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

[diggerdomer]

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?

It is both the same as any Bishop and distinct from them. Peter was an Apostle, one of 12, and yet from the New Testament witness obviously had a certain relationship, or ministry, that set him apart in some ways.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus gives Peter (only) the “keys to the kingdom.” (see Matt 16) This does not diminish the role/ministry of other Apostles (see Matt 18).

Catholic theology holds both these teachings, though they can appear to be in tension.

The role of the Bishop of Rome, practically, continued to evolve in the Church. Historical and political influences played a significant role along with theological influences. The way the Papacy was understood and exercised has changed throughout history, and likely will continue to develop as needed to further the Gospel.

To be Catholic is to be in communion with the Pope (Bishop of Rome).

 

[JohnVIII]

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.

At the end of the epistle to the Romans Paul says, “Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ” (Romans 16:25). Does this not mean that Rome has not yet been established (that is with a bishop)? And who is better suited to establish Rome “according to my (Paul’s) gospel”, than Paul? And we should not disregard the fact that the Apostolic Injunctions do state that Linus was ordained by Paul and Clement was chosen by Peter.

But it matters little who was the first bishop of any city. Showing that the first bishop of a city was established by some apostle doesn’t prove much beyond the fact that the church there is a genuine Christian Church. If the first bishop of a city is established by St. Paul, that does not make that bishop a successor to St. Paul personally. In fact none of the apostles have successors to them personally except for one. St. Peter, and St. Peter alone is the only apostle who has a successor to him personally. And St. Peter was not ‘the first among equals’, but all the apostles together (including Peter) are equal to St. Peter. You could say that St. Andrew (the first called) was the first among equals, but as the saying goes, ‘Many are called, but few are Chosen’. The succession of St. Peter is a line of authority that is above any bishop, because it is a universal authority. The Eastern Orthodox today don’t believe this, but the Eastern Churches did in times past. For example, at the Council of Chalcedon (which consisted mostly of Eastern bishops) they said, “Peter has spoken through Leo”, a clear acknowledgment of a higher authority in the successorship of St. Peter.