The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[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

[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