GOCPriestMark wrote:It's simple, open the June Menaion to the 29th and read the service written for St. Peter.
Texts for the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul, on June 29, refer to Peter as the leader [prostates] of the Church, the "great president," to whom Christ "entrusted the helm of the Church." [Pitra, LXXIII, LXXVI].
Is that what you were referring to?
I have a question. Was St. Peter the first Bishop of Rome?
Fr. Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir's Seminary says that none of the twelve (13 including St. Paul?) Apostles were actually Bishops.
I have been told that St. Peter is called a 'Bishop' in the acts of the Councils... but I've never been able to find proof of that.
Was St. Peter the first 'pope'? I've argued w/ a man who claims to be Orthodox about this... Isn't the concept of a 'pope' alien to Orthodoxy (which holds that all Bishops are equal)?
If the successor of St. Peter is considered to be the 'pope'... then shouldn't the Bishop of Antioch be the 'pope' - since St. Peter was in Antioch before he was ever in Rome?
Wasn't his first successor neccessarily then in Antioch - rather than in Rome?
Thanks!
†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Greetings and welcome to the forum,
I would not pay much attention to the ramblings of Fr. Thomas Hopko. He along with St. Vladimir's are less than ideal sources for learning about genuine Orthodox tradition.
Of course the Apostles were bishops. After all, what saith the Scripture?
"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take." (Acts 1:20)
So if Judas held the office of bishop before he forfeited it, so did the other Apostles also hold this office, including Matthias, who after Judas fell was numbered along with the eleven.
There are other nuggets hidden in sacred Scripture which shed light on this question. For instance, many ancient records of the Church tell us that St. James the Just, the brother of the Lord, was the first bishop of Jerusalem.
But in which manner does St. Paul refer to him?
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Galatians 1:18-19)
So you see, St. James the brother of the Lord is referred to as both an apostle and a bishop. They are not exclusive of one another.
The Prodigal Son wrote:I have a question. Was St. Peter the first Bishop of Rome?
St. John Chrysostom
Homilies on Second Timothy
Homily X:
Ver. 21. "Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens and Linus, and Claudia?'
This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter. "And Claudia." You see how zealous for the faith the women were, how ardent!
When St. Chrysostom says "some say," he seems to be alluding to Eusebius of Caesaria, who in the Ecclesiastical History (Book III, Chapter 4) writes:
As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. 10. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier.
The term 'pope' simply comes from the Latin 'papa', or father. This likely comes from the Greek 'pappas'. Perhaps you've encountered some Greek families (especially ones with a lineage of priests) with the last name Pappas. 'Papouly' is a way to say grandpa in Greek.
What is wrong with calling the bishop of Rome, 'papa' or holy father?
Dear Cyprian,
Thanks for the replies. I do appreciate it!
It seems though to me that the Greek word 'Episkope' from which bishop was derived had a different or at least a dual meaning back then... It used to mean basically 'overseer'... whereas eventually it meant & today it means specifically the ordained leader of a geographic congregation.
After all - Jesus Himself is referred to as 'Bishop'... but we know He wasn't a bishop in the way we understand 'bishop' today, right?
“For ye were as sheep going astray ; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”
According to St. Iraneus both Peter AND Paul founded and organized the Church in Rome… not just Peter.
Irenaeus also lists off the Bishops of Rome from the beginning… He lists:
First - Linus
Second - Anacletus
Third - Clement…
Sts. Peter AND Paul were both in Rome, and St. Paul we can assume was also called ‘Father’ by his own spiritual children (alluded to in the N.T.). Paul was also known as ‘Apostle to the Nations’ (Gentiles)…
It’s clear from the disagreement between Peter & Paul over whether or not un-circumcised Christians would have to be circumcised, and the fact that Paul won out - that Peter did not ‘give Papal orders’ as some suggest.
So if St. Paul’s judgement won out over Peter’s; if St. Paul was the Apostle to the nations; if St. Paul was also a Father (papa/pope) who was also martyred in Rome, and if the apostles themselves were equals…
Then was St. Paul then also one of the first ‘popes’ of Rome?
I found a quote from Eusebius:
“After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle”.
So Eusibius also (along with Irenaeus) seems to say that Linus was the first ‘Bishop’ of Rome.
St. Peter also ordained at least one Bishop in Antioch… Why then isn’t the Bishop of Antioch today considered ‘THE pope’ since his ancient predecessor was the FIRST ever successor to Peter?
See here...
Bishop:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bishop
Pope:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pope
“Bishop:
O.E. bisceop, from L.L. episcopus, from Gk. episkopos ‘watcher, overseer,’ a title for various government officials, later taken over in a Church sense, from epi- ‘over’ + skopos ‘watcher,’ from skeptesthai ‘look at’.
Given a specific sense in the Church, but the word also was used in the N.T. as a descriptive title for elders, and continues as such in some non-hierarchical Christian sects. The chess piece (formerly archer, before that alfin) was so called from 1560s."
All I’m saying is that Peter wasn’t a Bishop in the specific sense in which it is now understood. If St. Peter was a ‘Bishop’ in Rome - then St. Paul also must have been a ‘Bishop’ in Rome at the same time.
And Linus, having had been ordained while Peter & Paul were yet alive would mean that there were (at least) THREE ‘Bishops’ in Rome at that time.
“Pope:
O.E. papa, from M.L. papa ‘bishop, pope’ (in classical L., ‘tutor’), from Gk. papas ‘patriarch, bishop,’ originally ‘father’.”
Applied to bishops of Asia Minor and taken as a title by the Bishop of Alexandria c.250. In Western Church, applied especially to the Bishop of Rome since the time of Leo the Great (440-461) and claimed exclusively by them from 1073. Popemobile, his car, is from 1979. Papal, papacy, later acquisitions in English, preserve the original vowel.”
According to that (from the above links), the word ‘pope’ was “applied especially to Bishops of Rome” only from the time of Leo the Great. So before then - many Bishops were called ‘pope’… but it didn’t have the same meaning or carry the same connotations of ultimate power as it does today.
So if Peter was called ‘pope’ - it really doesn’t mean much, because many, many Bishops were also called ‘pope’ - but none of them were the ’supreme commander-in-chief’ of the entire Church.
Does that sound right?
Thanks again!
†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Glad to be of any help!
I think this will help answer a number of your questions, if not all of them.
St. Epiphanius of Salamis
Panarion
Book One, Section II
27.
Against Carpocratians. Number seven, but twenty-seven of the series
6,1 I have now heard in some connection of a dupe of theirs, a Marcellina, who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, successor of Pius and the bishops before him. (2) For the bishops at Rome were, first, Peter and Paul, the apostles themselves who were also bishops—then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, a contemporary of Peter and Paul whom Paul mentions in the Epistle to the Romans. (3) And no one need be surprised that others succeeded the apostles in the episcopate before him, even though he was contemporary with Peter and Paul. (For he too, as their contemporary, belongs to the apostles.) (4) I am not quite clear whether Peter appointed him bishop while they were still alive, and he declined and would not exercise the office—as a piece of advice to someone he says, “I withdraw, I depart, let the people of God be tranquil” in one of his Epistles, as I have found in certain historical works—or whether he was appointed by the bishop, Cletus, after the death of the apostles
6,5 But even so, others could have been made bishop while the apostles were still alive, I mean Peter and Paul. They often journeyed abroad to preach Christ, but Rome could not be without a bishop. /b Paul even reached Spain, while Peter made frequent visits to Pontus and Bithynia. But after Clement had been appointed and declined, if this is what happened—I suspect so, but cannot say for certain—he could have been made to resume the episcopate later, after Linus and Cletus had died. (Linus and Cletus were bishops for twelve years each after the death of Saints Peter and Paul in the twelfth year of Nero.).
6,7 In any case, the order of the succession of bishops at Rome is Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. And no one need be surprised at my listing the several items with such exactitude; precise information is always given in this way. (8) During Anicetus’ episcopate then, as I said, Marcellina appeared at Rome spewing forth the corruption of Carpocrates’ teaching, and destroyed many there by her corruption of them. And that made a beginning of the so-called Gnostics.