Bishop of Rome?


#1

I was talking to some Orthodox, and they told me that Peter was the Bishop of Antioch, and actually the founder of the Church of Antioch, and that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, and Peter traveled there later in life, and was revered as a leader the Christian community in Rome, but he was not the first pope, as Roman Catholics assert. They were saying that the first “pope” was in fact Nicholas I, and previous to that the term “pope” was not used, which is actually a pagan title. I found this very interesting, since I had never heard this before. This is what I found on the New Advent site:

"The later tradition, which existed as early as the end of the second century (Origen, “Hom. vi in Lucam”; Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, III, xxxvi), that Peter founded the Church of Antioch, indicates the fact that he laboured a long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end of his life and then appointed Evodrius, the first of the line of Antiochian bishops, head of the community. This latter view would best explain the tradition referring the foundation of the Church of Antioch to St. Peter.

“It is also probable that Peter pursued his Apostolic labours in various districts of Asia Minor for it can scarcely be supposed that the entire period between his liberation from prison and the Council of the Apostles was spent uninterruptedly in one city, whether Antioch, Rome, or elsewhere.”

And also…

“…at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians… St. Peter himself came to Antioch (Galatians 2:11), probably about the year 44, and according to all appearances lived there for some time.”

Of course, the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia assert that Evodius was the first bishop of Antioch.

Also, the entry concerning Linus seems to be quite confused. Nobody seems to know exactly when he was bishop, for how long, and who came before or after him. And very short! One would think that the “second” bishop of Rome would have more of a story, but apparently not.

Here are some quotes from some Orthodox sites:

"The See of Antioch dates back to the days of the Apostles Peter and Paul, founders and patrons of the Church of Antioch, and currently ranks third in honor among the fifteen autocephalous Orthodox Churches. It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). The first Bishop of Antioch was St. Peter the Apostle and the third was St. Ignatius of Antioch; it was from Antioch that Saint Peter and Saint Barnabas set out on their great missionary journeys, a tradition that marks the history of the Church of Antioch. "

“Church tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by Saint Peter the Apostle in A.D. 34 . Peter was either followed or joined by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas who preached there to both Gentiles and to Jews, who seem to have been numerous in the city. …] After spending some seven years in Antioch, Peter left for Rome. To succeed him as bishop of Antioch he appointed Euodius, who is thus counted in early episcopal lists as the first successor to the Antiochian Throne of Peter.”

“The spiritual care of the Church of Antioch was vested in the Bishop of Antioch from the earliest years of Christianity. The first among the Bishops of Antioch was St. Peter who is believed to have established a church at Antioch in AD 33.”

“The Church of Antioch is the successor to the Christian community founded in Antioch by the Apostles Peter (who served as its first bishop) and Paul, who are its patron saints. In terms of hierarchical order of precedence, it ranks third among the world’s Orthodox churches, behind Constantinople and Alexandria.”

So, if Peter was actually bishop of Antioch first, this throws the whole “primacy of Peter” thing right out the window, doesn’t it?


#2

History informs us that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch; in fact, Church Fathers claim that St. Ignatiuis was ordained by St. Peter himself.

Early Tradition tells us that Peter then went to Rome:
Dionysius of Corinth
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (*Letter to Pope Soter *[A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Ireneaus wrote:
“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

Notworthy


#3

[quote=tiny’smommy]So, if Peter was actually bishop of Antioch first, this throws the whole “primacy of Peter” thing right out the window, doesn’t it?
[/quote]

I don’t see how it does that. Christ told Peter that he was the rock and that He would build His Church upon this rock (Matthew 16:18). Jesus didn’t list any particular geographical area that Peter had to be bishop of in order for him to continue being the foundation and first earthly head of the Church. It just so happens that most of the early Christian tradition affirms that both Peter and Paul spent the last years of their lives in Rome and ordained Linus to succeed Peter as bishop of Rome. If you want some evidence of this read Paul Johnson’s *The Papacy * or *A History of Christianity * or *The Early Church * by Henry Chadwick. Peter’s primacy isn’t established by his Roman residency; that’s a backwards way of looking at it. Rather, the primacy of Rome was established by Peter being there, and to a slightly lesser degree by Paul being there with him.


#4

Now, I realize you could just say, going by that line of logic alone that I’ve just displayed, “Well, doesn’t the bishop of Antioch have just as much of a claim to primacy if Peter was in Antioch too, and there before Rome?” The most obvious reply, I think, is just a simple examination of a trend in Church history: it was the See of Rome that began exercising primacy over the rest of the Church, not Antioch or any other. One example would be Clement’s letter to the Corinthians in the effort to resolve a dispute there when their church overthrew the ruling class of presbyters. At the very least, doesn’t this trend in history seem like it could be an indication of which bishopric was mandated by God to lead the earthly Church? There’s a wealth of scriptural and traditional evidence for the belief in an earthly head of the Church, like the prophecy in Isaih 22 in the Old Testament, but other posters are going to have to help with that.


#5

[quote=CollegeKid]There’s a wealth of scriptural and traditional evidence for the belief in an earthly head of the Church, like the prophecy in Isaih 22 in the Old Testament,
[/quote]

Not to say that this prophecy refers to the bishop of Rome, it refers to the earthly leader of the Israelites. However, I do think it goes to show that the Catholic Church has more continuity with Israel as described in the Old Testament because we have an earthly head as they did under the Old Covenant, and Christian tradition affirms that Christ came to fulfill the Old Covenant with the New, not destroy it and replace it with something totally alien.


#6

I read the arguments and the history but in the end it doesn’t really matter, concerning the office of Pope and the apostolic succession -

a) where Peter was bishop
b) what his title at the time was
c) when the term “pope” was first used.

Succession and the office do not depend one bit on location or on what name the office was or wasn’t once given.


#7

Additionally, the term “pope” is not a pagan title. The term “pope” is an affectionate Italian way of saying “father.” It is roughly equivalent to a child saying “papa” or “daddy.”


#8

[quote=Lazerlike42]Additionally, the term “pope” is not a pagan title. The term “pope” is an affectionate Italian way of saying “father.” It is roughly equivalent to a child saying “papa” or “daddy.”
[/quote]

Good answer…anyone who asserts that is pagan is either showing abysmal ignorance or some kind of anti-Catholic agenda.


#9

I was talking to some Orthodox, and they told me that Peter was the Bishop of Antioch, and actually the founder of the Church of Antioch, and that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, and Peter traveled there later in life, and was revered as a leader the Christian community in Rome, but he was not the first pope, as Roman Catholics assert.<<<

If they want to assert that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, simply ask them for some verifiable historical record to that fact. (I doubt they have any since the ECFs establish that Linus succeeded Peter, not preceeeded him.)

Secondly, while it was true that Peter founded the church in Antioch, it is apparent that they are claiming that the seat of the see of Antioch is the true seat of authority from Peter and not Rome. All you need to do then is ask them to provide you with an unbroken line of successors from Peter to… Golly gee whiz Batman, who is the current Bishop of Antioch and therefore the current Pope?

You can provide an unbroken line from Peter to Benedict XVI in Rome, they cannot do the same from the Antioch line.

Thal59


#10

There’s a simple way of dealing with this nonsense (because that’s what it is – and that’s being charitable.)

Say, "Gee, you’re right! So you guys accept the authority of the Bishop of Antioch? And your pastor was ordained under his authority?"http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon10.gif


#11

[quote=vern humphrey]There’s a simple way of dealing with this nonsense (because that’s what it is – and that’s being charitable.)

Say, "Gee, you’re right! So you guys accept the authority of the Bishop of Antioch? And your pastor was ordained under his authority?"http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
[/quote]

:rotfl:

I love it!


#12

Actually, Antioch CAN and DOES claim a list of successive bishops all the way back to St. Peter.

I believe Latin Catholics should read up more on the Eastern Churches. Some of your arguments cause Catholicism in general to lose credibility with other apostolic Christians.

Blessings,
marduk


#13

To summarize a non-catholic contention, you can accept that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, you can even accept, although this is open to serious debate, that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
I contend the Bible teaches that JERUSALEM is the location of the apostles and if ANY location has supreme importance, that is it AND that the office itself…the Bishop of Rome lacks biblical evidence in its importance. That the Catholic church has placed such an importance on Peter’s third job is a result of historical circumstances, (destruction of Jerusalem), developing tradition(as opposed to tradition which comes from 30 to 60 CE) and not a teaching of Christ Jesus.
BH


#14

[quote=mardukm]Actually, Antioch CAN and DOES claim a list of successive bishops all the way back to St. Peter.

I believe Latin Catholics should read up more on the Eastern Churches. Some of your arguments cause Catholicism in general to lose credibility with other apostolic Christians.

Blessings,
marduk
[/quote]

Brother Marduk, yes, Peter & Paul were the founders of the Church at Antioch, of which there are 3 Eastern Catholic Churches which can trace their lineage back to him (also two Orthodox Churches, the Eastern and the Orientals). From there he traveled to Rome and he founded the Church at Rome. His authority left Antioch when he traveled to Rome and founded the Church there and left a valid successor (Ignatius) in his place at Antioch. Antioch possesed the Primacy when Peter was in Rome, but since Peter continued to found Churches, subsequently the authority left there and went to Rome (as we can see from the writings of the Church Fathers).


#15

[quote=BrianH]That the Catholic church has placed such an importance on Peter’s third job is a result of historical circumstances, (destruction of Jerusalem), developing tradition(as opposed to tradition which comes from 30 to 60 CE) and not a teaching of Christ Jesus.
BH
[/quote]

We are not discussing Sacred Tradition, so please open a new thread.


#16

[quote=Semper Fi]Brother Marduk, yes, Peter & Paul were the founders of the Church at Antioch, of which there are 3 Eastern Catholic Churches which can trace their lineage back to him (also two Orthodox Churches, the Eastern and the Orientals). From there he traveled to Rome and he founded the Church at Rome. His authority left Antioch when he traveled to Rome and founded the Church there and left a valid successor (Ignatius) in his place at Antioch. Antioch possesed the Primacy when Peter was in Rome, but since Peter continued to found Churches, subsequently the authority left there and went to Rome (as we can see from the writings of the Church Fathers).
[/quote]

Can’t edit… meant to say that Antioch possessed the primacy when Peter was in Antioch… :wink:

One more thing that I would like to mention is an analogy in the secular world. Let’s say for instance that for some reason Congress moved the capitol of the U.S. from Washington D.C. to Denver. Just because Washington D.C. once held the prominance as the capitol of America, would it still? No.


#17

[quote=Semper Fi]We are not discussing Sacred Tradition, so please open a new thread.
[/quote]

Semper Fi

Tradition is mentioned in the first five posts. Any particular reason you object to me using the word once as well?
BH


#18

rome is where Peter died and was burried. As well as Paul
st julie


#19

[quote=Thal59
[/quote]] All you need to do then is ask them to provide you with an unbroken line of successors from Peter to… Golly gee whiz Batman, who is the current Bishop of Antioch and therefore the current Pope?

You can provide an unbroken line from Peter to Benedict XVI in Rome, they cannot do the same from the Antioch line.
[/quote]

As you asked!

Primates of the Apostolic See of Antioch
(Orthodox Succession)

1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch.

2 53 The Episcopacy of Eudoius in Antioch.

3 68 The Episcopacy of St. Ignatius (d. 107) in Antioch.

4 100 The Episcopacy of Heros in Antioch.

5 127 The Episcopacy of Cornelius in Antioch.

6 151 The Episcopacy of Heros II in Antioch.

7 169 The Episcopacy of Theophilus (d. 181/182) in Antioch.

8 188 The Episcopacy of Maximianus (d. 190/191) in Antioch.

9 191-212 The Episcopacy of Serapion in Antioch.

10 212-218 The Episcopacy of Aslipiades in Antioch.

11 218-231 The Episcopacy of Philetus in Antioch.

12 232 The Episcopacy of Zebinus (a.k.a. Zenobius) in Antioch.

13 240 The Episcopacy of St. Babylas in Antioch.

14 253 The Episcopacy of Fabius in Antioch.

15 256 The Episcopacy of Demetrian in Antioch.

16 263 The Episcopacy of Amphilochius in Antioch.

17 267 The Episcopacy of Paul of Samosata in Antioch.

18 270 The Episcopacy of Dmonus in Antioch.

19 273 The Episcopacy of Timaeus in Antioch.

20 277 The Episcopacy of Cyril in Antioch.

21 299 The Episcopacy of Tyrannion in Antioch.

22 308 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

23 314 The Episcopacy of Philogonius in Antioch.

24 324 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

25 325 The Episcopacy of Eustathius in Antioch.

26 332 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

27 332 The Episcopacy of Eulalius (5 months) in Antioch.

28 333 The Episcopacy of Euphronius in Antioch.

29 334 The Episcopacy of Placentius in Antioch.

30 341 The Episcopacy of Stephanus in Antioch.

31 345 The Episcopacy of Leontius in Antioch.

32 350 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

33 354 The Episcopacy of Meletius in Antioch.

34 354 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

35 357 The Episcopacy of Annias (a.k.a. Ammianus) in Antioch.

36 360 The Episcopacy of Eudozius in Antioch.

37 370 The Episcopacy of Dorotheus in Antioch.

38 371 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

39 376 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

40 384 The Episcopacy of Flavian in Antioch.

41 404 The Episcopacy of Porphyrius in Antioch.

42 408 The Episcopacy of Alexander in Antioch.

43 418 The Episcopacy of Theodotus in Antioch.

44 427 The Episcopacy of John in Antioch.

45 443 The Episcopacy of Domnus II in Antioch.

46 450 The Episcopacy of Maximus in Antioch.

See elevated to dignity of a Patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon in 451

47 459 The Patriarchate of Basil in Antioch.

48 459 The Patriarchate of Acacius in Antioch.

49 461 The Patriarchate of Martyrius in Antioch.

I am cutting out a few centuries so that there are not too many messages. But you can find the entire unbroken succession of Patriarchs at

antiochian.org/667


#20

120 1269 The Patriarchate of Theodosius IV in Antioch.

121 1276 The Patriarchate of Theodosius V in Antioch.

122 1285 The Patriarchate of Arsenius in Antioch.

123 1293 The Patriarchate of Dionysius in Antioch.

124 1308 The Patriarchate of Mark in Antioch.

Patriarchal See transferred to Damascus in 1342

125 1342 The Patriarchate of Ignatius II in Damascus.

127 1386 The Patriarchate of Pachomius in Damascus.

128 1393 The Patriarchate of Nilus in Damascus.

129 1401 The Patriarchate of Michael III in Damascus.

130 1410 The Patriarchate of Pachomius II in Damascus.

131 1411 The Patriarchate of Joachim II in Damascus.

132 1426 The Patriarchate of Mark III in Damascus.

133 1436 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus II in Damascus.

134 1454 The Patriarchate of Michael IV in Damascus.

135 1476 The Patriarchate of Mark IV in Damascus.

136 1476 The Patriarchate of Joachim III in Damascus.

137 1483 The Patriarchate of Gregory III in Damascus.

139 1497-1523 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus III in Damascus.

140 1523-1541 The Patriarchate of Michael V in Damascus.

141 1541-1543 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus IV in Damascus.

142 1543-1576 The Patriarchate of Joachim IV (Ibn Juma) in Damascus.

143 1577-1581 The Patriarchate of Michael VI (Sabbagh) in Damascus.

144 1581-1592 The Patriarchate of Joachim V in Damascus.

145 1593-1604 The Patriarchate of Joachim VI in Damascus.

146 1604-1611 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus V in Damascus.

147 1611-1619 The Patriarchate of Athanasius III (Dabbas) in Damascus.

148 1619-1631 The Patriarchate of Ignatius III (Attiyah) in Damascus.

149 1635-1636 The Patriarchate of Euthymius III in Damascus.

150 1636-1648 The Patriarchate of Euthymius IV in Damascus.

151 1648-1672 The Patriarchate of Michael III (Zaim) in Damascus.

152 1674-1684 The Patriarchate of Neophytos I in Damascus.

153 1686-1694 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

154 1694-1720 The Patriarchate of Cyril III (Zaim) in Damascus.

155 1720-1724 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

Separation of the Melkites. The Greek Patriarchs

156 1724-1766 The Patriarchate of Sylvester I in Damascus.

157 1766-1767 The Patriarchate of Philemon I in Damascus.

158 1767-1791 The Patriarchate of Daniel I in Damascus.

159 1792-1813 The Patriarchate of Euthymius I in Damascus.

160 1813-1823 The Patriarchate of Seraphim I in Damascus.

161 1843-1859 The Patriarchate of Methodius I in Damascus.

162 1850-1885 The Patriarchate of Hierotheos I in Damascus.

163 1885-1891 The Patriarchate of Gerasimos I in Damascus.

164 1892-1898 The Patriarchate of Spyridon I in Damascus.

Restoration of the Arab Patriarchs

165 1899-1906 The Patriarchate of Meletius II (Doumani) in Damascus.

166 1906-1928 The Patriarchate of Gregory IV(Haddad) in Damascus.

167 1928-1958 The Patriarchate of Alexander III (Tahan) in Damascus.

168 1958-1970 The Patriarchate of Theodosius VI (Abourjaily) in Damascus.

169 1970-1979 The Patriarchate of Elias IV (Muawad) in Damascus.

170 1979- The Patriarchate of Ignatius IV (Hazim, 1921- ) in Damascus.

From
antiochian.org/667


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.