Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who was the first Bishop of Rome ?
Shlama Akhi Rafa.

I'm not sure the CoE's would know for sure, or frankly that our opinion would matter? <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
I mean opinions will vary, I know Mar Shimun openly wrote against it. I know the current Patriarch respects the tradition based on just the experience and tradition of those who belong to that branch of the Church.

But ultimately who are we to say? If the RCC believes Peter was their first bishop then ok. Our belief or disbelief won't affect them or us, right?

I know it wouldn't matter to me personally if I were of the Latin rite. As it doesn't matter to me if outsiders doubt anything the CoE holds.
I think the RCC claims both, right?
Rafa Wrote:Well erm, you can't have two Bishops in one city from what I understand so it would mean Saint Paul appointed the Popes, even though St.Peter might have done some discipling. This is a problem for the "Petrine authority" business...(which makes my life very difficult also)

I don't think they were "bishops" in the sense we think of the formalized office today, right? Not for a while at least until the Church organized itself in whatever fashion it could while trying to keep a low profile and stay out of the mouths of lions.

We think of Shimun or Paul and the others as leaders now, and we use terminology familiar with our current setup.

Shamasha Paul, what do you know about this? St. Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

monsoongroover Wrote:Greetings!

Shamasha Paul, what do you know about this? St. Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->


Hi Akhi,

I'm not sure that an ossuary inscription is any more conclusive than the general Roman Rite tradition that the Apostle Shimon was martyred in Rome.

My biggest doubt personally is the lack of mention in the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Romans. He did not mention Shimon.

Also, Shimon wrote his epistle from Babylon, which was the largest center of Jewish diaspora during that time. Not Rome. Babylonia/Mesopotamia had a massive Jewish population.

It makes no sense when people say that he really meant Rome when he said Babylon. Because Paul in that case would've also addressed his epistle to the Babylonians, using the same code word, instead of to the Romans.

So to me personally, it makes no sense that Peter is buried in Rome or even visited the city. He certainly would not have needed Paul to minister to the Roman church, if he himself founded it.

The three places we know for sure from scripture that Shimon Keepa ministered to the believers are Judea, Antioch in Syria, and Babylonia.

My inclination would be that he is buried in Judea somewhere, or in Galilee his home land.

I'm of Paul's opinion, as laid out above and I have worked it out for myself some time ago. You cannot imagine how hard it is to change your mind about that (and other things) when you hear them repeated over and over again as undeniable truths, all that from your childhood, with no one around you daring to challenge anything coming from "above". As in a good army command.

If I may, you know, it could be one of those stories .. where two guys meet and one corrects the radio news to the other << Yes, Vanya, it is all true what they say, but ... just not in Petersburg but in Moscow, and not bicycles but cars, and not they give away but they steal>>

Looking at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... er-in-Rome</a><!-- m --> ...

"The earliest evidence (c. ad 200) is found in a fragment of a work by Gaius (or Caius) witnessing to a tradition at least a generation earlier (c. ad 165) that the ?trophy? (i.e., tropaion, or monument) of Peter was located at the Vatican. Though difficult to interpret, the use of the word trophy indicates that in this period the Vatican area was associated with either the tomb of the Apostle or simply a monument erected in the area of Peter?s victory (i.e., his martyrdom)."

So .. there was a monument, which some wishful thinker have claimed then to be a burial place, and then hey, Shimun Keefa must have been buried here, right, so he must have been a bishop, what else ? and hurray we have great roots! I would not be surprised to find out just that scenario when I get a chance to ask them in the world to come how it really was. And knowing Latin church and different "traditions" which grew there over centuries I would not be surprised at all.

It makes a difference though to some people. Maybe not to you, but to some the (historical) truth (or bending it too much) is very important.

There is one question connected with this - when Paul was writing his letter to the Romans there was a community there already (I believe Jewish based). So, the question begs to be asked, who has proclaimed the gospel in Rome first ? And I believe it was the peoples who attended Shavuot in Jerusalem (Acts 2:10) and witnessed the outpouring of the Holy Spirit who brought the Good News to the capital of the empire.

Jerzy (Jurek)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)