Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
I'll bet the Vatican knows!
Bingo!
Yippee! Did I win the pot? I bet 2 dollars if not more's in it!
I have in the past....but not on a regular basis. Why? What's up?
He had those happy feet and was fast in his old age, I hear. He hustled all the way from the Babylon in 67AD to Rome at the age of what 75 in a few short months just to be there for all the fun and festivities, torchlight parades and all. He should have fired his tour guide.
There's no evidence for that from the Bible, either, is there. :-0
However, not only do we not wish to provide any evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch, we'll positively insist that he was the Bishop of Antioch ... before he turned over that See to another man, and went to Rome.
Ah, that must be where we got Peter Rabbit from
How about the Syriac version here, translated by Protestant Phillip Schaff, on the CCEL website hosted by the Protestant Calvin College.
So then you disagree with that great Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan who insists that Apostles were never Bishops and vice versa?
Actually, now that I think about it, being a bishop would be a reduction in rank for an Apostle. Apostles got their authority from Christ, bishops got theirs from the Apostles.
Yes, since he probably died in Babylon shortly after writing his last Epistle from there, he became known as the "Eastern Bunny". And people say that there is nothing Christian about bunny rabbits and Easter or is it Eastern?
I don't know who F. A. Sullivan is, and don't know why you think I should consider him authoritative.
It is true that the office of Apostle is superior to that of Bishop, so that St. Peter would hold the office of Bishop of Antioch while keeping all of his authority as an Apostle.
As for his position in Antioch, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
The later tradition, which existed as early as the end of the second century (Origen, "Hom. vi in Lucam"; Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", III, xxxvi), 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.
It is true that the rank of Apostle is superior to that of Bishop, so that St. Peter would hold the office of Bishop of Antioch while keeping all of his authority as an Apostle.
And holding two positions was frowned upon. How can you be bishop and apostle, and travel and reside in one place.
Why wasn't he just called Pope? Why "bishop" when the rank is lower?
He's cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia and wrote From Apostles to Bishops
It is true that the office of Apostle is superior to that of Bishop, so that St. Peter would hold the office of Bishop of Antioch while keeping all of his authority as an Apostle.
Holding two offices at the same time was frowned upon in the Scriptures. An apostle was a travelling missionary and founded churches and moved on. Peter travelled around the area as an Apostle while James was probably a bishop or presbyter along with others in Jerusalem. If anyone was the first bishop of Antioch, it would have been Stephen or Barnabas. Does Eusebius mention them?
Been around since 1998. Voice of experience. Glad to meet you Mr. August of 2006.
Do you think that Eusebius was trying to disguise Peter's Jewish heritage by linking him to Antioch rather than Jerusalem?
Please post the writings of the Syriac fathers that explicitly say Peter was the Bishop of Antioch for 30 years.
Post the actual writings,NOT protestant interpretations please.
Can you read Aramaic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.