The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[LittleLes]

1. Belief that the pope is God's appointed representative on earth with virtually unlimited authority is essential for maintaining the power of the Catholic church.

2. Consequently a large volume of Catholic apologetics writings is devoted to arguing that:
(a) Jesus founded a church (in this case, the Catholic church).
(b) Jesus appointed Peter and his succerrors as his personal representative on earth.
© Peter was the first bishop of Rome and his validly elected successor bishops of that See have the same authority.

3. Among the apologetics articles presented on this "phorum's" Debate Table is that written by I. Shawn McElhinney. Lets begin an examination of what he claims.

4. McElhinney quite correctly states that Peter's whereabouts after the Council of Jerusalem (approximately 48-49 A.D.) are pretty much unknown.

5. However, McElhinney then disputes two of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers whose writings are usually used to establish Peter's presence in Rome. McElhinney says "...it is likely that he (Peter) was settled in Rome by the early '60's." (Note: Peter is thought to have been martyred between 64 and 67 A.D.

6. Writing in his "Chronicles" in 303 A.D., Eusebius of Caesarea reported that:
"(In the second) year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]. the Apostle Peter, after he had established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years."

7. And St. Jerome writing his De viris illustribus, chapter 1, tells us that "(Peter) pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to over-throw Simeon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth year of Nero." See [url="http://www.newadvent/fathers/2708.htm"]http://www.newadvent/fathers/2708.htm[/url]

8. Thus McElhinney begins his article by disputing the writing of two Early Church Fathers whose writings are used to "prove" that Peter was in Rome and was its bishop.

to be continued........

LittleLes

[God Conquers]

ok....

[MichaelFilo]

Someone inadvertntly contradicted themselves?

God bless,
Mikey

[Myles Domini]

Little Les, where is this going? I dont even know the apologist you are talking about but I do know the Church Fathers pretty well. The very fact that the Orthodox Church are willing to give Rome primacy of honour (whilst disputing how far that Primacy extends into the governance of their churches) is testament to an unbroken belief amongst the apostolic Churches that everyone agreed on the primacy of Rome. The sources you are quoting, Eusebius and St Jerome are not ante-Nicene. Eusebius is contemporary of the Council and St Jerome only really gets off of the ground much later in the reign of Pope Damasus I in the 380's. If you want ante-Nicene evidence for Rome in primary sources rather than as quoted by Eusebius you need look no further than the letter of Pope St Clement to the Corinthinas, the letter of St Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans and Book 3, Chapter 3 paragraph 2 of Adversus Haerses by St Irenaeus. The first letter sees Pope St Clement paraphrash Peter's words in Acts to Annanias and Saphira in speaking in the name of the Holy Spirit, the second sees St Ignatius calling Rome the See that presides over others in love and which has envied nobody and taught others and the third sees St Irenaeus say it is a matter of neccessity that all churches in the world agree with the Roman church on account of its superior apostolic origin. Whether or not the apologist in question is mistaken history itself cannot be mistaken. Tertullian in his montanist days scornfully refers to the Petrine primacy of the Roman See. Later Fathers would continually re-iterate this i.e. St Basil the Great when in his letter to Rome for help to end the disputes in the church of Antioch he says we dont ask for anything knew but merely for you to repeat what was done in the days of St Dionysus of Alexandria, who appealed for doctrinal clarification from the saintly Pope by the saint name in the 3rd century.
If you intend to dispute the Petrine primacy based on the fact that one apologist argues both sides of the case then you're not going to get anywhere far. All the primary evidence from the Patristic age is in favour of the Roman Primacy and it only grows stronger with time. The statements of the second session of the Council of Chalcedon about Peter speaking through Leo, the words of St Maximus the Confessor and St Thedore the Studite on the primacy also all link back to the Petrinity of the See of Rome.

My question is then? What is the point you're trying to make?

[LittleLes]

Hi Myles,

The article is right here in the apologetics documents. I thought I'd start with this one first, since it seems well written.

And regarding Clement to the Corinthians, that will come later but will be introducted to illustrate that Peter is not with Paul in Rome at that time, and Ignatious is referring to Peter and Paul in Antioch, not Rome. But that too will come later.

You're not going to quote me the letter of Pope Clement to James as proof that Peter was in Rome, are you?

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

1. Neither the Acts of the Apostles nor any of the Epistles of Paulmake mention of Peter being in Rome. This would be even more remarkable if Peter had really been in Rome for 25 years as Eusebius and Jerome reported.

2. McElkinney then attempts the "code word" hypothesis based on 1 Peter 5:14 "from the church which is at Babylon" to show that Peter is writing from Rome. The term "Babylon" is said to be used by John in Revelation as a reference to Rome.

3. But McElkinney's claim is not creditable for the following reasons:

(a) It is questionable that Peter wrote 1 Peter (see the Introduction to 1 Peter, in the New American Bible, also on-line).

(b) Revelation, which is used as the source for the "code word" reference was written between 81-96 A.D. Peter died in 64-67 A.D.(see New American Bible).

© If Peter indeed wrote "from the church which is at Babylon," that is quite likely where he was. Contrary to some apologists' claims, Babylon was a flourishing Jewish center at that time, perhaps second only to Jerusalem, and that is quite likely where the "apostle to the circumcised" might have been.

"Of what was probably a million Jews living in the Persian Empire (during the Babylonian captivity), only 42,000 went back (to Jerusalem), meaning that 95% stayed in Babylon under Persian domination. During the Second Temple period, up until its destruction in 70 C.E., the Jewish community in Babylon - far from the eye of the storm that raged in the land ofIsrael - continued to flourish."

See the on-line "Crash Course in Jewish History Part 43 - The Jews of Babylon"

To be continued...........

LittleLes

[Myles Domini]

Are you being quite serious that Ignatius letter was to the Church of Antioch? Ignatius himself was Bishop of Antioch. Nobody claims this. If you go to the webpage of the Greek Orthodox diocese of North America--which is under the direct jurdistiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople--they actually quote the letter in reference to the Roman Church. They interpret its meaning vastly differently but nonetheless they have never, nor has any Church with apostolicity attempted to deny the fact that Peter and Paul founded the See of Rome: [url="http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp"]http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp[/url] (Scroll down to the 9th paragraph under the sub heading the Orthodox position).

I dont really need to quote you, there are Fathers' upon Fathers who will do that. Your scholarship is spurious. I am studying Theology at Keble College, University of Oxford, UK and even hear the heart of Anglicanism nobody would claim that Sts Peter and Paul did not found the Roman See. It would kill their academic careers not because they've got anything to fear from Catholics, all the university's are liberal these days, but from their peers who would severely hammer them for terrible scholarship.

Look at the contents of St Ignatius' letter. He's asking the Roman Church not to save him from martyrdom when he gets there. The content of the letter has nothing whatsoever to do with Antioch. He's been travelling away from Antioch since the start of his epistle writing. He writes the reciepients of this letter as 'Bishop of Syria' pararaph 2 and we all know that he was Bishop of Antioch the capital of Syria yet he writes to the Romans not to command them as Peter and Paul did paragraph IV. Peter and Paul being the founders of the See as St Irenaeus reports, a fact you have yet to refute. Ignatius says that the Roman Church has envied nobody but taught others Paragraph III and he explicitly states at the start of letter that he's writing to the Church of Rome. More to the point he asks as Bishop of Syria for prayers for the Christians there and talks of making the journey to Rome.

[quote]Now I write these things to you from Smyrna by the Ephesians, who are deservedly most happy. There is also with me, along with many others, Crocus, one dearly beloved by me. As to those who have gone before me from Syria to Rome for the glory of God, I believe that you are acquainted with them; to whom, [then,] do ye make known that I am at hand.[/quote]

Read the whole letter yourself: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm[/url]

The whole letter is a testament to the Roman Primacy. This Church is the only one St Ignatius shows any deference too. Why? Because its the highest of all primatal sees as the Councils of Nicea, Sardica, Constantinople and Chalcedon all state explicitly. How did it come to this station? As St Irenaeus tells us by the unique fact that it was founded by St Peter and Paul, and that it became their base of operations and the place of their martyrdom. In Book III chapter 3 of 'Against Heresies' St Irenaeus actually names every Pope since Peter and Paul died up until his day: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm[/url]

This gives Pope St Clement's letter to the Corinthians even more weight, since here is written testimony from a near eastern saint that he was one of the sucessors of St Peter. Your argument has even more nails struck in the coffin by the fact that for 2000 years there has been a Church in Antioch that has never claimed what you have just claimed. To this day the Church of which St Ignatius was Bishop does not claim what you have claimed, nor have they ever. Uniquely concious of their own Petrinity they've never tried to insinuate that Rome's is not superior.

As a scholar I will not appeal to psuedo-Clementine writings like the so-called letter to James to substantiate my postion. I dont need to. The fact of the matter is your argument is fundamentally flawed, tries to manipulate the evidence into positions rejected clearly by 2000 years of Orthodox and Roman Catholic history and ignores references like that of St Irenaeus that it doesnt like.

[LittleLes]

Perhaps I was unclear regarding Ignatius's letter. When he is refering to Peter and Paul issuing commandments, he is most likely is referring to those issued during their stay at Antioch during which Peter established his first See and appointed his first successor, Evodius. There is nothing in Ignatius' letter claiming that Peter was in Rome. The fact that it was addressed to the Romans does not establish Peter's presence there.

It appears that some of these commandments can be found in Acts 15 as being sent to the Church at Antioch.

And I'm sorry that McElhinney's writing "The Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Primacy" implies that Eusebius and Jerome were anti-Nicene Fathers. Still if Eusebius was born before 300 A.D., might not he qualify?

And on another site a poster who claims to be a deacon quoted me Clement to James as evidence that Peter had been a bishop at Rome.

Actually, I can't find a valid writing within 100 years of Peter's death saying that he was bishop at Rome. I think he may have visited at some point. But I find no evidence that he was a bishop there.

But let us press on with McElhinney's argument ....

Little Les

[Myles Domini]

You're discrediting St Irenaeus on the fact that he was born in the second century? Based on what grounds? Is the witness unreliable in any way? Can he be imputed to have a Roman bias? The discipline of history demands that one only disavow the testimony of a witness if that witness proves unreliable. St Irenaeus cannot be called such a witness since he actually had a dispute with Pope Victor over Victor's excommunication his Asian brethren (a dispute he actually won). Yet, in spite of that St Irenaeus traces an unbroken line of succession back to Peter and Paul for the Roman Church and not one extant source challenges this. The entire Christian community were obviously aware of the fact that Irenaeus' testimony was true. The fact the Orthodox Church inspite of a millenia of antagonism with the West doesnt deny this fact is testament to that. All of the early Christians recognised the primacy of Rome because thats where St Peter resided until his death. Paul was more of a missionary Bishop and made round trips as far as Spain but in the end he too died amongst the community there. St Peter's body was actually found there in 1964 and some reports claim St Paul's has been found there too.

Moreover, what are you getting at you never answered the original question? You're evidently trying to argue from Scripture that the Papacy is a man made institution, yes? I could continue arguing against this but instead I'm going to attack the logic of your argument. How can you argue anything from Scripture against the Catholic Church? After all it was Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382AD that established the Canon of Scripture. Before then the Shepherd of Hermas, the Protoevangelium of James, The gospels of Thomas, Nicodemus etc.etc. were all flying around being interpreted in different ways by various different groups. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why the Canon Scripture was decided on in the first place and the idea of the Canon can be traced back to...St Irenaeus. The whole basis of Adversus Haersus is to defeat Gnosticism this is why he speaks of the Papacy in his work. As a point of reference for confused Christians. I mean until Nicea nobody formally defined the Divinity of Christ but had they not believed it they would never have reacted so forcefully against Arius in the first place. The Church only began giving apologetics for Peter's See when its Apostolicity became an issue i.e. now with you and this discussion.

But back to the thrust of my argument. Say you do succeed in proving Peter is not the founder of the Church of Rome (which I'd say is impossible given the evidence contrary to that fact) but I'll humour you. What then? If Peter didnt give his keys to his successors as the Fathers taught unanimously then that means that the Church didnt have the right to say there are 27 books in the New Testament. All the books she ruled out based on their gnosticism and marcionism might theoretically be truer than the gospels we have now. Without Rome's invoking her apostolic succession as St Irenaeus suggests so that we can test the content of Scripture against what Sts Peter and Paul taught, and without the power to bind and loose, how can we maintain anything about Jesus? Maybe the Jesus you and I know is wrong, maybe the Jesus of the gospel of Thomas is the right Jesus, the Jesus who kills people and strikes them dead for their sins. People might say that thats not the majority content of the gospels but thats not true either. There are far more non-canonical gospels than there are canonical ones. Moreover there are other epistles and things i.e. the Real Acts of Sts Peter and Paul--which has them die in Rome after founding the See, that are also non-canonical. Without Rome to sift through the gospels and weed out the one's that dont correspond to the pure deposit of faith we recieved with the keys to the House of David it would open up Christianity to the Dan Brown's of this world. You're trying to undermine the very foundations of Sacred Scripture by trying to disprove Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, because if the Pope's didnt have the power to do what Pope Damasus did in 382AD then we cant actually say who Jesus was. Because we cant say that the 27 books of the New Testament are true as opposed to the non-canonical ones that date from the same period. The only way we can do that is to accept that Rome was right in making that decision and if we accept she was right then we accept the authority of that rightness her superior apostolicity as St Irenaeus puts it.

If you undermine the Papacy you undermine the most widely recognised and most credible witness to the veracity of the 27 books of the New Testament. And leave the Christians of the world with no authority to say which books are inspired and which are not.

[Joseph]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Feb 28 2005, 12:52 PM'] Actually, I can't find a valid writing within 100 years of Peter's death saying that he was bishop at Rome.  I think he may have visited at some point. But I find no evidence that he was a bishop there.

But let us press on with McElhinney's argument ....

Little Les [/quote]


You came to the wrong place if you think you are going to win this argument or "convert" people.

Edited February 28, 2005 by Joseph

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 28 2005, 04:07 PM']
If you undermine the Papacy you undermine the most widely recognised and most credible witness to the veracity of the 27 books of the New Testament. And leave the Christians of the world with no authority to say which books are inspired and which are not. [/quote]
I here ya. I run into this all the time on any christian discussion board. The canon of the bible is always attacked by neo-pagans, gnostics, atheists, etc. and I have never seen a Protestant come up with an acceptable arguement against them.

Edited February 28, 2005 by peach_cube

[LittleLes]

The claim that Irenaeus' statement that Peter was in Rome is disputed for the following reasons:

1. The claim dates from 180 A.D., more that 100 years after the events it describes, thus more than enough time for the development of legend and a Tradition.

2. We don't have a copy of the original writing of Irenaeus of Lyons' Adv Haes III, i, I What we have is a transcription of this writing in Eusebius, Hist Ecc V, viii, 2-4. Eusebius is one of the two Church Fathers who claimed that Peter had been in Rome for 25 years.

3. The Greek of Adv Haes III, i, I was poorly translated. A more correct translation of the pertainent sentence from the Greek would be, "Matthew also produced amongst the Hebrews, in their own dialect, a written account of a Gospel of Peter and Paul, in Rome, while they were evangelizing and laying the foundations of the Church.

4. The alternate translation favored by some apologists is, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, which Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

5. Thus where Matthew wrote his gospel is changed to where Peter and Paul preached.

6. Both Greek and Latin texts of Irenaeus' writing taken frrom Eusebius, a well as translatons, are available on the web.

Conclusion: A writing long after the fact transcribed by Eusebius (who is not and entirely accurate source) which even in its present form is subject to several interpretations.

LittleLes

[Myles Domini]

Why are you continuing this? You're saying that since St Irenaeus wrote in the late 2nd century that his testimony is false? Then how comes none of the early Christians dispute it? I mean, St Irenaeus claims that he was taught by St Polycarp who in turn was the disciple of St John the beloved disciple. His credentials certaintly arent weak. I mean modern critical methods have dated some of the gospels (certainly John's) to half a century after Christ's life. Does that mean that we should reject them as myth? I mean based upon your logic and reasoning the answer would be yes and not a few 'scholars' have taken this route: [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=155"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/g...cfm?worknum=155[/url]
Based upon your reasoning all of history is a joke i.e. Tacitus' annals. The earliest copies we have of them are from 950 years after Tacitus died. Yet they are the most informative pieces of writing we have on the reign of Claudius. In them Tacitus claims to know for instance the motives of why Claudius did certain things i.e. his hestiancy to engage Britannicus. If you were to come here and propose to the Oxford History proffessors that we should reject them because we cannot be sure they are contemporary accounts or that Tacitus claims to know things that seem a bit [i]off[/i] I'm sure you'd get quite a lecture in response.

Moreover, to my limited knowledge, I admit, the copies we have of Against the Heresies are not skimmed from Eusebius. The Greek original is gone but Latin copies from very early after it was written are still floating around in bits and pieces.

Also I dont think you're in a position to judge Eusebius' Greek and you would have a very difficult time trying to maintain your position. As we all know the Greeks didnt use commas so your insistent usage of them simply shows up your bias' against the apostolicity of the Roman See not correctness. Moreover, you'd have a hard time proving it for the very reason that all educated citizens of the Roman Empire even in the West spoke Greek (the Latin liturgy and Bible appeared in the late 4th century) and none of them, natural Greek speakers, interpreted his words as you do. Are you seriously trying to insinuate that the native Greek speakers of the patristic age could not understand their own language? That when these documents were referred to by the Church Fathers that they in their idiocy were decieved on how to speak their mother tongue, whereas you almost 15 centuries later as an English speaker are going to tell them how to interpret it. Try running that one past the Greek Orthodox Church of our present age. They'll also give you quite a dressing down on who and who cannot interpret "the faith of Our Fathers" as they like to call it.

Your last point is probably the most important thing of everything you've said. Things are subject to interpretation in their translation etc. However, thanks be to God we have apostolic sees that were around when these things were written and can tell us how to interpret it. Read the writings of Eusebius' contemporaries and the declarations of the early Ecumenical Councils' pertinent to Rome. In fact read this by Venerable Cardinal Newman from his 'development of Christian doctrine' and see how much the Papal primacy was embedded in the conciousness of the early Christians: [url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter4.html#section3"]http://www.newmanreader.org/works/developm...4.html#section3[/url]

It was not fabricated it was not deception. Those other Sees couldnt be decieved they were all founded by apostles too and they were fully aware of that. I mean if you go to the Malankarites in India they will proudly speak of how their See was founded by St Thomas the Apostle and indeed this too is verified by men like St Jerome etc. However, they were all knowledgeable and accepting of the fact that the Church in Rome was the head Church because of its supreme apostolicity. Eusebius didnt need to fabricate this, nor did he have motive too, he was an Arian heretic who denied the Divinity of Christ as was Constantine and his sons whose acts in support of Arianism almost tore the 4th century Church apart and caused great men like Sts Athanasius and Hilary of Poiters much suffering.

Reliable witnesses providing reliable testimony. Why cant you just accept it?

Edited March 1, 2005 by Myles

[peach_cube]

1. If my grandparents tell me that their parents were from croatia and did various farming activities there and I write it down 80 years after the fact, does that make it a Legend or something that is unbelievable? These Saints were instructed by people who were instructed by the Apostles. This gives them great credibility.

2. Do we have an original copy of any writing that is even 1,500 years old? Should we not take the Bible as the word of God because it has been translated and we do not have the original writing?

3&4. [quote]Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

Matthew also produced amongst the Hebrews, in their own dialect, a written account of a Gospel of Peter and Paul, in Rome, while they were evangelizing and laying the foundations of the Church.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, which Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.[/quote]

The only true difference in these translation is while changed to which. The third translation makes no logical sense. Paul and Peter where obviously not preaching a written gospel, but the Gospel. They wouldn't be just preaching it to Hebrews in their own dialect in Rome either.

5. How do you conclude that would then mean that Peter and Paul were not in Rome? The conclusion basically comes out of nowhere.

6. I just saved a lot of money on my car insurance by not switching to Geico.

Conclusion: So you think Eusebius is not a trusted source...okay give support for this arguement. The interpretations saw no real change in message unless you take the 3rd one, and as already noted that one makes the sentence convey an illogical meaning.

You are going to have to do much better than that if you are trying to conclude that Peter was never in Rome.

[LittleLes]

Errata,

I've discovered an implied error in my original post on Irenaeus. He wrote in Greek, but there is one very old Latin translation (year?) still around. Or at least there was in 1910.

LittleLes