kimvall

INFO: When I write "Orthodox" below, I refer to the Eastern/non-Catholic bransh(es) of Christianity.

To what extent does the Orthodox church accept the notion that Peter the Disciple was the first Pope?

As I understand it, some of the Catholic church's authority comes from the claim its first leader (usually referred to, quite anachronisticly, as "Pope") was Peter, whom Jesus appointed to the position (Matthew 16:13-20: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church", etc.).

Whether this is history or just a myth is of course up for debate, but how does the Orthodox church interpret this story? Do they acknowledge it? And if they do, why won't they "bow down" to the Pope and the Catholic church (which I assume they ought to, but I know they don't).

Please enlighten me with various opinions and interpretations, as you always do! :notworthy:

Deus Ex

The Primacy of Peter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy..._Orthodox_view

Since the Orthodox Church did not split off from the RCC until 1054 CE, I would think that they would share the same papal lineage up to that point?

kimvall

Quick and informative reply. Thank you very much, I'll definitely read up on that article.

Huon

There are five ancient Patriarchates :
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem.

Among them Antioch has a peculiar importance :
The Christian community of Antioch was founded by Christianized Jews who had been driven from Jerusalem by the persecution.
Local tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by Peter in A.D. 34. To succeed him as bishop of Antioch he appointed Evodius, who is counted in early episcopal lists as the first successor of Peter.

At the Council of Nicaea in 325, the primacy of the bishop of Alexandria over all bishops of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis was formally sanctioned.
The primacy of the bishop of Antioch over all bishops of the civil Diocese of the East was formally sanctioned.

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Bishop of Constantinople was promoted to same rank of "Patriarch", as the Bishop of Rome.

Huon

Acts of Thomas
On the site of Peter Kirby :
This legend says that all the old christian churches were planted by some apostle. Simon which is called Peter is simply one among the apostles.

OneInFundieville

The Church of Rome was part of the ancient Pentarchy and the only apostolic see founded in the West. Until roughly 1054, the usual center-point for the Great Schism, the Church of Rome was in full communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church. 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. St. Linus (+ c. 78), is the first bishop (pope) and a 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 the bishop for about twelve years and may have been martyred.

From: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Rome

Emphasis mine.

Toto

This is a very strange assertion. The epistle to the Romans was written by Paul to the church in Rome, with no clear indication that he had ever been to Rome or had founded the church there. Romans 1: 8 says "I pray that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you" which implies that he has not yet made it to Rome.

The Acts of the Apostles has Paul being transported to Rome and preaching there while under house arrest, but implies that there were already Christians in Rome. Acts 28:14 "And so we came to Rome. 15 The brothers there had heard that we were coming, and they traveled as far as the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns to meet us. At the sight of these men Paul thanked God and was encouraged."

OneInFundieville

I read this the other day. FWIW. Even mentions Rom 1 as you point out.

Ehrman's Peter, Paul, & Mary Magdalene (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 82:

If Peter did not start the church in Rome, who did? As it turns out, our earliest evidence for the existence of a church in Rome at all is one of Paul's letters, the letter to the Romans (written in the 50s CE). THis letter presupposes a congregation made up predominantly, or exclusively, of Gentiles (Rom. 1:13). It does not appear, then, to have been a church established by Peter, missionary to the Jews. Moreover, at the end of the letter, Paul greets a large number of the members of the congregation by name. It is striking to that he never mentions Peter, here or anywhere else in the letter. Interpreters are virtually unified, on these grounds, in thinking that when Paul wrote this letter in the mid-50s, Peter had not yet arrived in Rome.

A later tradition found in the writings of the late-second-century church father Irenaeus, however, indicates that the church in Rome was "founded and organized by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul" (Against Heresies 3, 3, 2). As I have just argued, this cannot have been the case--since Paul's own letter to the Roman church, he indicates that he has not yet been there (Rom. 1:13). Irenaeus had a particular polemical point to make by his claim...
And it continues.

Irenaeus says Peter and Paul.

Eusebius says Linus was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome.

Clement says it went Peter, Linus, Clement.

Tertullian says Clement was appointed by Peter himself.

Ignatius doesn't seem to indicate any one person was in charge of the congregation in Rome in his time.

Rome may not have had one bishop until a hundred years after Peter's death.

Why should any of this stop an appeal to apostolic authority?

Huon

Linus reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79. The statement made in the "Liber Pontificalis" that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus who lived about 125-136 as a glorious martyr.

The redactors of the orthodoxwiki should read the Catholic Encyclopedy, from time to time ...