The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[Myles Domini]

You are right nobody within 100 years of Peter's death places the site of his demise in Rome. At the same time nobody within a 100 years of Mark's death says that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark (that is unless you trust the Papias quotation in Eusebius). How then can we say that Mark wrote the 3rd gospel? (neo-Griesbach hypothesis). The text itself doesnt say 'I Mark, interpreter of the Apostle Peter heard these things from him and am writing them' and even if it did many of the non-canonical books make claims to apostolic authorship? If not for the Churches with actual apostolicity who can (and has) deemed such statements errenous? Or confirm the authorship of various texts?

The testimony of tradition produced the canon of Sacred Scripture, the testimony of Scripture allowed the Council of Nicea to anathemise Arius for denying Jesus was consubstantial with the Father, the testimony of Tradition re-affirmed the ancient rights of the Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch at that same council in spite of the fact that under the Tetrarchy of Diocletian and then the Diarchy of Constantine and Licinius none of the three cities functioned as Imperial capital--this is before Constantinople was even built and moreover, until the death of the Western Empire Rome remained a 3rd city, strategically inept compared to Ravenna and Milan.

Your argument would seek to undermine the testimony of the Church Fathers' but it is their testimony that is the backbone of our faith. All that we have in the way of interpretation of Christianity, indeed in terms of the Bible itself comes from the Fathers. Irenaeus did not invent the apostolicity of Rome and nobody ever claims he did, he speaks of one other apostolic See and that is Ephesus where St John the beloved disciple was in residence in Adv.Her III.3 but thats it. He is a witness of the tradition.

This argument you're carrying out is one sided and will get you nowhere because you're trying to chip away at the logical premise that underpins all of Christianity. How do we know what to believe about God? Scripture? How do we know Scripture is inspired? The early Christians told us so? How do we know what the early Christians believed? The Roman Church tells us what they believed? Take out any of the building blocks and you leave the Church open to new ageism and all sorts. Nobody who wishes to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and the Canon of the Bible will support what you're arguing. Because it would defy logic to suggest one without the other.

Finally another piece you might find interesting aimed at Orthodox-Catholic ecumenists but speaking extensively on this vefry subject: [url="http://praiseofglory.com/dvornik.htm"]http://praiseofglory.com/dvornik.htm[/url]

[Myles Domini]

Since the Antiochene Patriarchate says Peter went to Rome, I'll trust them, they hate Latins and Roman Catholics they have no reason to lie. Moreover, to my knowledge the Malankarites say St Thomas the Apostle died in India and they have a strong enough apostolic succession and enough hebraic traces in their liturgy to substantiate this claim.

[LittleLes]

Hi Myles,

Please provide your evidence that Peter lived and died at Rome.

An assertion is not evidence.

But please do it a point at a time.

LittleLes

[peach_cube]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 2 2005, 09:28 AM'] 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 [/quote]
Please address all of the points I made in the previous post, I ask questions for a reason. I would like to understand exactly what you are saying and understand your point. I find your arguments unclear and I am seeking a clarification of them. If I cannot follow your logic or thought processes then it is useless to even address your arguments.

I believe that Peter was in Rome, and if he was in Rome then he was the leader of the Church there, just as when he was in Antioch he was the leader of the church there.

[quote]But does this have anything to do with historical fact?[/quote]

Yes, you live with the modern conception that anything passed on in an oral tradition is false or cannot be a legitimate source. People of that time had the oral tradition very much rooted in their culture and it was trusted. The Gospels were an oral tradition first before they were written down, yet I trust them very much.

[LittleLes]

Hi Peach Cube,

If you ask one question at a time and clearly, I may be able to answer it. But I don't address a barrage of questions. I've found that tactic is used when the questioner has no evidence to actually argue, so he "shotguns." Anyone can do that. It requires no thought.

Hi Archangel,

I'm sorry I must have overlooked your post. The claim of finding Peter's bone, even though proclaimed by the Pope about 1960, is now recognized as defunct. Actually, there was a partial skeleton of a 70-75 year old woman, two partial skeltons of 50 -55 year old men, some horse bones, and some pig bones. I understantd one paleontologist was asked how he could be certain it wasn't Peter's skeleton. He replied that he never heard it reported that Peter had three hips!

If you'd like to research this question on the web, the National Catholic Reporter's John Allan has an article titled, I believe, "Peter's bones." You might also want to read Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem on the web. In this case in a first century Christian graveyard in Jerusalem was found what is thought to be Peter's remains. The site is maintained by the Franciscan Order of Priests and Brothers and one or more of their archeologists has written a book on the finding.

Little Les

[peach_cube]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 2 2005, 07:54 PM'] Hi Peach Cube,

If you ask one question at a time and clearly, I may be able to answer it. But I don't address a barrage of questions. I've found that tactic is used when the questioner has no evidence to actually argue, so he "shotguns." Anyone can do that. It requires no thought.
[/quote]
I did a point by point response, definitely not a shotgun approach. You made five points and I asked five questions, hardly a barrage. If you don't want to give any insight into your thought process that's your problem. I was just looking for a littlemore clarity.

Thanks for insinuating that I have no evidence and have put no thought into the matter.

Good day to you.

[LittleLes]

So it appears that another poster has opted out. Are there any who can address the question of Peter in Rome in a rational fashion, that is, an issue at a time, rather than in an emotional but undocumented fashion?

LittleLes

[Archangel]

Thanks for the info, LittleLes. I found an article at the National Catholic Register website: [url="http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2000d/102700/102700a.htm"]http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/20...700/102700a.htm[/url] Interesting

What kind of evidence are you looking for to help you believe that Peter was in Rome?

[Myles Domini]

In reply to your response LL apart from the overwhelming patristic evidence and the testimony of all the apostolic churches including the Antiochian Patriarchate up until this very day (logic seems to dictate that if Peter was there, they would know whether or not he did. Their official website as I referred you to says he left in 53AD to go to Rome) then not much. My argument rests on the credibility of the ancient witnesses and their having no motive to falsify the fact Peter went to Rome. Likewise I believe the authors of the gospels are those they are attributed to because the Church's tradition says that these are the people that wrote those gospels and so on and so forth. Its a question of logic.

Lastly, I think you've been slightly unfair to both Peace Cube and myself. You raise many points in your various posts and we both have made the effort to address them point by point in our responses. If the posts are too long for you to read through thats not really our fault. If you're going to debate with people have the courtesy to read through their replies or dont enter into debate at all. The reason fewer and fewer people are following this thread is because of your manner in continuing it. You should treat others as you yourself would be treated not expect them to simply condescend themselves to follow your lead. Thats not how discussion works. Dont talk down to people, talk to people, and people may in turn talk to you.

[LittleLes]

Hi Archangel,

I'm not at all sure whether the assertion that Peter was in Rome, or more to the point, the bishop of Rome, is ultimately provable one way or the other. We may have to go with the preponderance of the evidence.

I'm glad you were able to find the Allen article. It's a good summation of the current status of the claim of Peter's tomb. There are more complete papers on the web. If I recall one of the best was from some university in the UK. And, of course, the article about Peter's grave in Jerusalem is interesting and would fit what we do know about Peter's whereabouts. But neither claim offers any conclusive proof regarding Peter's burial site.

Hi Myles,

I note you continue to insist that there is "overwhelming patristic evidence that Peter was in Rome" or words to that effect. Unfortunately, you don't present any. Do you understand if an error is made in 100 A.D., repeated from that document in 200 A.D., copied again in 300 A. D., and recopied from the 300 A.D. document in 400 A.D., this is not "overwhelming" evidence but merely repeating the same error?

Perhaps we can hold off on the article I was analyzing, and we can analyze some of this early patristic evidence. I think I have already done so in a few cases but lets do more of a systematic review.

LittleLes

[jasJis]

Les,
What is the point about the 'examination' of the apologetics concerning Peter being in Rome or not? Where are you going with this?

[LittleLes]

Hi jasJis,

We're not going to review apologists writings, only the writings of the Early Church Fathers which apologists try to use to evidence that Peter was in Rome and was the first bishop of Rome.

***********************************

The earliest is that of 1 Clement to the Corinthians. Clement was either the third or fourth bishop of Rome, demending on which list you use. The following writing was produced around 170 -180 A.D.., more than 100 years after the death of Peter.

Letter to the Corinthians - Clement, Chapter 5

"...Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles, Peter, through unrightous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being thrown seven times into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due hid faith, having taught rightousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects...."


It states that Peter suffered martyrdom - no more than that - but it doesn't say where.

It says that Paul preached "in the east and west." It doesn't say this of Peter.

It says that Paul came "to the extreme limit of the west." It doesn't make this claim of Peter.

It reports that Paul "sufferend martyrdom under the prefects." This would be either in Rome or in a Roman possession. But it does not say this of Peter.


Thus a careful reading shows that there is no evidence here of a joint martyrdom in Rome. Nonetheless, some apolologist claim this as evidence that Peter was martyred there.

Little Les

[jasJis]

um. yeah.

So your point is?

[LittleLes]

Simple. We can't use this writing of Clement to establish that Peter was in Rome or was bishop there. It'll take a day or so, but I have at least one more writing of an Early Church Father written about 100 years after Peter's death, used by apologists, to present. Then we can go to the 200 year time frame.

LittleLes

[jasJis]

So what is in contention?

Whether or not Peter was in Rome or not could be irrevelant.

At one time, Bible Scholars swore that the Sun circled the Earth. The fact that it's the other way around, doesn't diminsh the importance of Earth. If Peter never traveled to Rome, would that make him less important?