there were no bishops of rome until 90 years after peter?

this orthodox anti-catholic site claims the roman catholic church originally didnt have a papacy

cogwriter.com/catholic.htm

an interesting fact is that many prominent Roman Catholic Church scholars contend that statements implying that there were actual bishops of Rome who succeeded Peter are inaccurate as there were no leaders who held the title “Bishop of Rome” until about 80-90 years after Peter died

cogwriter.com/roman.htm

What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History

I think CoG(the sect behind the website) isnt orthodox but a sect that claims to be neither protestant,orthodox or catholic.

I think what the evidence shows is not that there was no bishop of Rome, but that there was no single bishop of Rome.

While we disagree on the papacy, isn’t the monarchical episcopate just as central to Orthodoxy as it is to Catholicism? St Ignatius of Antioch is pretty firm on the singular authority of THE local bishop.

A completely silly bit of nonsense that doesn’t even pretend to disprove the Church’s claim to magesterial authority.

Yes, however the situation in Rome apparently didn’t settle into a single bishop for a little while, I suspect because of the level of persecution. You will note that no one seems to agree on the order of the first few successors to Peter. Each account puts the first few in different orders.

The register of the Bishops of Rome is on the front page of the Vatican website:

w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html

Linus succeeded Peter the same year he died. 68 AD

One wonders how then, that the First Epistle of Clement came to be written, why it was given weight, and why it has been preserved. From the Wiki:

"Scholars have proposed a range of dates, but most limit the possibilities to the last two decades of the 1st century,[3] and no later than AD 140.[4] The traditional date for Clement’s epistle is at the end of the reign of Domitian (c. AD 96): the phrase “sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us” (1:1) is taken as a reference to persecutions under Domitian. The Epistle to the Hebrews’ call for leadership from the church in Rome has been thought to have been influential.[5] Some scholars believe 1 Clement was written around the same time as the Book of Revelation (c. AD 95 – 97).

Clement followed Anacletus and Linus (named in scripture) who followed Peter. But, anti-Catholic hatred is much smarter than history.

Thanks for the correction. COG is church of God. Herbert W Armstrong. The posthumous history of the group is interesting. One wonders how they have the time to critique the Catholic Church when their time is spent critiquing each other.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

Weren’t there several million citizens of Rome in those days? Did any city that size have one single Bishop?

I’ve read more about this group,thery claim the ECF were all binatarian,and that the church went apostate wich Christ promised wouldn’t happen.

No. That was the estimated population of the Roman Empire.

1 Clement nowhere demonstrates a single bishop - his name is not even in the epistle. Rather, it was from the elders, not from the bishop of Rome. The letter indicates there was no bishop of Rome at the time. It was later generations that ascribed it to him, singularly. If you read it you will realize it does not contain the sort of language popes used later on. It is exhortation, not commandment.

I find it to be a good argument against papal claims of continuity from Peter. The idea of a singular pope was one that developed only later. Gregory the Great, a pope, rejected the idea of a universal papal monarch. He was horrified at the idea.

And on suicide. He was not exactly right in the head. And how could he buddy up with the Christians everywhere he went if he was closely guarded by vicious guards? His story is suspect. A number of his epistles have been determined to be fraudulent, which suggests the others may be questionable.

I could actually buy the argument that Peter was a sort of head pastor in the Roman church and that they had a pastor with elders (very Presbyterian!) that evolved into a bishop-priest hierarchy that eventually grew historically into the papacy. Hypothetically I could accept that that might even have been the divine plan. But the overly hyped claims of things like a line of popes back to the beginning and things like the Donation of Constantine really turn me off to accepting legitimacy of the pope as any sort of leader. If he is really legitimate, then why so many lies, so many deceptions, so much ‘the ends justify the means’ to establish that?

Ignatius had accepted his sentence. His sentence was not going to be changed. He was concerned that he’d waver in his acceptance and faith in eternal life, and so cautioned people from doing things that would make him waver. Acceptance of death when it comes is not suicide.

I’m not sure why we need to call the guards vicious. They had a weeks (if not longer journey), no doubt spoke. There may even have been some respect from the soldiers doing their duty. There’s nothing terribly unusual about him seeing Christian communities on the way.

Is it unusual that Paul, under house arrest, still had access to writing materials, a scribe, and Christian visitors coming and going? Mayhaps Paul’s situation is suspect… I see no reason why the conditions of Ignatius have to be thought of as him being dragged filthy and in fetters back to the Rome. It’s sounds much more like a mobile house arrest. And scholars do think that some of the letters (most commonly seven) are authentic. Those who deny that seem largely to be clinging to some anti-episcopate/Catholic propaganda. Polycarp, Eusebius, Irenaeus of Lyon, Jerome, all support these seven.

He called his guards vicious, if I remember corectly (it’s been a while since I looked at them). He referred to them as leopards. He seemed to typify it as they were a danger, but at the same time the churches were welcoming him? It does not sit right. Paul never complained of his guards. Ignatius did.

People do accept the seven letters as authentic. That does not mean he was not overly enthusiastic regarding his martyrdom, which I was referring to. As a bishop (?) he should have wanted to tend his flock instead of being eaten. So I question the content of his letters. And there is the question of whether he was setting out a novel idea of a bishop or reporting what was typical of the time. I don’t think we know which it is, but it is pushed as typical, I think without reason. So I am not arguing about authenticity but questioning the content.

He did, in his Epistle to the Romans, true. Even so, it does not mean the long journey was entirely without small mercies.

:confused: No idea what you are talking about - except that you have been inculcated with virulent anti-Catholicism. It truly shows. It has even given a dour, cynical outlook to your posts.

It was a different time, and I ask that you reconsider before judging his priorities too harshly. Regular Christians faced ostracism and death for refusing to recognize the gods of pagan Rome, not just bishops and priests. Knowing he was facing death, and knowing that he was being watched by Christians and pagans alike, and as a Christian and as a Bishop, he may have felt it very, very important for the Christian flock to have such an example of someone so confident in Christ’s promise of eternal life. Tertullian wrote that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. How would Christians have looked, among the laity and among the pagans, if their leaders went to their deaths weeping and pleading, clinging to this world? It was the firm conviction of the martyrs witnessing to their faith that converted many. You might argue that Ignatius could have taken a milder tone, but if he seemed “eager” for death, I see it as a projection of confidence and trust in Christ. A confidence he no doubt knew so many Christians would need in the next two centuries of persecution and beyond.

This was much more eloquent in my head before I wrote it. I only try to persuade you to see his anticipation of his execution in a new light, and not as a desertion of his responsibilities as Bishop.

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.