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”.
- Eusebius, ‘Church History’ Ch. 2
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!