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

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by highrigger1:

The Catholic church no longer teaches that Peter was a bishop of Rome.

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

None of them were liars but Ambrose was mistaken. He believed the mytholodgy invented in the third century.

highrigger1:

He (Irenaeus) is repeating legends and myths just as you are. Modern scholars know better. The reason I say the same is because you keep asserting the same thing.

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."

highrigger1:

I have provided some of the top historians but you want to dismiss them as if nobody but you knows about Irenaeus.

TOP historians?

[Art321]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Originally Posted by highrigger1:
When did the CC stop teaching Peter was a bishop of Rome? Documents please...

Responding to the title of this thread, the CC has now and always taught that the St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. Hopfully this will help:

Christ Builds His Church on Peter
General Audience — November 25, 1992

We have seen that according to the Council's teaching, which is a summary of the Church's traditional doctrine, there exists an "order of bishops which is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors." Indeed this episcopal college "gives this apostolic body continued existence, [and] is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff" (LG 22).

This text of Vatican II tells us about the Petrine ministry exercised in the Church by the Bishop of Rome as the head of the episcopal college. We will devote the set of catecheses that we are beginning today to this important and significant point of Catholic doctrine. We intend to give a clear, reasoned exposition of this teaching, in which the feeling of personal inadequacy is joined to that of the responsibility which stems from Jesus' mandate to Peter, and in particular, from the divine teacher's response to this profession of faith in the region of Caesarea Philippi (cf. Mt 16:13-19).

Let us again examine the text and context of the important dialogue handed down to us by the evangelist Matthew. After asking: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" (Mt 16:13), Jesus asked his apostles a more direct question: "But who do you say that I am?" (Mt 16:15). It is already significant that Simon answered in the name of the Twelve: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:13-16). One might think that Simon made himself the spokesman for the Twelve by force of his own more vigorous and impulsive personality. Possibly this factor came into play to some extent. However, Jesus attributed his answer to a special revelation from the heavenly Father: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father" (Mt 16:17). Above and beyond factors of temperament, character, ethnic background or social status ("flesh and blood"), Simon was the beneficiary of an illumination and inspiration from on high that Jesus identified as "revelation." In virtue of this revelation Simon made a profession of faith in the name of the Twelve.

Here is Jesus' declaration, which in the very solemnity of its form manifests the binding and constitutive meaning that the Teacher intends to give it: "And so I say to you, you are Peter" (Mt 16:18). The declaration is indeed solemn: "I say to you." It involves Jesus' sovereign authority. It is a word of revelation, of effective revelation in that it accomplishes what it says.

A new name was given to Simon, the sign of a new mission. That this name was given is confirmed by Mark (3:16) and Luke (6:14) in their accounts of the choice of the Twelve. John also speaks of it, indicating that Jesus used the Aramaic word Kephas , which in Greek is translated as Petros (Jn 1:42).

We should remember that the Aramaic word Kephas which Jesus used, as well as the Greek word Petros which translates it, means "rock." In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus gave the example of the "wise man who built his house on rock" (Mt 7:24). Addressing Simon, Jesus declared to him that because of his faith, a gift from God, he had the solidity of rock upon which an unshakable edifice could be built. Jesus then stated his own decision to build on this rock just such a building--his Church.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...9921125en.html

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Art321

Responding to the title of this thread, the CC has now and always taught that the St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. Hopfully this will help:




http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...9921125en.html

Yeah unfortunately our brother highrigger1 believes otherwise? I have no idea where he/she is getting such information from?

[Art321]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Yeah unfortunately our brother highrigger1 believes otherwise? I have no idea where he/she is getting such information from?

I'm with you but still I await to hear what he/she has to say on this. Hopfully we'll get a response soon.

[Ecoclimber]

Ignatius 30 -107 AD

Now it occurs to me to mention, that the report is true which I heard of thee whilst thou wast at Rome with the blessed father Linus, whom the deservedly-blessed Clement, a hearer of Peter and Paul, has now succeeded.

And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him,...... Anencletus and Clement to Peter?

[rben20]

As a Catholic, I don't understand Peter being the first bishop. Anyone who denies Peter being in Rome makes no sense though, agree with that. Peter was a traveling apostle who started churches not just in Rome but in Antioch as well. Could it be that he was not the first pope but the selector of the first pope instead? Otherwise, how would we explain Antioch? Can their church which is Orthodox also claim Peter as their first bishop? They would have to be able to using the same logic. Then Primacy becomes a can of worms.....

[The GreyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by rben20

As a Catholic, I don't understand Peter being the first bishop. Anyone who denies Peter being in Rome makes no sense though, agree with that. Peter was a traveling apostle who started churches not just in Rome but in Antioch as well. Could it be that he was not the first pope but the selector of the first pope instead? Otherwise, how would we explain Antioch? Can their church which is Orthodox also claim Peter as their first bishop? They would have to be able to using the same logic. Then Primacy becomes a can of worms.....

The foundation from and Apostle was not the only criteria of determining the primacy of a See. It also had to do with the population and relative importance of the city as well. Rome was a larger & more important see than Antioch, on top of the fact that Peter was martyred and buried in Rome(along with Paul being executed & buired outside of Rome's walls).

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim

The foundation from and Apostle was not the only criteria of determining the primacy of a See. It also had to do with the population and relative importance of the city as well. Rome was a larger & more important see than Antioch, on top of the fact that Peter was martyred and buried in Rome(along with Paul being executed & buired outside of Rome's walls).

grey,

None of that is evidence that Peter was a bishop either in Antioc (not) or Rome (not)

Peace, JohnR

[The GreyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

grey,

None of that is evidence that Peter was a bishop either in Antioc (not) or Rome (not)

Peace, JohnR

A "bishop" is an "overseer". Peter was a Bishop of the Church as well as being an Apostle. The terms are not nutually exclusive. If the common understanding that Peter named his successor as the bishop of the largest and most important city in the Empire at the time, then you have an obvious conundrum on your hands.

Or by what right did St. Clement of Rome have to write a letter to the church at Corinth before teh end of the first century because they were misbehaving and dismissing their bishop and presbyters? If all Christian churches are as autonomous as protestant "churches" are today, what right did he have to interfere? That is, unless he was exercising a right delegated to him and conferred upon him by Peter's office and authority?

Peter WAS buried on Vatican Hill near Nero's circus and his grave was marked by a flag stone called the "Trophy of Gaius". The basilica bearing Peter's name was later built on top of that tomb and even today you can go down and visit Peter;s final resting spot. In ROME, on Vatican Hill, under St Peter's.

To deny this is to accept foolishness.

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim

A "bishop" is an "overseer". Peter was a Bishop of the Church as well as being an Apostle. The terms are not nutually exclusive. If the common understanding that Peter named his successor as the bishop of the largest and most important city in the Empire at the time, then you have an obvious conundrum on your hands.

Or by what right did St. Clement of Rome have to write a letter to the church at Corinth before teh end of the first century because they were misbehaving and dismissing their bishop and presbyters? If all Christian churches are as autonomous as protestant "churches" are today, what right did he have to interfere? That is, unless he was exercising a right delegated to him and conferred upon him by Peter's office and authority?

Peter WAS buried on Vatican Hill near Nero's circus and his grave was marked by a flag stone called the "Trophy of Gaius". The basilica bearing Peter's name was later built on top of that tomb and even today you can go down and visit Peter;s final resting spot. In ROME, on Vatican Hill, under St Peter's.

To deny this is to accept foolishness.

Right the context of the debate hinged on the word "Bishop" in the CCC which is a "moot" arguement in light of the CCC/history/oral Tradition and Scripture.

Peace

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by rben20

As a Catholic, I don't understand Peter being the first bishop. Anyone who denies Peter being in Rome makes no sense though, agree with that. Peter was a traveling apostle who started churches not just in Rome but in Antioch as well. Could it be that he was not the first pope but the selector of the first pope instead? Otherwise, how would we explain Antioch? Can their church which is Orthodox also claim Peter as their first bishop? They would have to be able to using the same logic. Then Primacy becomes a can of worms.....

This is why the apostolic fathers typically did not ascribe a particular city (or the title of 'bishop') to the Apostles. To them, because of the bishop's unique and non-transferable attachment to the Christian community in one location, it would have been inappropriate to call the apostles bishops, because doing so would have detracted from their special mission, which was universal, and not limited to one community.

[KateKimmer]

wish I could make heads or tails out of this thread!

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by KateKimmer

wish I could make heads or tails out of this thread!

You would have to go to this thread to follow the OP...it started somewhere in this thread at about this point...Please refute this Sola Scriptura...


http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...660248&page=27

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

This is why the apostolic fathers typically did not ascribe a particular city (or the title of 'bishop') to the Apostles. To them, because of the bishop's unique and non-transferable attachment to the Christian community in one location, it would have been inappropriate to call the apostles bishops, because doing so would have detracted from their special mission, which was universal, and not limited to one community.

Perfect explanation and entirely consistent with the Church's understanding of the roles of "Bishop" and "Apostle."

Alex

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

This is why the apostolic fathers typically did not ascribe a particular city (or the title of 'bishop') to the Apostles. To them, because of the bishop's unique and non-transferable attachment to the Christian community in one location, it would have been inappropriate to call the apostles bishops, because doing so would have detracted from their special mission, which was universal, and not limited to one community.

cavar,

Peter was never a bishop anywhere and never ordained anyone. He was a great christiann however and a great example of a shepherd of the church. Any bishop wants to claim succession from him is fine to me. The pope is certainly such a successor.

I just want to get the history right. Peter did not found the Roman church and he was never a bishop. Peace, JohnR