ALL Catholics including the Popes believe that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. If even one Catholic (regardless of how prominent he is) says that St. Peter is NOT the Bishop of Rome....then he is going against Catholic teachings. The Catholic doctrines are in the Catechisms. Anyone who go against it is already going against Catholic teaching. Raymond Brown does not constitute the entire Catholic teaching. Our Catholic teaching already existed before Raymond Brown was born.
Yes, Catholic doctrines are in the CCC which does not claim that Peter was a bishop of Rome.
You say the popes all believe that Peter was a bishop of Rome? Then why did a pope (this is from the cover of a book by Brown} praise Brown for his faithfulness to Catholic teachings? You can bet the pope knew Browns conclusion from his research that Peter was not a bishop of the Roman church. The present pope praised the Catholic scholors recently as a group. You can bet your savings the popes of our time all know that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.
They do not trumpet it but they know it. This is why the CCC does not mention that anymore.
The popes are smart men. The present one is a theology and christian history expert. He knows those Catholic scholors are telling the truth. They are not dissidents or heretics. They just tell the historic truth.
In fact I have typed out the Introduction to Catholic Paul Johnsons, History of Christianity. He of course draws the same conclusions as the others. He explains the job of a historian when explaining church history:
Taken from Prologue
History of Christianity
"It is then a work of history. You may ask; is it possible to write of
Christianity with the requisite degree of historical detachment?
In 1913 Ernst troeltsch argued perusasively that sceptical and
critical methods of historical research were incompatible with
Christian belief; many historians and most religous sociologists
would agree with him. There is, to be sure, an apparent conflict.
Christianity is essetially a historical religion. It bases its
claims on the historical facts it asserts. If these are demolished
it is nothing. Can a Christian, then, examine the truth of these facts
with the same objectivity he would display towards any other phenomenon?
Can he be expected to dig the grave of his own faith if that is the way
his investigations seem to point? In the past, very few Christian
scholars have had the courage or the confidence to place the unhampered
pursuit of truth before any other consideration. Almost all have drawn
the line somewhere. Yet how futile their defensive efforts have proved!
For Chrisianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach - and
properly understood, does teach - that any interference with the truth
is immoral. A christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts;
a christian historian who draws the line limiting the field of enquiry
at any point whatsoever, is admitting the liimits of his faith. And
he is also destroying the nature of his religion, which is a progressive
revelation of the truth. So the Christian, according to my understanding,
should not be inhibited in the smallest degree from following the line of
truth; indeed he is positively bound to follow it. He should be in fact,
freer than the non-Christian, who is precommitted by his own rejection.
At all events, I have sought to present the facts of Christian history
as truthfully and nakedly as I am able, and to leave the rest to the
A historian tells history from his research regardless of religious beliefs. That is the point. Peace. JohnR