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

[nablaise]

Hi everyone,

I was reading this article on chiesa about the difficulties on agreements on the meaning of the primacy of the pope. A quote from the Russian Patriarchate is presented as a sign of how difficult it may be…:

“For the Orthodox participants, it is clear that in the first millennium the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was exercised only in the West, while in the East, the territories were divided between four patriarchs – those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome did not exercise any direct jurisdiction in the East in spite of the fact that in some cases Eastern hierarchs appealed to him as arbiter in theological disputes. These appeals were not systematic and can in no way be interpreted in the sense that the bishop of Rome was seen in the East as the supreme authority in the whole universal Church. It is hoped that at the next meetings of the commission, the Catholic side will agree with this position which is confirmed by numerous historical evidence.”

I was suprised because this is how I seem to have always understood the Church in the first millenium too. I don’t see how Catholics can have problem with that. I have always seen the Pope as being Pope for the whole Church, but patriarch of the West only, while the other Patriarch were for other different regions.

Now, I am thinking that perhaps the Orthodox are so bent into geography that they seem to want to theologise on it. It seems to me that this is why the Pope dropped the title of ‘Patriarch of the West’. First, I didn’t like it, then I realised that that title would not really be meaningful in our age of airplanes, trains, and internet, Ordinariates. The Pope was perhaps trying to spare them spinning their heads over geography so they can focus more on theology. However, the Orthodox seem to have understood it as an attempt to point out his universal primacy more strongly.

Well, I see the universal Church as a big family, with bishop as the Fathers of each local family. All bishops being brothers, I see the Pope as the first (elder) of the Bishops; almost like the model of the first born of a family. So while each bishop is chief in his own diocese, when it comes to universal matters, the Pope as the ‘first born’/eldest have the last word. This is I think a simple understanding of ‘presiding in love’.

So how is this hard to understand between the two talking sides? They seem to recognize it, yet…

I think at the end, theologising regions will be seen as errors and will be dropped, including theologising on Rome. Catholic seem to theologize Rome, and the Orthodox keep up the same attitude over their juridictions. This is where the confusion is perhaps coming from. Is the Pope, Pope because he is the bishop of Rome, or because he is the successor of Peter? I think Peter was first among the Apostles before the became bishop of Rome!
How if (God forbid), the Rome was to be destroyed, and the Pope exiled or even killed? whouldn’t the cardinals gather wherever and elect a new Pope? even though he may not be a bishop of Rome?

I think the Lord is calling the Church for more purity and clarity of Faith. If Rome were to disapear off the map of the world, I am sure the Catholic Church would survive and we would have a Pope. How? perhaps this is what the two great Churches have to figure out.

I have often wondered if it would be theologically wrong for a Pope to reign from his original diocese after being elected by Cardinals. Of course it is way way way better to do Pope affairs from the Vatican because it is all set up for that matter. But I think it could do great things for the universal Church for Popes to reign from their native lands. I think it will eventually happen. Or they can decide that ‘Vatican’ does not have to be in the Vatican if you see what I mean…a Universal Church Headquarters could be moved elsewhere in special cases.

I hope they don’t keep getting stuck in geopolitics. Personnaly I think that’s the problem that fueled the schism, it could be the problem to solve for the curse of this schism to be lifted.

My biggest point is: Peter was Pope before he became the Bishop of Rome.
So a priest is made Pope before he is bishop of Rome. While this is a great and noble tradition, considering that it is in Rome where the remains of the blessed Apostle Peter are, but I don’t think it is a sort of dogmatic issue!

Or am I missing something?

 

[pinctor]

How if (God forbid), the Rome was to be destroyed, and the Pope exiled or even killed? whouldn’t the cardinals gather wherever and elect a new Pope? even though he may not be a bishop of Rome?

II have often wondered if it would be theologically wrong for a Pope to reign from his original diocese after being elected by Cardinals. Of course it is way way way better to do Pope affairs from the Vatican because it is all set up for that matter. But I think it could do great things for the universal Church for Popes to reign from their native lands. I think it will eventually happen. Or they can decide that ‘Vatican’ does not have to be in the Vatican if you see what I mean…a Universal Church Headquarters could be moved elsewhere in special cases.

I think Pope Pius XII had a contingency plan at the outbreak of world war 2 to abdicate after shifting the Holy See to Portugal. And there was the exile to Avignon…

 

[bkayw]

Rome is important in that the pagan dynasty of the Roman Empire was centered there and that Romans persecuted Jesus’ Church for over 300 years.

In addition, the Roman Empire persecuted the Jews and destroyed Jewish worship in Jerusalem in 70 AD, and then marched Jewish slaves to Rome.

 

[Julian0404]

I believe today it is simultaneous in that the Pope is Pope and Bishop. In Peter days, yes, he was Pope before assuming the role Bishop of Rome.
A good thread to catch up as it is a discussion on West and East is
Help me to understand the Roman Catholic discipline on Communion

 

[JohnVIII]

My biggest point is: Peter was Pope before he became the Bishop of Rome.
So a priest is made Pope before he is bishop of Rome. … Or am I missing something?

I would like to mostly agree with you. And, I would like to take it a step further. St. Clement I was Pope before he became Bishop of Rome, even while another was Bishop of Rome. - Think about it!

 

[nablaise]

Thank you all for your comments.
I didn’t know that about St. Clement I. I think it is an interesting case.
It seem to me that Catholic and Orthodox agree on almost everything, but they still have trust issues related to geopolitics.

I will check out that thread too Julian, thanks

God bless

 

[nablaise]

I think Pope Pius XII had a contingency plan at the outbreak of world war 2 to abdicate after shifting the Holy See to Portugal. And there was the exile to Avignon…

This is an other interesting case. Perhaps they are not analysing these situations yet because they are focusing on the first millenium.

 

[nablaise]

Rome is important in that the pagan dynasty of the Roman Empire was centered there and that Romans persecuted Jesus’ Church for over 300 years.

In addition, the Roman Empire persecuted the Jews and destroyed Jewish worship in Jerusalem in 70 AD, and then marched Jewish slaves to Rome.

Yeah, Rome is very important. Perhaps the Church need to measure its exact value so as not to block unity of the Church unecessarly. Same thing for the Orthodox and their ancient see. These issues also confuse protestants as they sense something of the ‘traditions of men’. The Church need clarity here I think.

God bless

 

[Barbkw]

vatican.va/various/basiliche/necropoli/scavi_english.html

Visual tour of the Vatican over the centuries.

 

[Pregustator]

How if (God forbid), the Rome was to be destroyed, and the Pope exiled or even killed? whouldn’t the cardinals gather wherever and elect a new Pope? even though he may not be a bishop of Rome?

The cardinals would still elect a new Bishop of Rome, even if Rome were laid waste. The physical condition of the place is of no consequence. The concept of the See of Rome remains even if every building and the seven hills themselves were decimated, and not a living soul found there.

Rome is the pope’s only conceivable See. A man is the pope by virtue of the fact that he is Bishop of Rome; that is what he is actually elected to be, and from that office, the rest flows. As Bishop of Rome and only as Bishop of Rome is the pope Peter’s successor. The bishop of Paris cannot be Peter’s Successor. The bishop of Toronto cannot be Peter’s Successor. The bishop of Seoul cannot be Peter’s successor.

Furthermore, the pope might actually live and reign anywhere else in the world in the case of exile or necessity, but should he move to, say, Avignon, or to Lisbon, or to Buffalo, he is still the bishop of Rome, not of Avignon, not of Lisbon, not of Buffalo.

 

[nablaise]

The cardinals would still elect a new Bishop of Rome, even if Rome were laid waste. The physical condition of the place is of no consequence. The concept of the See of Rome remains even if every building and the seven hills themselves were decimated, and not a living soul found there.

Rome is the pope’s only conceivable See. A man is the pope by virtue of the fact that he is Bishop of Rome; that is what he is actually elected to be, and from that office, the rest flows. As Bishop of Rome and only as Bishop of Rome is the pope Peter’s successor. The bishop of Paris cannot be Peter’s Successor. The bishop of Toronto cannot be Peter’s Successor. The bishop of Seoul cannot be Peter’s successor.

Furthermore, the pope might actually live and reign anywhere else in the world in the case of exile or necessity, but should he move to, say, Avignon, or to Lisbon, or to Buffalo, he is still the bishop of Rome, not of Avignon, not of Lisbon, not of Buffalo.

Hi,

Rome is important in terms of line of succession. So yes, as long as we have cardinals created by the previous bishop of Rome, we can have the successor of Peter through them. But notice that the importance is not the city itself, but the persons and their line of successons. All we need is a successor of Peter to have a Pope. I belive this is what need clarification perhaps.

God bless

 

[diggerdomer]

Rome is important in that the pagan dynasty of the Roman Empire was centered there and that Romans persecuted Jesus’ Church for over 300 years.

In addition, the Roman Empire persecuted the Jews and destroyed Jewish worship in Jerusalem in 70 AD, and then marched Jewish slaves to Rome.

That is not why Rome is important to the Catholic Church and the Papacy.

The significance of Rome for the Catholic Church is the martyrdom of both Sts. Peter and Paul there.

 

[Pregustator]

The significance of Rome for the Catholic Church is the martyrdom of both Sts. Peter and Paul there.

No, the significance is that Rome was Peter’s see, Peter’s Church, and therefore his successors in that see and over that Church have been regarded as universal shepherds of all of the Churches (just as Peter was regarded “Prince of the Apostles”). As Rome was capital of the Empire, so it became capital of the Church. The pope is pope because he is Peter’s present day successor at Rome, and for no other reason is he pope.

Rome is important in terms of line of succession. So yes, as long as we have cardinals created by the previous bishop of Rome, we can have the successor of Peter through them. But notice that the importance is not the city itself, but the persons and their line of successons. All we need is a successor of Peter to have a Pope. I belive this is what need clarification perhaps.

How do you define a “successor of Peter” other than as a bishop of Rome? Who else would be Peter’s successor?

Is the Pope, Pope because he is the bishop of Rome, or because he is the successor of Peter?

Elected Bishop of Rome he becomes Peter’s successor, and as Peter’s successor, he is the universal pastor of the Church. But one has to be elected Bishop of Rome in order to be Peter’s successor, otherwise what see is one succeeding Peter to? A man cannot be Peter’s successor without being the Bishop of Rome.

 

[JohnVIII]

…But one has to be elected Bishop of Rome in order to be Peter’s successor, otherwise what see is one succeeding Peter to? A man cannot be Peter’s successor without being the Bishop of Rome.

I think that is just a theory. I see two successions in Rome, one being the bishop of Rome and the other being the possessor of the Keys of St Peter. St Gregory the Great said something like ‘the See of St Peter is occupied by three bishops: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch’. Also we know that St Peter said that he selected St. Clement to be his successor, yet we know that there were two other bishops before St. Clement in the See of Rome. When I put all this together it seems to me that St. Clement was the direct successor to St. Peter with regards to the Keys of the Kingdom which St. Clement held at the death of St. Peter in 68 AD, even though St. Clement did not become the Bishop of Rome until the Death of St. Cletus in 89 AD. If this theory is correct it means that St. Clement was “Pope” (i.e. he held the Keys) for 21 years before he became the Bishop of Rome.

I read alot today about how all kinds of things ‘developed’ in the Church. I think it’s also true that some of the very basic things concerning the foundation of the Church in Rome underwent a little bit of development within the first 100 years. Wasn’t St. Peter the universal head of the Church before he went to Rome and took part in the council in Jerusalem when St. James was the bishop there? Likewise St. Clement could have been universal head of the Church (in succession to St. Peter) before he became the Bishop of Rome. Of course this is just my theory, but I think it matches what facts we do know a bit better than some other theories.

 

[Pregustator]

Also we know that St Peter said that he selected St. Clement to be his successor, yet we know that there were two other bishops before St. Clement in the See of Rome. When I put all this together it seems to me that St. Clement was the direct successor to St. Peter with regards to the Keys of the Kingdom which St. Clement held at the death of St. Peter in 68 AD, even though St. Clement did not become the Bishop of Rome until the Death of St. Cletus in 89 AD. If this theory is correct it means that St. Clement was “Pope” (i.e. he held the Keys) for 21 years before he became the Bishop of Rome.

Well, the Church offers no such theory and regards Linus both as the second Bishop of Rome and as the second pope. He is known to history as “Pope Linus”. From the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

Linus’s term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect. Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e.g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine “Recognitiones”. But this hypothesis has no historical foundation. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain.

 

[diggerdomer]

No, the significance is that Rome was Peter’s see,

The Bible nowhere says Rome was Peter’s See. The Bible nowhere states Peter was ever in Rome. Peter obviously ministered in Jerusalem and Antioch, according to Scripture. So, again, no, the point is NOT that it was “Peter’s See” as you call it. The point is that he was martyred there (regardless of what else he may have done there). The Catholic tradition of the Papacy, Vicar of Peter, successor to Peter, Bishop of Rome, etc., does not depend on anything Peter did in Rome or how long he was there apart from his martyrdom there.

 

[Monica4316]

the way I’ve always understood it, the role of the Pope is:

• Bishop of Rome (not Bishop of the West, not of the world, but of Rome only)
• Patriarch of the West (and the East have their own Patriarchs)
• Pope over the other Patriarchs

so his jurisdiction builds up with each title… just as the Bishops are priests but also lead other priests. Benedict XVI is a priest, a Bishop, a Patriarch, and a Pope.

Hopefully that makes sense the Pope’s universal jurisdiction is as the Pope, not as Bishop. He is Bishop only of Rome, just like other Bishops have jurisdiction over their areas.

I think that Catholics can then agree that the Pope is Patriarch only of the West… but his role as successor of St Peter adds to his role as Patriarch, and his ‘universal jurisdiction’ is as Pope, not as Bishop or Patriarch. In those things, ,he is like other Bishops and Patriarchs. His ‘special role’ comes from being the successor of St Peter.

 

[diggerdomer]

the way I’ve always understood it, the role of the Pope is:

• Bishop of Rome (not Bishop of the West, not of the world, but of Rome only)
• Patriarch of the West (and the East have their own Patriarchs)
• Pope over the other Patriarchs

so his jurisdiction builds up with each title… just as the Bishops are priests but also lead other priests. Benedict XVI is a priest, a Bishop, a Patriarch, and a Pope.

Hopefully that makes sense the Pope’s universal jurisdiction is as the Pope, not as Bishop. He is Bishop only of Rome, just like other Bishops have jurisdiction over their areas.

I think that Catholics can then agree that the Pope is Patriarch only of the West… but his role as successor of St Peter adds to his role as Patriarch, and his ‘universal jurisdiction’ is as Pope, not as Bishop or Patriarch. In those things, ,he is like other Bishops and Patriarchs. His ‘special role’ comes from being the successor of St Peter.

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.

 

[JohnVIII]

Well, the Church offers no such theory and regards Linus both as the second Bishop of Rome and as the second pope.

…The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect.

Linus was not called a “pope”. The bishop of Alexandria used the term “pope” for his title before the bishop of Rome did. I used the term as an adjective, which I defined as the one who holds the Keys of the Kingdom from St. Peter. The Apostolic Injunctions say that Linus was ordained by St. Paul and Clement was ordained by St. Peter. I think the dates given in the Liberian Catalogue for Linus are correct. St. Paul ordained him to be the bishop of Rome in 56 AD. But Peter held the Keys until his death in 68 AD. Then upon St. Peter’s death, his successor, St Clement held the Keys from 68 AD until his death in 99 AD. But St. Clement did not assume the office of bishop of Rome until 89 AD when St. Cletus ( St. Linus’s successor) died. So it was from 89 AD onward that the bishop of Rome had a duel-successorship. The bishop in the See of Rome was established by St. Paul, but the “Pope” is the direct successor to the very person of St. Peter. Perhaps in the “Last Days” the two offices will become separate once again before the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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