Peter: Thirty-Five Years as Bishop of Rome?

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
TZ in post #32:
<< This is that the preponderance of historical data shows Peter in Rome and being a leader there. The only argument that seems valid is what is the true meaning of being the Pope. >
"The distinctive Petrine material in Matthew(16:17-20, 18:21, etc.) reflects perhaps the Apostle's popularity and influence at Antioch."
--Harper's Bible Dictionary under Peter
"The Christian community of Antioch was founded by Christianized Jews who had been driven from Jerusalem by the persecution (Acts 11:19 sqq.). Peter's residence among them is proved by the episode concerning the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law even by Christianized pagans, related by St. Paul (Galatians 2:11-21). "
and
"Eusebius, Church History III.36), 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. "
--New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia under Peter
Link: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles
None of this proves Peter STAYED in Antioch.

Everyone agrees that Peter was at Antioch. He may have founded the church there, and NACE suggests that Peter was there "towards the end of his life."
The NACE makes no such suggestion.
So when was Peter in Rome? He died there but that doesn't prove much.
It proves he was there.
It looks like Peter may have spent more time in Antioch than he spent in Rome. If so, why wouldn't Peter's position be inherited by the Bishop of Antioch instead of the next Bishop of Rome?
Because the Bishop of Antioch did not succeed the Chair of Peter. In order to be Pope, that bishop must follow the line of succession starting with Peter. But he is still a regular bishop in the diocese of Rome, so he has a two-fold function.

Different titles for the office of "Pope" were given at different times in history. Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God, First Among Equals etc.

These titles were not given yesterday. Each one has it's own history, and Bishop of Rome comes from the early church fathers.

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.”
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.”
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

You cannot construct early church history with the Bible Alone. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,977
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,232.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Because the Bishop of Antioch did not succeed the Chair of Peter.
Sure he did.

St Gregory the Great:
Though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he [Peter] himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Mark to Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, “That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us”​
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Kepha in post #27:

<< I am not disagreeing with the Vatican web site that says WHEN Peter presided, I am disagreeing with you where you say Peter was Bishop of Rome in 32 AD when the Church in Rome was non-existent. Peter's office was determined by Jesus, not by his location. >>

I find the Roman Catholic position to be confusing. The RC defines the Pope as the Bishop of Rome
You are confusing a title that was granted decades later with the office established by Christ. Jesus didn't rename Simon bar Jona "pope", He renamed him ROCK. The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome.
but that apparently doesn't apply to the original pope.
Because you are hung up on titles.
Was Peter the pope when Jesus was still on earth?
Peter was leader and spokesman for all the Apostles as evident throughout the NT.
Or did he become pope after the martyrdom of James, as someone suggested?
The Church was centralized in Jerusalem until the death of James, then the centrality shifted to Rome. Jesus promised to give to Peter, and only to Peter, the keys of the kingdom.
I was thinking he could only be pope after arriving in Rome.
That's a misunderstanding of Peter's role.
One objection to the title "pope"-- it means father.
Pope comes from the Latin and Greek words for Father.
Yet Jesus specifically told his disciples not to use "father" as a title of office or respect. So it makes no sense for priests to be called "Father" and no sense for the head of the church to be "Pope," which means father.
Jesus was not speaking literally in Matt. 23:9
Jesus says, “call no man father.” This is an example of “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father. Catholics don't elevate priests to the level of our heavenly Father!!!

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” Therefore, we should ask the question, “Why don’t Protestants call their pastors “father?”

1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”
Is Paul wrong???

Phil. 2:22 – Paul calls Timothy’s service to him as a son serves a “father.”
Is Paul wrong???

1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children. Is Paul wrong???

Matthew 23:8-12 KJV... “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). "call no man father" is an old canard.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: tz620q
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Isaiah 22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.

Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.

This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

Isaiah 22: 20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

Isaiah 22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

Isaiah 22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

Jeremiah 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.

Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Daniel 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.

Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Sure he did.

St Gregory the Great:
Though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he [Peter] himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Mark to Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, “That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us”​
OK, then who was Linus?
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Peter was leader and spokesman for all the Apostles as evident throughout the NT.

This is not true. At the First Council in Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15, James chaired the council, not Peter. Nor, might it be added, did any one of the members of the council speak infallibly or unilaterally for the church. The role of James as with the other apostles was not leader and spokesman. It is absurd to think that any one of them would claim such roles.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The Protestant is forced to construct early church history based on Bible Alone theology, which is IMPOSSIBLE.

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?


Kepha, I was noticing that your avatar says "Still waiting for the Bible verse that validates Sola Scriptura."

I'm still looking for the verse that says that Jesus Christ intended the Christian Church to be a monarchy or an autocracy, a top-down bureaucracy ruled by one man.

<< The Protestant is forced to construct early church history based on Bible Alone theology, which is IMPOSSIBLE. >>

There is a lot about early church history that we do not know, so much of it remains a mystery, despite the early church fathers, who do not always agree with each other. If we cannot reconstruct this early history, doesn't it stand to reason that God has decided that we don't need to know all the details?

Kepha31:
<< John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time ... >>

It's funny that you would cite Cardinal Newman, or St. Cardinal Newman, as they now call him. Newman became Catholic before Vatican I proclaimed the new dogma of papal infallibility, and he was always a critic of that doctrine.

<< Newman wrote that conscience must always be the final arbiter. If he were to make an after-dinner toast, he wrote, “I shall drink … to conscience first and to the Pope afterwards.” A person who fails to follow conscience, he wrote, “loses his soul”. >>

This is quoted from John Cornwell, author of Newman's Unquiet Grave: The Reluctant Saint.

Link to Cornwell's article in the Financial Times:
Subscribe to read
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
None of this proves Peter STAYED in Antioch.

The NACE makes no such suggestion.
It proves he was there. Because the Bishop of Antioch did not succeed the Chair of Peter. In order to be Pope, that bishop must follow the line of succession starting with Peter. But he is still a regular bishop in the diocese of Rome, so he has a two-fold function.

Different titles for the office of "Pope" were given at different times in history. Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God, First Among Equals etc.

These titles were not given yesterday. Each one has it's own history, and Bishop of Rome comes from the early church fathers.

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.”
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.”
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

You cannot construct early church history with the Bible Alone. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.


Kepha31 in post #41:
<< None of this proves Peter STAYED in Antioch.
Everyone agrees that Peter was at Antioch. He may have founded the church there, and NACE suggests that Peter was there "towards the end of his life."
The NACE makes no such suggestion. >>


If you think NACE "makes no such suggestion," you need to read it more carefully.

In the article, St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and under the heading Missionary Journeys in the East we find:

"It is certain that he remained for a time at Antioch; he may even have returned thither several times." (In the first paragraph.)

"The later tradition, which existed as early as the end of the second century (Origen, "Hom. vi in Lucam"; Eusebius, Church History III.36), 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." (In the second paragraph.)

Note: "perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end of his life".

So when did Peter live in Rome?
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Kepha31 in post #41:
<< None of this proves Peter STAYED in Antioch.
Everyone agrees that Peter was at Antioch. He may have founded the church there, and NACE suggests that Peter was there "towards the end of his life."
The NACE makes no such suggestion. >>If you think NACE "makes no such suggestion," you need to read it more carefully.
I did. You misquoted NACE. Nowhere does it say Peter "stayed in Antioch towards the end of his life. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles I have google word find. It's not there.

In the article, St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and under the heading Missionary Journeys in the East we find:

"It is certain that he remained for a time at Antioch; he may even have returned thither several times." (In the first paragraph.)

"The later tradition, which existed as early as the end of the second century (Origen, "Hom. vi in Lucam"; Eusebius, Church History III.36), that cc towards the end of his life and then appointed Evodrius, the first of the line of Antiochian bishops, head of the community." (In the second paragraph.)
Peter stayed in Antioch before going to Rome where he reached the end of his life. It doesn't mean Peter died in Antioch. You are reading into it what isn't there.
So when did Peter live in Rome?
What exactly are you trying to prove? You take a few snippets out of an encyclopedia to make a point but reject the rest of it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Kepha, I was noticing that your avatar says "Still waiting for the Bible verse that validates Sola Scriptura."

I'm still looking for the verse that says that Jesus Christ intended the Christian Church to be a monarchy or an autocracy, a top-down bureaucracy ruled by one man.
AUTHORITY OF THE FIRST POPES
See also Luke 1:32-35. An angel is not speaking in terms of Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, the angel is speaking in terms of ROYALTY. Jesus is King of Kings, not president of kings. The keys Jesus gave to Peter is indicative of the keys in Isaiah 22, both monarchy's.

<< The Protestant is forced to construct early church history based on Bible Alone theology, which is IMPOSSIBLE. >>

There is a lot about early church history that we do not know, so much of it remains a mystery, despite the early church fathers, who do not always agree with each other. If we cannot reconstruct this early history, doesn't it stand to reason that God has decided that we don't need to know all the details?
The main detail you should begin with is the early church was not Protestant.
Kepha31:
<< John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time ... >>

It's funny that you would cite Cardinal Newman, or St. Cardinal Newman, as they now call him. Newman became Catholic before Vatican I proclaimed the new dogma of papal infallibility, and he was always a critic of that doctrine.
Sheer anti-Catholic gibberish. He made no dogmatic proclamations. No single cardinal has that kind of authority. That's the job of the Magisterium that he was part of.
As an illustration of the whoppers, distortions, half-truths, and flat-out lies that typify the book, I would like to explore Salmon’s charge that Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman opposed papal infallibility before the First Vatican Council in 1870, and later lied about his earlier position when he stated that he accepted the view after 1870, whereas (according to Salmon’s jaded cynicism) he had not before. Of course, since Salmon characterizes Newman as a liar regarding his own opinions after 1870 (implying that he committed intellectual suicide simply because he was an observant Catholic), we can assume that he would reiterate the charge with regard to Newman’s opinions pre-1870, had he seen many manifestations of them brought together, as I will do shortly.

If a man can unjustly be called a liar once, then the charge can more easily be made on successive occasions. So Salmon would just as easily dispute Newman’s pre-1870 statements (having been made aware of them), if he is willing to disparage his character and disbelieve his own report of his opinions in the first place. But for fair-minded, non-prejudiced inquirers, a man’s self-report is quite sufficient to end the dispute.

Much of the confusion in Salmon and many others through the years, in relation to Cardinal Newman’s view of papal infallibility and the particular dogmatic definition that was arrived at, lies in failing to distinguish opposition to the dogma and opposition to de fide (highest level) definition of it at a given time (what is called in Catholic circles, inopportunism). The Church usually waits hundreds of years to define a dogma at the very highest levels. Thus, one can legitimately have an opinion whether the present is the “right” time to do so or not. Newman also opposed some of the tactics and methodologies of parties in the Vatican Council and before: the extreme Ultramontane party, who would have made the definition (Pastor aeternus) far more sweeping than it actually was.​
John Henry Newman on Papal Infallibility Prior to 1870

<< Newman wrote that conscience must always be the final arbiter. If he were to make an after-dinner toast, he wrote, “I shall drink … to conscience first and to the Pope afterwards.” A person who fails to follow conscience, he wrote, “loses his soul”. >>
What's wrong with that?


images
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,977
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,232.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Peter died in the first century...the pagan based Roman church was started in 323 AD by Constantine emperor....so no way Peter had anything to do with the Roman church...
Question for you. Where did all those bishops attending the 1st council of Nicaea come from? You claim Constantine started the 'Roman' church yet bishops attended from the far reaches of the empire and beyond. How did Constantine perform the incredible logistic feat of creating such a mammoth ecclesiastical structure where I presume you believe none existed prior, all the while running an empire spanning from Britain all the way across Southern Europe and Asia Minor as well as North Africa and Egypt to Israel. You make him out to be a superman.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Peter died in the first century...the pagan based Roman church was started in 323 AD by Constantine emperor....so no way Peter had anything to do with the Roman church...
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies:
#1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church


If by virtue of Constantine calling a general council of all the bishops of the Church to meet with him at Nicaea
, a Church was created, it then, therefore, follows that:
(a) the Church that existed prior to the Council from which all the bishops were called merged themselves into the new church of Constantine;
(b) we should see no continuity between the preexisting church and the new Church;
(c) we should see no continuity between the pre-Nicaea Church and modern day Catholic Church. I’ll dismiss these non-sequitur arguments below.

That Constantine assembled together all of the bishops of the Roman Empire proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior the First Council of Nicaea who were in agreement with each other.

218 years before the Council of Nicaea
Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word ‘Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ...

136 years before the Council of Nicaea
Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, and a disciple of Saint Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, proclaimed that all churches must be in unity with the Church of Rome, which was established by Peter and Paul:

If Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church,
then there should be no way to trace the continuity of every Bishop of Rome, from Peter to Francis today. To the contrary, there is only one Church on the face of this earth that can verifiably point to the Church in Rome, established by Peter and Paul, and by continuity in leadership, doctrine, and tradition show a seamless continuity from the first century until today, and that Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Prior to the Council of Nicaea there had been many local councils where local bishops, priests, and deacons gathered to issue canons to the faithful; such as the Councils of Carthage, where Saint Cyprian presided at the Seventh Council in 256 A.D.

Another example of the Council of Elvira, Spain in 300 A.D. where 19 bishops and 26 priests and deacons gathered together to issue 81 canons

The Romans were aficionados when it came to documenting the legal affairs and history of the Empire
. If it had been the case that Constantine established his own state religion or established a new state Church, we would have been able to find it documented somewhere in history that such an event happened, but when we examine the history and legal documents from ancient Rome, we find no traces that the myth that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is true.

Moreover, if Constantine did found the Catholic Church at the First Council of Nicaea then we should be able to find at least some once reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

Those who posit that Constantine founded the Catholic Church either with the Edict of Milan or by calling together the First Council of Nicaea are unable prove their claim. There is no documentation from that time, either explicit or implicit by historian or theologian that even hints that such an event transpired or was the intention of Constantine or the bishops of the Catholic Church to transpire.

This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable. The myth is that because the Church of the Apostles fell in to apostasy, a remnant of the true and orthodox believers of Jesus remained hidden from and often persecuted by the Catholic Church until THEY brought the reform and true faith back. Prior the rise of Protestantism, no one ever dared to tell this lie. Only in the space of the unintelligent, uncurious, and hostile can such a myth and lie bear fruit.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Question for you. Where did all those bishops attending the 1st council of Nicaea come from? You claim Constantine started the 'Roman' church yet bishops attended from the far reaches of the empire and beyond. How did Constantine perform the incredible logistic feat of creating such a mammoth ecclesiastical structure where I presume you believe none existed prior, all the while running an empire spanning from Britain all the way across Southern Europe and Asia Minor as well as North Africa and Egypt to Israel. You make him out to be a superman.

Perhaps more to the point (realizing the historical absurdity you correctly point out) is whether or not Constantine had anything at all to do with establishing the Roman Catholic Church as it now exists. I am certain you are aware of Catholic apologetics that claims all the councils of the Church as its own and appropriates a historical narrative certainly at variance with other narratives such as that of your own church.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
According to the Vatican's official list of popes, Peter became Pope, or Bishop of Rome, in 32 AD and continued to hold that office until his death by martyrdom in 67 AD.
Peter became the Pope when Christ gave him the keys to the Kingdom. That doesn't mean he was bishop of Rome. He went to Rome much later. Indeed he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Peter died in the first century...the pagan based Roman church was started in 323 AD by Constantine emperor....so no way Peter had anything to do with the Roman church...
Constantine was a secular emperor. He wasn't even a Christian when the council was called. He certainly wasn't a Bishop. The results of the Council were determined by the Bishops of the Catholic Church, which dated back to Pentecost. Constantine didn't conjure these bishops up out of stones, you know.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Constantine was a secular emperor. He wasn't even a Christian when the council was called. He certainly wasn't a Bishop. The results of the Council were determined by the Bishops of the Catholic Church, which dated back to Pentecost. Constantine didn't conjure these bishops up out of stones, you know.

However, the Catholic Church has appropriated them for their own propaganda when, in actual fact, there was no such thing as the Catholic Church with its headquarters and associated bureaucracy in Rome, Italy.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
However, the Catholic Church has appropriated them for their own propaganda when, in actual fact, there was no such thing as the Catholic Church with its headquarters and associated bureaucracy in Rome, Italy.
The Church that began on Pentecost was called the Catholic Church by the end of the first century (Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans). Furthermore, we know that the Bishop of Rome had authority over all the Church, not just his own territory (Clement of Rome, first century, letter to Corinth).
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,977
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,232.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Furthermore, we know that the Bishop of Rome had authority over all the Church, not just his own territory (Clement of Rome, first century, letter to Corinth).
That is a conplete misreading of the circumstances. Corinth was a Roman colony with strong political, commercial, relgious and cultural ties to Rome. Their Church community was established by Paul of who Clement had been a close companion. They had regular trade and thus, communication with Rome, so when they had serious issues they turned to a bishop who all parties involved respected.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
That is a conplete misreading of the circumstances. Corinth was a Roman colony with strong political, commercial, relgious and cultural ties to Rome. Their Church community was established by Paul of who Clement had been a close companion. They had regular trade and thus, communication with Rome, so when they had serious issues they turned to a bishop who all parties involved respected.

Thank you. I find it awkward, to say the least, carrying the Orthodox banner when there are others such as yourself who are vastly more competent in these matters than I am.
 
Upvote 0