of jurisdiction.

No, the Pope is the “Bishop” for the entire Catholic Church, with respect to his exercise of the papacy. All Catholic Churches recognize the primacy (juridically) of the Pope (Bishop of Rome), not just the Latin Churches.

It’s not impossible, quite the opposite. It’s essential for the Catholic faith.

You should clarify what you mean by “Churches of the East.”

If you mean Eastern Catholics, then my points are accurate. All Catholics, Eastern or Western, hold the same belief regarding the Pope.

If you mean Eastern Orthodox, then say so.

If you mean other ancient Eastern Churches that diverged from the Catholic Christian faith in the patristic ages (and so are not in communion with either the current Catholic or Orthodox Churches) then say so.

What do you mean or understand by your reference to “Churches of the East”?

 

[diggerdomer]

Check your Church history. Eusebius states that Peter and Paul appointed Linus Bishop of Rome. Peter and Paul appreared to have joint authority over the universal Church. Peter was Bishop of Antioch. Linus was the first Bishop of Rome.

Eusebius’ historical accuracy is open to question.

Nothing in the Bible says Peter was Bishop of Antioch.

Catholics claim Peter as the first Pope, and as Pope is basically synonymous with Bishop of Rome, for Catholics, nowhere does the Catholic Church teach Linus was the first Bishop of Rome.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother diggerdommer,

The Catholic Church does not teach that either Peter or Paul founded the Christian Church in Rome. Clearly, from the Bible, Paul did not, as he wrote to Christians in Rome before he even got there. Similarly from the Bible, we have clear evidence that Peter ministered in Jerusalem and Antioch, but nothing about his presence in Rome until, possibly, later than other Christians were there.

I believe Catholic exegetes cite the fact that St. Peter composed his first Epistle from “Babylon” to demonstrate that St. Peter was in Rome. There is almost incontrovertible evidence that this was a reference to Rome - 1) Other contemporary writers refer to Rome as “Babylon”; 2) The actual city of Babylon did not exist anymore, as it was rendered barren by the Lord (non-Catholics apologists often fail to distinguish between the country of Babylonia from the the city of Babylon. Babylonia was indeed extant, but Babylon was an extinct city.

Blessings.

 

[Mojo674]

This Question strikes the heart of much bewilderment to many especially in the West. First we must say that yes St. Peter was given the keys of the Church, but you must look further into this fact. The Apostles were all equal to each other, Peter who was appoint by Christ to become a leader, was not above the other Apostles but equal to them. A special ability was conferred among the Popes and St. Peter, this statement is that the Pope and St. Peter are “First among Equals.” This means essentially if there was a major dispute among the apostles and they could not come up with a decision then St. Peter would step forward and have the “Ice Breaker” Choice. St. Peter was anointed by Christ in the Bible to be equal yet First among the Equal. I can’t remember off the top of my head but it is also referenced in the Old Testament with the anointing of David as King. So back in the Ancient World there were Five Great Patriarchs and therefore 5 Great Patriarchates. These were in random order: the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria. Since there was no email or internet in the Ancient World and communication through letters would take months these Patriarchs would oversee their region and make decisions to problems that would occur. Now when an Ecumenical Council was convened the Five Great Patriarchs would all go to the Council. If they could not attend for some reason they would send a legate or basically a person who would oversee their Patriarchate and basically act as the Patriarch Spiritually and Theologically by following the mindset, needs, and wishes for their Patriarch. Along with these Patriarchs would come their bishops. Now even though the bishops were at the Councils they were Not making the final decision. This final decision to a controversy was made by the Five Patriarchs. If for some reason there was tie or it was undecided then the Pope or his Legate would come in and make the final word. Therefore the Pope was not above the other Patriarchs but he was a FIRST Among EQUALS. Many people ask “why have we never learned of this,” well because of the Growing Papal Authority and with result of the Great Schism with the East many of these Patriarchates became hazy and it was not clear which were truly Orthodox or which were following the West Only and leaving their Tradition. So many religion books and teachers probably do not know or will leave out the fact of the whole history which comes from the Bible about Patriarchs and their equality. Therefore the Pope was never supposed to gain as much power as he did but it is from this and many other misunderstandings that the Great Schism of 1054 occurred in which most of the East broke off and formed the Orthodox Church. Now as time went on some of the East realized that the Church is Universal, and ONE. Therefore I for instance am Byzantine Catholic and we work hard to reunite the Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox Church has more than 100 million people, it would be a Great Victory in times of turmoil such as this if we United and Became One Again.

~Andrew

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The Catholic Church does not teach that either Peter or Paul founded the Christian Church in Rome. Clearly, from the Bible, Paul did not, as he wrote to Christians in Rome before he even got there. Similarly from the Bible, we have clear evidence that Peter ministered in Jerusalem and Antioch, but nothing about his presence in Rome until, possibly, later than other Christians were there.

Certainly, Sts Peter and Paul are the formal “founders” of the Roman Church that gave it its organization. Rome is their See in a very special way. That there were Christians in Rome ahead of the Chief Apostles - that was to be expected. The Roman papacy/bishopric is from them.

I did not know that the Catholic Church did not teach that the Chief Apostles founded the Roman Church. That should make for an easy removal of the most significant ecumenical roadblock!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Eusebius’ historical accuracy is open to question.

Nothing in the Bible says Peter was Bishop of Antioch.

Catholics claim Peter as the first Pope, and as Pope is basically synonymous with Bishop of Rome, for Catholics, nowhere does the Catholic Church teach Linus was the first Bishop of Rome.

Are you saying that if something isn’t in the Bible - it didn’t happen in history and there is no way of verifying it? Is the writing of all historical facts/events what the Bible was about?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

No, the Pope is the “Bishop” for the entire Catholic Church, with respect to his exercise of the papacy. All Catholic Churches recognize the primacy (juridically) of the Pope (Bishop of Rome), not just the Latin Churches.

It’s not impossible, quite the opposite. It’s essential for the Catholic faith.

You should clarify what you mean by “Churches of the East.”

If you mean Eastern Catholics, then my points are accurate. All Catholics, Eastern or Western, hold the same belief regarding the Pope.

If you mean Eastern Orthodox, then say so.

If you mean other ancient Eastern Churches that diverged from the Catholic Christian faith in the patristic ages (and so are not in communion with either the current Catholic or Orthodox Churches) then say so.

What do you mean or understand by your reference to “Churches of the East”?

You raise a number of good points that are central to the Catholic/Orthodox ecumenical discussions.

My point is not about the office of the Pope specifically - you are more than correct on this. My point is about the office of bishop as an ideal type.

Bishops have responsibilities for churches in cities/areas and their “jurisdiction” is tied to it. As Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan etc. (all titles and responsibilities the Pope holds), the Pope’s jurisdiction is contained within those titles.

But as “universal pontiff,” the Pope also enjoys a relationship to Churches outside of his traditional jurisdiction in the West. The Eastern Catholic churches are in communion with Rome, but the Pope does not, unless necessary, exercise the same immediate jurisdiction over them as he does over the Latin Church. That jurisdiction is shared with the EC Patriarchs and other primates. The Pope certainly is the universal bishop of the universal Latin Church over which he exercises immediate jurisdiction. Not so with all the Eastern Catholic Churches. Upon reunion with the East, the Eastern and Oriental Patriarchs would have an even greater arms’ lenght jurisdictional distance from the Pope.

This is about the issue of papal jurisdiction only, which parameters can change.

Alex

 

[dcointin]

The biggest stumbling block for me with regards to the papacy is the impression that the Pope occupies an office that is different than and above that of other bishops. I don’t believe this was true with regards to St. Peter and the Apostles, and I don’t with bishops in the Church either. Most of my dialogue with Mardukm is coming back to this issue. Would anyone else have anything to add?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes, the pope is “first among equals.” It is just that there are varying interpretations for what that can mean.

In the first millennium of Christianity, Rome had the role of being the ultimate arbiter in church disputes. The idea that Rome could be involved in the internal affairs of Particular Churches - that was not or ever on unless Rome was asked to step in or if a Church broke a universally accepted canon.

The same issue you raise occurs within, say, the Moscow Patriarchate which is very large and is run very much like the papacy. In fact, the Patriarch of Moscow is himself a disciple of Metropolitan Nicodemus (who died in the arms of Pope John Paul I) and was a great admirer of the Vatican . . .

Various Patriarchates/Churches within Orthodoxy exercise their administrative powers in varying ways that run from very autocratic to not very .

For the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Papacy is a symbol of the Church’s unity and they also hope that Rome realizes it shares its administrative powers and doesn’t arbitrarily use them on the EC Churches.

I think it proper to understand the role of my Patriarch as being much more than that of my Bishop. When I met our Patriarch, my heart was palpitating, my palms were sweaty and it was all I could do from throwing myself at his feet in humble reverence . . .

I don’t experience anything like that with our bishop . . .

Alex

 

[nablaise]

I believe the Church is a family in the blood of Christ. The apostles were equal in dignity as brothers. However, not ‘born’ at the same time, so the elder is important in that he must be model, thus leader to others, confirming them in the faith, in the light he was the first to see. I believe that it is for this reason that Peter who first confessed the Christian Faith, was consequently charged to confirm his brothers in it.

His successors are then those who are ‘first in righteousness’ thus worthy to lead and confirm others into this righteousness (which is the Christian Faith). I think the Pope is elected when he is choosen and consecrated with this intentions (in accordance with means approved by previous Pope); that being found to be most righteous, the Holy Spirit has choosen him to succeed St. Peter. T
As someoen said, The successor of St. Peter succeed his person and the office associated with his person. And the office associated with his person is the Papacy which came at the same moment as his election when Jesus told him that on him he will build his Chuch and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Most of this talk about Rome, Antioch, and other geography are temporal realities which have been changing and will always change with time. The Catholics should not take them as referances for validity of a not-so-temporoal office of the papacy.

I think Rome has been the See of popes out of need first (because Rome was the capital of the world), then out of tradition. But now that World reality is dramatically changing…the relationship between Rome and the Papacy is going to be clarified out of necessity. I believe this will solve lots of problems especially with the Orthodox and then with Protestants.

I believe, the office of the Papay is simply the office of the eldest brother. Therefore he is equal with others as brothers, but ‘older’ than them. So he ‘preside in love’ whenever there are ‘whole family’ issues. He must have the last word over universal matters since the family is not a democracy. This is important for the unity of the family and this is right because it is the order of love. This eldest status is not a natural one (as in biological), but super-natural (in righteousness) which is why everyone ought to have extra respect and obediance toward him. And let God be the judge if he turn out bad. But the commandment to obey our parents also applies here as respect we owe to out leaders in the faith.

I believe this is the understanding that will guaranty more unity in Church once clarified and canonized properly.

 

[nablaise]

I think we should give political facts of an age their proper place.
The great first five great Sees: Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem arose all from political situation of the time. Then they started desapearing and desintegrating.
Today, with the Synod of of East, questions of Patriarchates are coming up again, with the sad reality that some are ony by name, because there are no members left in geographical areas, all having migrated in the West.

Today geography is becaming less and less important. Culture and language are becoming major issues. So we have Anglicans with Ordinariate which is more personnal based than geography based. Same for Eastern Catholics, their diocese and patriarchate are becoming more personnal based than region based. Things will evolve again in the future too.

What will not chage however, is the Fathers will always needed to beget and provide for Churches. So how is the Papacy going to be seen? Again, the essential aspect of it we have to be considered. This is the fact of ‘first among equals’. This is an eternal fact based in natural law. Who come first have seen first thus ought to lead others in what he has learned. I believe that when they elect the Pope and consecrate him, that’s simply what they are doing. As long as it is done in the Catholic Church, by Catholic directive approved by a previous Pope, we should have a valid Pope, true successor of Peter as Pope as Peter was when they decided on circomcision.

God bless

 

[diggerdomer]

I believe Catholic exegetes cite the fact that St. Peter composed his first Epistle from “Babylon” to demonstrate that St. Peter was in Rome.

Cite the possibility or probability, perhaps. But, fact? Care to give a reference? Anyway…the Church does not teach that Catholics need to believe Peter wrote the New Testament letter attributed to him from Rome.

There is almost incontrovertible evidence that this was a reference to Rome - 1) Other contemporary writers refer to Rome as “Babylon”; 2) The actual city of Babylon did not exist anymore, as it was rendered barren by the Lord (non-Catholics apologists often fail to distinguish between the country of Babylonia from the the city of Babylon. Babylonia was indeed extant, but Babylon was an extinct city.

Almost incontrovertible…depends on what one reads. Possible, yes of course. Required for Catholic belief? no.

 

[diggerdomer]

Certainly, Sts Peter and Paul are the formal “founders” of the Roman Church that gave it its organization. Rome is their See in a very special way. That there were Christians in Rome ahead of the Chief Apostles - that was to be expected. The Roman papacy/bishopric is from them.

I did not know that the Catholic Church did not teach that the Chief Apostles founded the Roman Church. That should make for an easy removal of the most significant ecumenical roadblock!

Alex

No, Paul did not found the Christian Church in Rome. He wrote his letter to the Romans, i.e. Christians, when he obviously had not been there yet.

Whether or not Peter was there before other Christians is simply unknown. Most scholars conclude he wasn’t, given the New Testament reference to his historical presence in Jerusalem and Antioch along with the historical evidence of a very early Christian presence in Rome. There is no evidence, and no teaching from the Catholic Church, that suggests either Peter or Paul determined or imposed any organizational structure on the Christian community in Rome.

 

[diggerdomer]

Are you saying that if something isn’t in the Bible - it didn’t happen in history and there is no way of verifying it?

No.

Is the writing of all historical facts/events what the Bible was about?

No (depending on what exactly you mean by “historical facts/events”).

 

[diggerdomer]

You raise a number of good points that are central to the Catholic/Orthodox ecumenical discussions.

My point is not about the office of the Pope specifically - you are more than correct on this. My point is about the office of bishop as an ideal type.

Bishops have responsibilities for churches in cities/areas and their “jurisdiction” is tied to it. As Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan etc. (all titles and responsibilities the Pope holds), the Pope’s jurisdiction is contained within those titles.

But as “universal pontiff,” the Pope also enjoys a relationship to Churches outside of his traditional jurisdiction in the West. The Eastern Catholic churches are in communion with Rome, but the Pope does not, unless necessary, exercise the same immediate jurisdiction over them as he does over the Latin Church. That jurisdiction is shared with the EC Patriarchs and other primates. The Pope certainly is the universal bishop of the universal Latin Church over which he exercises immediate jurisdiction. Not so with all the Eastern Catholic Churches. Upon reunion with the East, the Eastern and Oriental Patriarchs would have an even greater arms’ lenght jurisdictional distance from the Pope.

This is about the issue of papal jurisdiction only, which parameters can change.

Alex

You are (imho) absolutely correct…the issue is not just about the Pope but about all Bishops.

The Pope is the Pope for all Catholics. His role does differ in some respects among the different Catholic Churches/Rites…but what is common is fundamentally more important than the (disciplinary) differences.