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

[Cristiano]

I do not think that he is clutching at straws. The problem is with how you define the bishop of a place. If the individual is the bishop of a diocese than Peter was not the bishop of Rome. However, bishops existed well before the first diocese (Ostia 3rd century) and obviously the Church of Rome existed before that too, and so people can really fiddle around with the definitions.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Again, no indication Peter was a bishop of Rome, only that he originated the Church of Rome and we know he consecrated St Clement who was a disciple of both Sts Peter and Paul.

Sorry to burst your bubble . . .

Alex

well, let's burst the bubble just a bit more by pointing out that the two quotes were taken from spurious works and not actually written by Ignatius...

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Radical

well, let's burst the bubble just a bit more by pointing out that the two quotes were taken from spurious works and not actually written by Ignatius...

Sources please...

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Again, no indication Peter was a bishop of Rome, only that he originated the Church of Rome and we know he consecrated St Clement who was a disciple of both Sts Peter and Paul.

Sorry to burst your bubble . . .

Alex

And a lack of mentioning does not negate it either. I do not recall reading where many post-Apostolic fathers discuss the complexity of the Trinity...does it mean they never did?

[mikelionheart]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

And a lack of mentioning does not negate it either. I do not recall reading where many post-Apostolic fathers discuss the complexity of the Trinity...does it mean they never did?

Very true. Good post.

Our friend has built a typical Protestant straw man argument.

He shall be in my prayers.

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Originally Posted by highrigger1:

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, "

:

nicea,

Irenaeus did not say Peter was the first bishop of Rome. That was not declared until Third century.

He copied 1 Clement saying that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome (which we know is false) But that is not to say Peter was a bishop of Rome.

I stand by my statements and the historians I quoted. Raymond E Brown is generally considered the "dean of NT scholars"

Peace, JohnR

[highrigger1]

=Art321;9218378]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:

art,

It does not because it does not say that. To say one is a successor does not mean Peter was a bishop of Rome. The CCC does NOT say that Peter was a bishop of Rome last time I checked it.

All pastors and bishops are successors of Peter and the apostles since they have taken on the tasks of the apostles.

Peace, JohnR

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

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

nicea,

From the CCC. It plainly does not say that. Peace, JohnR

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by JustaServant

Curious he is not trying to back it up. Over 100 posts in three days, he certainly has the time.

justa,

I always try to back up my statments. This is easy to back it up. The CCC simply never says Peter was a bishop.

To say the Pope is a successor of Peter does NOT state that Peter was a bishop anywhere nor does it need to. I have no dispute that the Pope is a successor of Peter as any bishop or pastor who has taken on the tasks of Peter and the apostels are successors.

Peace, JohnR

[Cristiano]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

nicea,

Irenaeus did not say Peter was the first bishop of Rome. That was not declared until Third century.

He copied 1 Clement saying that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome (which we know is false) But that is not to say Peter was a bishop of Rome.

I stand by my statements and the historians I quoted. Raymond E Brown is generally considered the "dean of NT scholars"

Peace, JohnR

First you what do you exactly mean when you say that Peter and Paul did not found the Church of Rome? Are you saying that Peter and Paul were never in Rome?

I also think that you are making a big difference between being the bishop and leader of a Church in a city and being a bishop with his own diocese. Bishops as leaders and teaching authorities of Churches in the cities existed well before the concept of diocese. There was no diocese of Rome at the time but there was the Church of Rome and Peter was its bishop.

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Again, no indication Peter was a bishop of Rome, only that he originated the Church of Rome and we know he consecrated St Clement who was a disciple of both Sts Peter and Paul.

Sorry to burst your bubble . . .

Alex

alexander,

More bubbles to burst. Neither did Peter or Paul originate the Roman church. Clement was no more than a baby when Peter and Paul died. Not a disciple at all. Where did you get that.

Here is Raymond Brown to explain.

^ Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P. (1983). Antioch and Rome: New
Testament Cradles of Christianity. Paulist Press. p. 98. "As for
Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what
he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the
original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and
therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense).
There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local
ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church--a claim not made till
the third century. Most likely he did not spend any majortime at Rome
before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been
only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that
Peter came to the capital."

Peace, JohnR

[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

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by Cristiano

First you what do you exactly mean when you say that Peter and Paul did not found the Church of Rome? Are you saying that Peter and Paul were never in Rome?

I also think that you are making a big difference between being the bishop and leader of a Church in a city and being a bishop with his own diocese. Bishops as leaders and teaching authorities of Churches in the cities existed well before the concept of diocese. There was no diocese of Rome at the time but there was the Church of Rome and Peter was its bishop.

cristiano.

Historians say that Peter and Paul were likely in Rome but late in the 60s. Peter was never a bishop in Rome or anywhere.

There was a church of course so Peter could not have founded it, but neither is there any firm evidence or proof that Peter was a bishop there. In fact there is a lot showing he was not. There was no monarchical bishop in the Roman church until mid second century. Tht is what the historians say. All I have read say that and I have read most of the top ones.

Peace, JohnR

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Sources please...

nicea,

I have so many I cannot count them all. Here is one.

Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be
handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no
successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession"
to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several
centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively
called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even
so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes."

Garry Wills book What Paul Meant p166
Discussing the 1 Clement and Ignatius letters.

"It is interesting that neither Clement nor Ignatius describes Peter and
Paul as anything but emissaries. Ignatius is the bishop of Antioch, where he
too has been betrayed by Brothers, and he makes much of the bishops office,
addressing the bishops in every other locale he writes a letter to - but
no bishop in Rome. Peter was never the bishop of Rome. Of course he was
a latecomer there, even later than Paul, who did not include him in
the Brothers he addressed in the letter to Rome."

Peace, JohnR

[Cristiano]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

nicea,

I have so many I cannot count them all. Here is one.

Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be
handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no
successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession"
to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several
centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively
called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even
so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes."

Garry Wills book What Paul Meant p166
Discussing the 1 Clement and Ignatius letters.

"It is interesting that neither Clement nor Ignatius describes Peter and
Paul as anything but emissaries. Ignatius is the bishop of Antioch, where he
too has been betrayed by Brothers, and he makes much of the bishops office,
addressing the bishops in every other locale he writes a letter to - but
no bishop in Rome. Peter was never the bishop of Rome. Of course he was
a latecomer there, even later than Paul, who did not include him in
the Brothers he addressed in the letter to Rome."

Peace, JohnR

Gary Wills is really anti-catholic in his behaviors. He appears to have a strong agenda against papal infallibility. I would not count him as a reliable Catholic reference to say that Peter was not a Bishop.