Was Peter "prime Minister" In Rome?

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='-L-' timestamp='1287894893' post='2181989']
People denying that Peter was in Rome are nonsensical as those that deny Christ died on the Cross.


It is a historical fact that Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero being Crucified upside down. This is a fact. The historians in the early years of the Church attest to this, and it is only anti catholics who try and disprove this when it cannot be disproved.


[/quote]

Excuse me, but in your zeal you have completely lost site of the topic of this thread, which was not to dispute that Peter was ever IN Rome, but was he ever reigning there as prime minister. So all the stuff you so generously foisted upon our heads, was completely irrelevant.

[-L-]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287897242' post='2181992']
Excuse me, but in your zeal you have completely lost site of the topic of this thread, which was not to dispute that Peter was ever IN Rome, but was he ever reigning there as prime minister. So all the stuff you so generously foisted upon our heads, was completely irrelevant.
[/quote]

Its not irrelevant in the slightest.

you posted things claiming that Peter was never in Rome. That is not accurate. And to establish that he was reigning THERE as "prime minister" we must first establish that he was THERE to begin with, and that he possessed this power of prime minister.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1287888814' post='2181976']
First of all, my mother would not have named me Catherine had I been a Mr. At least I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have. Secondly, I do believe in everything the Pope says. There have been a few Popes who weren't up to the most difficult job in the world, but there have also been bad to incompetent Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens, etc. That's what happens when human beings are involved.
[/quote]

Sorry for the gender malfunction.
But I find your position somewhat contradictory. If some of the Pope weren't up to the task, then that, ipso facto, means that you wouldn't necessarily rule out that they made false statements in the past, and that being so, what's to prevent them from flubbing it up in the future?

But I do agree with you. Errors happen when human beings are involved.
Popes are human beings.
And that means, [i]they are not infallible.....under any circumstances.[/i]

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='-L-' timestamp='1287897585' post='2181993']
Its not irrelevant in the slightest.

you posted things claiming that Peter was never in Rome. That is not accurate. And to establish that he was reigning THERE as "prime minister" we must first establish that he was THERE to begin with, and that he possessed this power of prime minister.
[/quote]

I never denied that P was not [i]ever [/i]in Rome. I presented the biblical evidence which militates against him reigning there in any capacity, and his being completely absent from the scene when Paul was writing from afar, as well when he was in prison [i]there. [/i] Instead of basing your beliefs on what [i]God [/i]has to say on the subject, you merely sweep it all under the rug and let your traditions reign supreme.

By the way, Eusebius and Irenaeus make Linus mentioned in 2 Tim 4:21, the first bishop of Rome (Against Heresies, III.iii.3 and [i]Ecclesiastical History, III.ii). [/i] Catholics are predisposed to believe that Peter ministered in Rome for 25 years....according to Jerome's Latin translation of Eusebius. Philip Schaff says that this is a "colossal, chronological mistake!" ("History of the Christian Church" I, 252).

[-L-]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287899072' post='2182003']
I never denied that P was not [i]ever [/i]in Rome. I presented the biblical evidence which militates against him reigning there in any capacity, and his being completely absent from the scene when Paul was writing from afar, as well when he was in prison [i]there. [/i][/quote]

That isn't evidence, that is forming unfounded conclusions about passages from scripture which do not even have the intention of addressing the question you are attempting to answer.

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287899072' post='2182003'] Instead of basing your beliefs on what [i]God [/i]has to say on the subject, you merely sweep it all under the rug and let your traditions reign supreme. [/quote]


What am I sweeping under the rug? The only thing I am sweeping under the rug are fallacies that try to form conclusions from passages that don't provide the necessary information to support these conclusions.

Paul doesn't mention Peter in a certain epistle, therefore we can say this is persuasive evidence that Peter was not in Rome. <-- This does not make sense considering the solid evidence to the contrary that directly answers the question instead of someone forming a conclusion based on passages that do not address the question.

And what traditions are you talking about? [u]I was quoting an early Christian historian, that has [i]nothing[/i] to do with Catholic tradition[/u], and the scriptures themselves are also part of tradition, but that is besides the point.


You are making rash assumptions that I am not basing my beliefs on what God has to say; that is quite a bold claim. Unfortunately, The Bible does not tell us how Peter died, or the location of his death, or what happened during the final years of his life, but thankfully, people of the early Church took note of such things and we have them recorded in history by several early Christian writers.

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287899072' post='2182003']By the way, Eusebius and Irenaeus make Linus mentioned in 2 Tim 4:21, the first bishop of Rome (Against Heresies, III.iii.3 and [i]Ecclesiastical History, III.ii). [/i][/quote]
[i]
[/i]This is what you are referring to:[b]

1. After the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/09736b.htm"]martyrdom[/url] of [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/11567b.htm"]Paul[/url] and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/03744a.htm"]church[/url] at [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/13164a.htm"]Rome[/url]. [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/11567b.htm"]Paul[/url] mentions him, when writing to Timothy from [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/13164a.htm"]Rome[/url], in the salutation at the end of the epistle. [/b]
[i]
[/i]and it is entirely accurate, because Linus was the first to [i][u]obtain[/u][/i] the empty seat vacated by Peter who had died, but read what else Eusebius has to say about Linus, because in just two subsequent chapters, in chapter 4, he writes...

[b]
9. As to the rest of his followers, [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/11567b.htm"]Paul[/url] testifies that [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/04484b.htm"]Crescens[/url] was sent to [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/06395b.htm"]Gaul[/url]; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/bible/2ti004.htm#verse21"]2 Timothy 4:21[/url] as his companion at [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/13164a.htm"]Rome[/url], [color="#ff0000"]was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/03744a.htm"]church[/url] there[/color], as has already been shown.

Church History Book 3 Chapter 4.9[/b]


[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287899072' post='2182003']Catholics are predisposed to believe that Peter ministered in Rome for 25 years....according to Jerome's Latin translation of Eusebius. Philip Schaff says that this is a "colossal, chronological mistake!" ("History of the Christian Church" I, 252). [/quote]

Uh, what Catholics? As far as I am concerned, such questions should be answered through careful intellectually honest study of history and not any predisposition people have regarding a subject. It would not matter if Peter's reign in Rome was 25 years or 25 days, because the only thing that matters is who his successor was, we see the Bishop of Rome as having primacy, not because he is the Bishop of [i]Rome[/i] specifically, but because he is Peter's successor. If Peter had traveled to what was then Londinium, and his successors were the Bishops of Londinium, then today we would see the Bishop of London (londinium) as having primacy, not because of his city but because of who he is succeeding as Bishop.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287897961' post='2181995']
But I do agree with you. Errors happen when human beings are involved.
Popes are human beings.
And that means, [i]they are not infallible.....under any circumstances.[/i]
[/quote]
Using that reasoning, the Scripture writers may have made errors because they are human, and humans make errors. We do not hold that the Pope is infallible because of some power intrinsic to him as a person, but that God prevents him from teaching error regarding faith and morals, just as God prevented the Scripture writers from teaching error in faith and morals.

God bless

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287887161' post='2181964']

[font="arial, serif"][size="3"][color="#663333"][size=2][b][color=#333333][font=Georgia, serif][size=2]The point is, Protestants don't have to agree with [i]everything [/i]Luther says, in the exact same way you do not believe everything a pope says!!! Hence, your submission is not only worthless, it is hypocritical. How about picking up a copy of "All the Bad Popes".....or read a tidy little summary of the inquisition where innumerable innocent lives were snuffed out because they refused to believe they were to eat the body parts of the Lord Jesus Christ in the form of a piece of bread. To think that the above Luther quote is "one of your favorite pieces of ammunition" to use when objections arise---all to the [u]exclusion[/u] of mentioning the horrors the Roman Catholic hierarchy has inflicted on numberless people down through history, is the worst sort of scholarship....... "[i]Mr. Scholar."[/i][/size][/font][/color][/b][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, serif"][size="3"][color="#663333"][size=2][b]
[/b][/size][/color][/size][/font]

[/quote]
I'm glad that when confronted by a simple quote, you attack the person posting, bring up historical events (which you simultaneously over-simplify and sensationalize (that's awesome)) that have nothing to do with said quote and then indulge in the delusion that Catholics aren't aware that right bastards have been clergy in the Church.

And yet, there have been no dogmas excusing the popes from sin.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287897961' post='2181995']
Sorry for the gender malfunction.
But I find your position somewhat contradictory. If some of the Pope weren't up to the task, then that, ipso facto, means that you wouldn't necessarily rule out that they made false statements in the past, and that being so, what's to prevent them from flubbing it up in the future?

But I do agree with you. Errors happen when human beings are involved.
Popes are human beings.
And that means, [i]they are not infallible.....under any circumstances.[/i]
[/quote]
Perhaps you should study up on what Papal Infallibility actually means. The Pope, or Magisterium, is only infallible in a very limited area.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1287947636' post='2182113']
Perhaps you should study up on what Papal Infallibility actually means. The Pope, or Magisterium, is only infallible in a very limited area.
[/quote]

I know exactly what infallibility means and if you want to debate the issue, then feel free to open a thread.

[MIKolbe]

no ya don't.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1287913556' post='2182016']
Using that reasoning, the Scripture writers may have made errors because they are human, and humans make errors. We do not hold that the Pope is infallible because of some power intrinsic to him as a person, but that God prevents him from teaching error regarding faith and morals, just as God prevented the Scripture writers from teaching error in faith and morals.

God bless
[/quote]




[size="3"]From the get-go, one would wonder that if God gave the gift of infallibility to the church, why has it been used so infrequently? It has, for all intents and purposes, been useless. If the Mother & Mistress of all churches says she has a direct hotline to heaven anyway, what need is there for infallibility? It's already in your documents at V-2 that you're supposed to believe the Pope "even when he[u] doesn't[/u] speak ex-cathedra". [/size]

[size="2"]In any case, I quite understandable why they had to narrow down the playing field to faith and morals. After the fiasco the church had with Galileo (which proved the hierarchy was anything BUT infallible when it came to matters of science), they obviously didn't want to get themselves in boiling water again in the future, so they whittled down their supposed "gift" to F & M to be "safe". Quite comical actually. We are to believe the Creator of the Universe would refrain from giving His "true church" some insight on science, He being the greatest Scientist of all??? The blunders of the hierarchy in the Galielo episode, and their repeated confirmation of their error for nearly 200 years, was the reason for the shakedown to faith and morals. They don't dare take the chance that future discoveries could expose that they really don't have the gift after all. Yet in Wisdom 7:17, we are told that, "For He gave me sound knowledge of existing things, that I might know the organization of the universe and the force of its elements...[ and] the changes in the sun's course and the variations of the seasons." [/size]

[size="3"]Need it be said that the whole Galileo episode[/size] [u][size="3"]revolved[/size][/u][size="3"] around the issue of the sun's [/size][u][size="3"]revolving[/size][/u][size="3"]?[/size]

[size="3"]If the Book of Wisdom is from God, it only stands to reason that He would NOT have allowed the Catholic Church to come to such UNscientific conclusions and condemn the innocent---because if He was in the habit of giving the writer of Wisdom knowledge of the "sun's course", why then certainly He would be [/size][u][size="3"]sure[/size][/u][size="3"] to enlighten the hierarchy of His "chosen church!" But this He did not do----which once again proves the illogic of Catholic claims.[/size]

Edited October 24, 2010 by Shadyrest

[KnightofChrist]

[size="7"]I [color="#ff0000"]<3[/color] [b]BIG TEXT[/b] [i]and[/i] [size="2"]([u]on occasion[/u])[/size] [b][color="#ff0000"]C[/color][color="#ff00ff"]O[/color][/b][/size][b][size="7"][color="#00ff00"]L[/color][/size][/b][size="7"][b][color="#0000ff"]O[/color][color="#ff8c00"]R[/color][color="#8b0000"]I[/color][color="#000080"]N[/color][color="#0000ff"]G[/color] IT[/b]!!![/size]

[sixpence]

I will let the historians and scholars answer your questions, since they surely know more than me about early Church history...

My question is: what is the reason you have come here to "debate" this topic? I do not feel that you have started this topic out of Christian love; you seem very hostile. I do not think that you have started it with objective, scholarly intent; you seem determined not to learn anything.

So why did you start this thread?
To help us poor misguided people? Most people here would respond better if you did not attack/insult them.
If you came here out of spite/hatred, you are obviously not guided by the Holy Spirit, and it is unlikely that anyone will listen to anything you will say....

just sayin'....

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1287952109' post='2182135']
I will let the historians and scholars answer your questions, since they surely know more than me about early Church history...

My question is: what is the reason you have come here to "debate" this topic? I do not feel that you have started this topic out of Christian love; you seem very hostile. I do not think that you have started it with objective, scholarly intent; you seem determined not to learn anything.

So why did you start this thread?
To help us poor misguided people? Most people here would respond better if you did not attack/insult them.
If you came here out of spite/hatred, you are obviously not guided by the Holy Spirit, and it is unlikely that anyone will listen to anything you will say....

just sayin'....
[/quote]

I started the thread to get you to THINK THROUGH YOUR BELIEFS. I might remind you that Jesus came into this world to "shake people up" to say the least. Anyway, this is a debate forum, so why do I have to give my innermost ulterior motives? The mere fact that a debate table exists presupposes that there are disagreements that must be dealt with. As a matter of fact, God has allowed heresies to arise so that the better argument may be made manifest (1 Cor 11:19). It seems to me that you're not interested in doing any research at all, but will leave everything to everyone else. Will that be your reason on Judgment Day when you are asked why you followed the Pope? Will you just say, "I thought following the crowd was the thing to do".

These matters are of eternal consequence. For example, your church teaches at Vatican 1 that everyone must be in subjection to the Pope to be SAVED. I am highly insulted and violently disagree, as do all non-Catholic Christians who find their satisfaction in [i]Christ alone[/i], and are not intimidated by the threats of, "or else it's curtains for you" from the Catholic hierarchy. My words are meant to be a catalyst to get you to do further research and to discover that salvation does not consist in trusting in a MAN sitting on a throne way off on the other side of the world, but in the Redeemer [i]alone. B[/i]ecause you're my spiritual enemy, I am nevertheless spending time here out of concern for your souls, whether you believe it or not. Jesus had quite a few enemies, so I'm not surprised to make them here. We're told that "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you". He's saying that if everyone is your friend, there MUST be something wrong with your theology because the true gospel will indeed be offensive to the unregenerate soul.

[sixpence]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287959196' post='2182163']

These matters are of eternal consequence. For example, your church teaches at Vatican 1 that everyone must be in subjection to the Pope to be SAVED. I am highly insulted and violently disagree, as do all non-Catholic Christians who find their satisfaction in [i]Christ alone[/i], and are not intimidated by the threats of, "or else it's curtains for you" from the Catholic hierarchy. My words are meant to be a catalyst to get you to do further research and to discover that salvation does not consist in trusting in a MAN sitting on a throne way off on the other side of the world, but in the Redeemer [i]alone. B[/i]ecause you're my spiritual enemy, I am nevertheless spending time here out of concern for your souls, whether you believe it or not. Jesus had quite a few enemies, so I'm not surprised to make them here. We're told that "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you". He's saying that if everyone is your friend, there MUST be something wrong with your theology because the true gospel will indeed be offensive to the unregenerate soul.
[/quote]

I truly believe that most people here are very aware that these matters are of eternal consequence. I am glad you have good intentions I suppose we are both concerned for each other. The purpose of my previous post was just to get you to realize that if you really have good intentions here, there is a better way to go about discussing you opinions than being openly hostile. The first thing I think of from the CCC in response to previous post is this:

[b]838[/b] "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."[sup]322[/sup] [u]Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church[/u]."[sup]323[/sup] [i]With the Orthodox Churches[/i], this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."[sup]324[/sup]

...and so it is unfortunate that you regard us as spiritual enemies; I do not think we regard you as such! (until you begin blatantly attacking our faith, rather than having an honest open discussion...then you will get people in defense mode, or just not taking seriously what you say (maybe not reading it all).