The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
SeekingTruth, friendly_pilgrim, BigBadger, Carthaginian, lemkat
5,860 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 64 guests, and 49 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,187
Posts415,085
Members5,860
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#314087 03/02/09 10:07 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 213
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 213
"We would remind readers that St. Peter was never a pope of Rome, indeed he was not a bishop at all, but an Apostle. This is the early tradition of the Church of Rome itself and therefore remains the tradition of the rest of the Orthodox Church today. Moreover St. Peter founded not the Church of Rome, but the Church of Antioch. The Church in Rome was founded by St. Paul. This is clear to any reader of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. In the following list, popes who already appear in all Eastern Orthodox calendars are marked with an asterisk.


St. Linus (+ c. 78), first pope, Martyr. A disciple of the Apostle Paul, he was consecrated by him. One of the Seventy Apostles, he is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4,21. He was pope for about twelve years and may have been martyred. Feast: 23 September (In the East 4 January and 5 November)."
taken from here [orthodoxengland.org.uk]



I am amazed that this has never come to my attention before, so amazed in fact that I believe that this can not be the majority teaching of the Orthodox. Can someone please chime in on this one.. I thought that east and west both agreed that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

humbly,
David

Last edited by DewiMelkite; 03/02/09 10:09 PM.
DewiMelkite #314089 03/02/09 10:15 PM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
It seems to me that the New Testament makes clear that St. Paul certainly did not found the Church at Rome. There was clearly a Church at Rome prior to St. Paul's voyage to Rome. How could he have been the founder of a Church of Rome that existed prior to his trip to Rome?

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 213
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 213
Here is another quote I just came across "The Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Anglican Communion consider Simon Peter a saint. According to Catholic tradition, but not in Orthodox tradition, Peter was the first bishop of Rome (Orthodox regard Linus to be the first bishop of Rome)" from wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org]

??

Last edited by DewiMelkite; 03/02/09 10:31 PM.
DewiMelkite #314097 03/03/09 01:14 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Quote
From its very beginnings, the papacy has been surrounded with the mantle of timelessness, or rather, with a particular historical myth, whose vulnerability, considered simply as history, is every bit as problematic for Catholics as for anyone else. At least since the high Middle Ages the papacy has been understood as an institution directly created by Jesus Christ in his own lifetime: he willed that his Church should be ruled by the Apostles and their successors, and he gave to Peter, as leader of the apostles, the fullness of spiritual power, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter came to Rome, and there appointed his own successors, whose names are recited to this day in the canon of the Mass ? Linus, Cletus, Clement, and so on down to John Paul II. All that the modern Church claims for the pope, his authority in doctrine and his power over institutions, is on this account a simple unfolding of the dominical bestowal of the keys, and the post-resurrection command to Peter to feed Christ?s sheep.

We have known for more than a century that the historical underpinning of this account is unfortunately not quite so simple. The Church of Rome during its first two centuries based its claims to precedence not on the Lord?s words to Peter, but on the preaching and death in Rome of two apostles, Peter and Paul. The commission in Matthew 16:18, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is quoted in no Roman source before the time of the Decian persecution, in the middle of the third century, and even then the claims which the Pope of the time tried to base on that quotation were indignantly rejected by the Churches of Africa to whom he was addressing himself.

And indeed, the very roots of what may be called the foundation myth of the papacy are themselves uncomfortably complicated. The Church established itself in Rome some time in the AD 40s: we now know that for the best part of the century that followed, there was nothing and nobody in Rome who could recognisably be called a pope. Christianity in Rome evolved out of the Roman synagogues, and to begin with it was not so much a single Church as a constellation of independent churches, meeting in the houses of wealthy converts or in hired halls and public baths, without any central ruler or bishop. The Roman synagogues ? there were 14 of them in the first century ? unlike the synagogues in other great Mediterranean cities like Antioch . . . were all independent, with no central organisation or single president, and to begin with at least, the churches of Rome also functioned independently. Many of them were in any case ethnic or regional churches, groups of Syrian, Greek, Asian residents in Rome, using their own languages, following the customs of the Christian communities back in their home regions.

Elsewhere in the first century, episcopacy emerged as the dominant form of church order ? the rule of each church by a single senior presbyter who took the lead in ordinations and the celebration of the Eucharist, and who was the focus of unity for all the Christians of a city or region. But Rome, probably because of the complexity and ethnic and cultural diversity of the Christian communities of the capital of the world, was very slow to adopt this system.

In the conventional accounts of the history of the papacy, the letter of Clement, written from Rome to the Church at Corinth around the year AD 95, is often thought of as the first papal encyclical, attributed to Pope Clement, Peter?s third successor and the last pope personally known to the Prince of the Apostles. In fact, the letter is written on behalf of the whole Roman Church, it is unsigned, and the author speaks unequivocally of the elders who rule the Church, in the plural.

The popes: theory and fact -- Eamon Duffy
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/6636

AMM #314103 03/03/09 02:36 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147
I remember reading something similar to what the OP has come across in a book called "The Papacy" written by an ex-Catholic cleric Abbe Guette (sp?) who had converted to Russian Orthodoxy. He claimed that Paul founded the Church of Rome through his disciple Linus, and that Peter came later and ordained Clement, much as that website claims.

DewiMelkite #314105 03/03/09 03:16 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
That St. Peter was not, nor any of the Apostles, a bishop, is standard in Orthodox Ecclesiology, because the bishops are the Successors of the Apostles.

There may be some question of who founded the Church at Rome, but there is no doubt in Orthodoxy that St. Peter had some involvement at Rome.

Rufinus seemed to be confused too about St. Linus and St. Peter:

Quote
Now of this we have heard this explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter: that is, that they undertook the care of the episcopate, and that he fulfilled the office of apostleship; as is found also to have been the case at Cæsarea, where, when he himself was present, he yet had Zacchæus, ordained by himself, as bishop. And in this way both statements will appear to be true, both that these bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that Clement received the teacher’s seat on the death of Peter. But now let us see how Clement, writing to James the Lord’s brother, begins his narrative.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.ii.html

Something that the Apostolic Constitutions take up:
Quote
Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul, and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.viii.iv.html

IAlmisry #314114 03/03/09 06:36 AM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 213
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 213
I thought James The brother of Our Lord was the Bishop of Jerusalem?

DewiMelkite #314150 03/03/09 05:38 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Neither St. Peter nor St. Paul founded the Church of Rome. Indeed, St. Paul's epistle to the Romans is proof that the Church was already in place long before either Paul or Peter had visited it. Neither was a bishop and in fact the Church of Rome didn't even have a bishop for most of the first century (according to most bible scholars). I think that most Orthodox would say that the title Pope is just an honorary title. There is no office of the papacy in the Church.

Joe

Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 03/03/09 05:39 PM.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Neither St. Peter nor St. Paul founded the Church of Rome...
That there were Christians living in Rome, even Christian communities in Rome, even a Christian community of Rome (to which Paul could write) does not address the sense of the Church of Rome and its head.

Respected historians and patristic scholars acknowledge the Peter-Rome connection, e.g. link [catholic.com]:

Quote
Was Peter in Rome?
...
William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position (one hesitates to use the word “tradition,” since some people read that as “legend”) was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.

ajk #314187 03/04/09 01:12 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
I don't think anyone disputes that the Apostle Peter was martyred in Rome.

AMM #316535 03/26/09 02:19 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 320
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 320
St. Peter was Prime Apostle and Bishop. not one or the other. For a defense against "Orthodox" and Anglican attacks on the Roman Pontiff, a good book to read is "The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon 451," by Adrian Fortescue. He was a convert to Catholic Church from Anglicanism. The book proves Catholic belief of the Bishop of Rome before the year 451, drawing from resources of the scriptures and early church Fathers.


http://ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/afortescue_earlypapacy_aug08.asp

Mateusz #316557 03/26/09 09:19 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
How many people realise that the first Pope was a Celt?

Yes, that's right - Linus was a Celt.

Saint Linus was the son of Caractacus of Britain. Caractacus was his Latin name but his native name was Caradoc.

I'll dig out the information if anyone is interested.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,079
Likes: 11
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,079
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
I'll dig out the information if anyone is interested.

Bless, Father,

You might as well start digging, because you know someone will be biggrin

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,585
Likes: 1
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,585
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
How many people realise that the first Pope was a Celt?

Yes, that's right - Linus was a Celt.

Saint Linus was the son of Caractacus of Britain. Caractacus was his Latin name but his native name was Caradoc.

I'll dig out the information if anyone is interested.

Yes please - do dig this out biggrin

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1
edited because I didn't read the question correctly from the beginning so my response didnt make sense. smile

Last edited by Ray S.; 03/26/09 09:03 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5