The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[LittleLes]

Hi Peach Cube,

Let me point out that I don't have to prove that Peter was not in Rome. I didn't make the original assertion. If solid evidence is provided, then I'd have to refute it.

And if your grandparents told you that they were from Craotia, it quite probably that they were. But if someone today who was not a witness to the events they describe tells you that your grandparents were from Craotia, that's not historical evidence.

There are a lot of legends going around that have no confirmation. Washington doubtfully chopped down that cherry tree, and I understand that the recent remake of the Alamo dropped the sceen of Col Travis drawing that very famous line in the sand. It's been determined that there is no real evidence that it occurred, and the survivors (wive, slaves, mexican merchants) made no mention of it.

Littleles

[Myles Domini]

Little less in my own post I admitted that my knowledge on the provenance of Adversus Haerses was not iron clad. I would assume if there are Old Copies that they're 3rd century. However, I cant say for sure.

Now then would you mind dealing with points summarily? Or will you try to shirk doing so by trying to make cheap comments. The substance of an argument does not change because, not being able to refute it, you try to make some rude comments about elements of it. Nobody on this board is going to convinced by your argument if its strength lays in your ability to poke fun at other peoples counter claims' without actually managing to make a strong case against them.

However, to an extent I think arguing with you is meaningless. Since I am of the school of thought that when its obvious someone is not listening to you its useless to continue talking. The only reason why I keep posting is because not only as an academic but as a human being I feel that if someone is slandered against behind their back someone should advocate for them.

If you cant provide satisfactory reasons for why, for instance, we should take the testimony of unbiased, contemporary, Greek natives as a guideline for interpreting passages written in their time in their language without punctuation and only their witness to tell us how to interpret them then I must ask you to stop this. I will respond to you but a few times more but after that I, and I think everyone else at Phatmass, will give up and leave you simply to post away and rest contented that nobody had the time or energy to stay and 'out argue' you.

Edited March 1, 2005 by Myles

[peach_cube]

[quote]Let me point out that I don't have to prove that Peter was not in Rome. I didn't make the original assertion. If solid evidence is provided, then I'd have to refute it.[/quote]

Sacred Tradition holds that Peter was in Rome. You won't find an ECF that will state otherwise. What is solid evidence? Do you believe that Socrates existed? We only know of him through Plato. If you will not trust any source or any tradition then you cannot argue against Peterine primacy. You have no ground to stand on.

[quote]And if your grandparents told you that they were from Craotia, it quite probably that they were. But if someone today who was not a witness to the events they describe tells you that your grandparents were from Craotia, that's not historical evidence.
[/quote]

The problem here is that you are just not trusting in translations. Since you see Eusebius as unreliable and he translated Irenaeus, you now discount his testimony. Yet you still have the testimony of the other ECF's to refute as well as Sacred Tradition. I still see no support for why you find Eusebius to be unreliable.

[quote]There are a lot of legends going around that have no confirmation. Washington doubtfully chopped down that cherry tree, and I understand that the recent remake of the Alamo dropped the sceen of Col Travis drawing that very famous line in the sand. It's been determined that there is no real evidence that it occurred, and the survivors (wive, slaves, mexican merchants) made no mention of it.[/quote]

Believe me as a Catholic I am more than aware of false legends and testimonies. Yet I will clump everything into a legend. Would you say that Washington's crossing when he fell off the boat is legend as well? Just because there are Legends about Dragons and Holy Grails doesn't do anything to support whatever it is that you are trying to prove. Get a thesis statement or something. Also, try addressing the arguements that Myles has made. You won't get much leeway on this board if you fail to follow common debate practices.

[LittleLes]

Hi Myles and Peach Cube.

"How come none of the early Christians disputed it"? Maybe they did but didn't have a very large press. I don't think you will find any Texans to dispute the story that Col Travis drew that line in the sand at the Alamo. But it first appeared in 1873, and there are no contemporary writings supporting it. Ditto, the Washington cherry tree story.

So I'll restate my thesis thus:

(1) There is no New Testament writing placing Peter at Rome.

(2) There are no reliable historical writings written within 100 years of Peter's death which reports that he was bishop of Rome.

(3) There is a writing placing him at Antioch.

If you have specific realistic challenges to this, Myles, please state them individually in short posts, and I try to answer them. I don't favor "snowballing," as when a series of claims without evidence are made in rapid succession, and this is substituted for evidence.

LittleLes

Edited March 1, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

Hi Peach Cube,

We could start a whole thread on Eusebius and the reliability of his history, but I'd rather stay on topic.

Still, you might want to look up Eusebius' Church History, Vol 1, chapter 13. He tells us that King Abgarus wrote Jesus a letter asking for a cure. Jesus wrote a personal letter back saying, in effect, that he didn't make house calls, but he would send someone over.

Do you think this is creditable history on Eusebius' part?

LittleLes

Edited March 1, 2005 by LittleLes

[Myles Domini]

1) Eusbieus isnt the only one claiming Peter was at Rome
2) We know from St Ignatius that Rome had primacy because he says it and the article that I referred you to for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America accepts this whilst re-interpting that primacy. How could Rome achieve primacy if not for Peter's keys over a see like Antioch founded by the same guy, which was the place where Christians were first called Christians?
3) As I said before the New Testament is the product of the Catholic Church's witness. There are non-canon books i.e. the genuine acts of Sts Peter and Paul, which claim Peter and Paul were in Rome and died in Rome but they wre not included in the final canon at the 382 AD Council of Rome.

[Myles Domini]

As for snowballing and my posts lacking substance...

Fact I referenced you to works both primary and secondary pertinent to the discussion

Fact I referenced you to the official website of an apostolic Church not in communion with Rome that has no need to defend Papal primacy or Petrinity that has always spoken Greek and to this day holds Sts Peter and Paul founded the Roman See

Fact I also said your interpretation is trying to go against the interpretation of 20 centuries of Greek speakers

Is any of this untrue? Is there not still a Patriarchate of Constantinople? Do they not follow this interpretation? Can you find any statement from the said Church that Peter and Paul were in Rome? The Antiochians, of whom St Ignatius was Bishop, paid deference to Rome. St Ignatius as I said says they have envied nobody but others they have taught. Why would he say that?

The very idea of primatial Sees is rooted in Petrinity. Rome 1st, Alexandria 2nd through St Mark founding it as St Clement of Alexandria reported and 3rd Antioch.

As for the fact Eusebius says a few weird things does the fact that Tacitus says Christians were grossly immoral change the fact that on the whole he was a good historian who gave accurate accounts of the Roman Persecution and the reigns of the Caesar's of his time?

[LittleLes]

Myles, you are still snowballing simple assertions without proof. If you feel you have a valid point, state it singularly and succinctly and then we can review the evidence together.

And if you read Ignatius, I think you will find that he extends to Rome the primacy of "honor"not authority. I don't think he claims Peter was bishop there. Peter is supposed to have ordained Evodius at Antioch, Peter's first succerror bishop to his first See. Evodius was Ignatius's predecessor. Wouldn't that make Ignatius pope once Peter died????? An interesting question. Why would a second successor bishop (Linus or Rome) become pope and not the first?????

LittleLes

[Myles Domini]

If Ignatius was Pope he would not have called Rome the first of all Churches, presiding over the others in love. Moreover, in paragraph III of his letter to the Romans he says that Rome has envied nobody but taught others. This completely contrasts his other letters, in which, concious of his own authority as Bishop of Antioch he gives orders and directions to the various congregations. Ignatius appears, from his own words, quite aware of the difference in status between the other churches and the Roman See. A difference the disciple of his friend St Polycarp, that is St Irenaeus, reminds us all about. I dont know how succinct you would like me to be in posting and since I get the feeling you dont want me to respond any longer I wont. I dont see how I have snowballed you (Peach Cube what are your thoughts on this?), I simply tried to respond to all the points you raised in your posts. However, I am getting the picture you are not interested in reading what I have to say nor in trying to argue against my points which I do not think are ill-justified or lacking in relevance i.e. the non-contemporary nature of the gospels and their inspiration being attested to by the witness of the Roman Apostolic authority. Thus, I will retire from this thread since it seems you are less concerned about hearing others than you are about others hearing you. That makes for a monologue not a debate.

As an aside the Acts of St Peter and Paul just for fun : [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0815.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0815.htm[/url]

Dominus Vobiscum LL

[Myles Domini]

One quick last quip. The fact Rome became the Papacy is precisely because Peter lived and died there. It became his home. Peter did found the see of Antioch but that was part of his missionary activity. His hq was Rome, which is on the website of the North American Archdiocese of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch website: [url="http://www.antiochian.org/Patriarchate"]http://www.antiochian.org/Patriarchate[/url]

Edited March 1, 2005 by Myles

[Myles Domini]

Last thing, lol

[url="http://www.antiochpat.org/"]http://www.antiochpat.org/[/url]
The Antiochene Orthodox Patriarchate website. Have your speakers on the chanting is beautiful, absolutely beautiful...

Enter, click 'our faith', and then 'historical overview'

You will recieve more of the same. St Peter came here left in 53 AD etc.

[Archangel]

I like this article from National Geographic.

[i]The Vatican had long held the tradition that Peter was buried under the basilica, but even as late as the 1930s, they didn't really have any proof.

Then, in 1939, workers renovating the grottoes beneath St. Peter's, the traditional burial area of the popes, made a stunning find. Just below the floor level, they discovered an ancient Roman grave. It soon became clear that there wasn't just one grave, but an entire city of the dead.

After many months of digging, the excavators came to a section of older graves, near the area underneath the high altar. Directly beneath the altar, they found a large burial site and a wall painted red. In a niche connected to that wall, they found the bones of a man.

More than 20 years later, in 1968, Pope Paul VI announced that those bones belonged to St. Peter. [/i]

[url="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/11/1118_vaticanbasilica.html"]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...anbasilica.html[/url]

[peach_cube]

[quote](1) There is no New Testament writing placing Peter at Rome.[/quote]

And the rest of the Apostles, we do not see much if anything in where they might have gone. Yet tradition will tell you that each Apostle went to a certain place and met a certain fate. We don't assume that because we don't see it in the New Testament that they did not go were tradition asserts that they did go.

[quote](2) There are no reliable historical writings written within 100 years of Peter's death which reports that he was bishop of Rome. [/quote]

Again, you are skipping over the fact thar many of ECF's have a direct connection to the Apostles either by being taught by them or someone who was taught by them. These same men passed on the Sacred Tradition. They are reliable. Again, how do you feel about Socrates or many other historical figures? Because they do not meat your undefined criteria for reliabity does not mean they are in fact unreliable. You cannot state something as fact without backing it up.

[quote](3) There is a writing placing him at Antioch.[/quote]

What makes this writing reliable and the others unreliable? Should we assume that Peter went to no other places unless they are mentioned in texts that meet your criteria for reliability?

[quote]We could start a whole thread on Eusebius and the reliability of his history, but I'd rather stay on topic.[/quote]

But it is not his history that is in question it is his abilities as a translator that we are questioning. Why should we believe that his translations render the text obsolete?

You are trying to prove a point. What is it? That Peter was never in Rome? Even most secular historians would find fallacy in that position.

[LittleLes]

Hi Myles,

Ignatius never said that Peter was bishop of Rome, did he?

And because Rome was the captial city of the Empire, do you think that had anything to do with its religious authority?

I'm sorry that you don't want to carefully examine individual agruments about Peter being bishop of Rome. I'll return to my analysis of the original writing and point out its errors.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

Good morning, Peach Cube,

Once again, I am not questioning that Peter may have visited Rome at some point. I am questioning if there is any evidence that he was leader of the church there. If he was, it is very odd that Acts of the Apostles and the writings of Paul make no mention of this.

"Yet tradition will tell you that each Apostle went to a certain place and met a certain fate."

I'm certain it does. But does this have anything to do with historical fact? If you'd like, check out where the Apostle Thomas is said to have met his fate. The on-line Catholic Encyclopedia has an article on this.

LittleLes