The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[LittleLes]

Hi Jas Jis,

I separate fact and fiction in scripture as in all other data.I also separate truth from error.

For example, although the moral legitimacy of chattel slavery is scripturally established by Lev 25, I judge slavery to contary to the divine and natural law.

LittleLes

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 03:30 AM']Hi Archangle,

Lets stick to the topic and discuss the Protestent reformation as a separate thread. It isn't directly related to the claim of Peterine primacy.

LittleLes[/quote]
Okay. Suffice it to say that the only Christian group 2000 years ago was the Catholic Church. You can actually trace the line of popes directly back from our current pope, John Paul II, all the way back to Peter. You can't do that with any of the Protestant churches.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 03:08 PM']
For example, although the moral legitimacy of chattel slavery is scripturally established by Lev 25, I judge slavery to contary to the divine and natural law.

[/quote]
Um, no one is debating that. Did you skip the story about Moses freeing the slaves as well? Does that mean because Abraham had alot of wives, it's okay? Did you entirely skip the New Testament? Heck, Adam and Eve were naked, why don't we all run around in our birthday suits?

I"ve taken Texas History. EVERYBODY says it's just made up about that line. What's that to do with anything? I'm sure my grandparents added some things to thier family stories as well. As for the legitamacy as Peter as the first Pope, what is it, specifically do you disagree with? I am interested to know.
-----
The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.


Tatian the Syrian



"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).


Tertullian



"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).


The Letter of Clement to James



"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).


The Clementine Homilies



"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).


Origen



"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage



"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).


Firmilian



"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).


Ephraim the Syrian



"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).


Optatus



"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


Ambrose of Milan



"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).


Pope Damasus I



"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome



"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).


Augustine



"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).


Council of Ephesus



"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).


Sechnall of Ireland



"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).


Pope Leo I



"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).


Council of Chalcedon



"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).


We know he was the first pope of the Church which Christ established more than 2000 years ago. It is entirely up to you to disprove it.


So let me just ask this: You obviously don't believe Peter is the first pope, yet you don't believe Jesus established a "Church", right? What led you to that conclusion? What made you believe that truly and sincerely? Because as much searching as you've done, I'm sure your road will lead to Rome. All roads do ya know!





Pax Christi.

Edited March 7, 2005 by jmjtina

[jmjtina]

I'm getting this thread messed up with the other thread...... :pc:

[LittleLes]

Ah Yes. It is alwyas "an indisputable fact..." according to the Catholic Encyclopedia when they have no evidence to support their "party line" position.

It's really very simple.

Please provide a reliable citation written within 100 years of Peters death that establishes that he was ever the bishop of Rome.

Claims from the third, fourth or fifth century are not reliable historically.

LittleLes

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 02:57 PM']Please provide a reliable citation written within 100 years of Peters death that establishes that he was ever the bishop of Rome.

Claims from the third, fourth or fifth century are not reliable historically.

LittleLes[/quote]
False alternative

[jmjtina]

again, since you don't believe Jesus established a Church, or that Peter was the first Pope, what do you believe in?

[LittleLes]

Hi Archangel,

Not a "false alternative" at all. If Peter really was the bishop of Rome, that fact should have been recorded within a hundred years of his death. It's certainly not in Acts, although Eusebius argues Peter was in Rome for 25 years, being martyred with Paul. Is it conceivable that Luke would have overlooked this if it really had occurred???

I think what Jimjina is offering as evidence is separated from the fact by about twice the time as we and the American revolution are.

Still, perhaps we can take a look at what the more or less early church fathers said, but one at a time.

Little Les

Edited March 8, 2005 by LittleLes

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 05:53 PM'] If Peter really was the bishop of Rome, that fact should have been recorded within a hundred years of his death. [/quote]
Why 100 years? Why not 10, 50, 300 or 600?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 11:53 PM'] Hi Archangel,

Not a "false alternative" at all. If Peter really was the bishop of Rome, that fact should have been recorded within a hundred years of his death. It's certainly not in Acts, although Eusebius argues Peter was in Rome for 25 years, being martyred with Paul. Is it conceivable that Luke would have overlooked this if it really had occurred???

I think what Jimjina is offering as evidence is separated from the fact by about twice the time as we and the American revolution are.

Still, perhaps we can take a look at what the more or less early church fathers said, but one at a time.

Little Les [/quote]
Prove Peter was not the Bishop of Rome, with a statement from within your 100 year framework.

[LittleLes]

Hi CMother,

The old prove a negative ploy,eh? OK Right after you provide proof that Peter was not in Brooklyn wearing a halo.

Little Les

[DojoGrant]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 02:36 PM'] Sorry DoJoGrant,

The 25 years Peter in Rome story was more than a century old. Eusebius wrote it around 325-350 A.D.

And the legend of the line in the sand drawn by Col Travis at the Alamo (1836) was in full swing by 1873 and was published in a Texas magazine. The trouble is that the survivors of the Alamo (wives, slaves, merchants) reported nothing of the sort. Even Travis' person slave who reported his death early on the last day did not recount this legend.

As I wrote earlier, I'm looking for a solid reference written within 100 years of the supposed event claiming Peter was the bishop of Rome.

We already know he left his first successor bishop (Evodius) in Antioch. But for whatever reason, he didn't get to be Pope. Probably because Rome was a more important city than Antioch.

LittleLes [/quote]
I'm sorry, but you just looked over my point completely.

"A line in the sand" is nothing at all like "residence in a city for 25 years." People would not simply buy the fact that he was there when there was no circulating history of him being there. An apostle of Christ residing in a city for 25 years is not something people would forget, and it is also not something that you could get people to believe, when there would be oodles of city/Christian history that would either thoroughly support or throw out that notion.

No one at all contested that Peter was there when it began to be written that he was there.

[LittleLes]

One usually gets the apologetics' laundry list of legends provided by some of the Church Fathers to prove that Peter was the bishop of Rome. (Sometimes the text is even altered a bit or omitted to make the case, but we'll deal with that as we progress).

Lets take a look at a few. One of the biggest is Eusebius' claim c. 350 in his History of the Church that Peter was in Rome for 25 years and was martyred along with Paul. (Actually, it's probable that he picked this up from Jerome since he has a similar writing).

But there are some obvious chronological impossibilities between Eusebius' 25 year claim for Peter in Rome and with Acts, Galatians, etc.

(1) Paul was suppose to have been beheaded in 64 A.D.during the Herodian persecution. But lets give the benefit of the doubt and extend the date to cover the entire Herodian period. Thus 64 to 67 A.D.

(2) If Eusebius' History is correct than, Peter went to Rome in 39 to 42 A.D.

(3) Except, he was imprisoned under Herod Agrippa in Jerusalem who ruled from 43 to 44 A.D.

(4) Except, Peter was at the Council of Jerusalem 49 -51 A.D.

(5) Except, after that (date not certain) according to Galatians, he spend some time in Antioch where he was berated by Paul because he feared the response of James, the leader of the Jerusalem community.

(6) Except when Paul greets 23 prominent Christians in his Letter to the Romans (57-58 A.D.), Peter isn't among those at Rome.

(7) Except, according to whoever wrote the Epistle to Titus, just before his death, Paul stated "Only Luke is with me." Not Pater.

Eusebius' "evidence" can be dismissed as unworkable. Alternately, we can dismiss the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul as in error.

Which shall we pick.

Edited March 8, 2005 by LittleLes

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 12:17 PM'] Hi CMother,

The old prove a negative ploy,eh? OK Right after you provide proof that Peter was not in Brooklyn wearing a halo.

Little Les [/quote]
you are trying the same silly tactic

[LittleLes]

Hi C-Mother,

Yes, to illustrate the point. Since you can't provide evidence that it was ever directly contradicted in scripture, I can maintain that Peter once lived in Borrklyn and had a halo.

I'll bet you can't present any evidence to the contrary.

Little Les

[Cam42]

[quote] I'm looking for a solid reference written within 100 years of the supposed event claiming Peter was the bishop of Rome.[/quote]

St. Irenaeus listed the first 13 Popes in "Against Heresies", 3:3:3, 180 AD.

That would be 113 years.

St. Irenaeus says:
[quote]The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate.  To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (St. Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:3:3)[/quote]

He also says earlier:
[quote]Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:3:2)[/quote]

Remember this was written a scant 113 years after the death of St. Peter.

Cam

Edited March 8, 2005 by Cam42

[LittleLes]

Sorry Cam,

Over a hundred years and legend has had plenty of time to develop. And if you examine the original text, the names Peter and Paul do not appear in the section of AH 3.3.3 which you quoted. Nor does the word "Rome" appear before the word church.

This is a good example of the practice I mentioned earlier about implying something the text does not really say.

And, of course, Iranaeus wrote in Greek, and only later Latin translations survive. Where do you suppose they came from?

As I make my way through the writing purported to be of the early church fathers, I may want to discuss this translation in some detail. I just started with Eusebius today.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote] And if you examine the original text, the names Peter and Paul do not appear in the section of AH 3.3.3 which you quoted. Nor does the word "Rome" appear before the word church.[/quote]

Give me a break. Do you speak Latin and Armenian? Because those are the original languages of the work I cited. That's right. By the way, I didn't pull that off the internet, I typed it from a book (that's right, with pages and all). I added or removed nothing.

Now, it is clear by the statements that he is speaking of Peter and Paul. It is also clear that the Church is Rome. However, you refuse to see that. Why?

[quote]Over a hundred years and legend has had plenty of time to develop.[/quote]

I knew that one was coming....13 years too long is not "plenty" of time for legend to develop. Where is your proof against this statement, sir?

It is an authoratative document. You cannot disprove it by simply saying, "IT ISN'T SO, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT IS SO."

I need you to cite proof against this teaching. If you cannot, it is to be taken as proof to affirm.

Cam

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Sorry Cam,

Over a hundred years and legend has had plenty of time to develop. And if you examine the original text, the names Peter and Paul do not appear in the section of AH 3.3.3 which you quoted. Nor does the word "Rome" appear before the word church.

This is a good example of the practice I mentioned earlier about implying something the text does not really say.

And, of course, Iranaeus wrote in Greek, and only later Latin translations survive. Where do you suppose they came from?

As I make my way through the writing purported to be of the early church fathers, I may want to discuss this translation in some detail. I just started with Eusebius today.

LittleLes [/quote]

Once again someone cites St Irenaeus and you reject it, based on what 13 years? As John McEnroe once said 'you cannot be serious!' Lets just drop the pretenses dude, even if Irenaeus had written 75, 50 or 25 years after the death of St Peter you still wouldnt accept it simply because you dont want to. Stop pretending to actually listen to people, as funny as it has become, its clogging up the forum. As St Irenaeus mentions in AH he was a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of St John the beloved. If Polycarp was St John's disciple and he passed this tradition to Irenaeus then I would not doubt its authenticity. Moreover, as I've said in a previous post the Orthodox Church of Antioch insists on the truth of what you keep saying is Pseudo-History. How could it possibly be that the non Catholic Antiochene Church with an unbroken line of successor Bishops going back to St Peter--that is, if you choose to continue your selective reading of Eusebius--would not know their own history? What are you suggesting? That somewhere along the line someone swanned into Antioch with a copy of a history book and said: 'Sorry guys I know you've been handing down the episcopate Bishop to Bishop but I've gotta tell ya, they got it wrong. Somehow even though they were there when it happened, they got it wrong, Peter never left Antioch' :locosign: Your arguments are completely implausible and if not for their comedy value I really wouldnt bother monitoring the progress of your threads. God bless you LL you at least make me smile

Edited March 8, 2005 by Myles

[Cam42]

[quote]And, of course, Iranaeus wrote in Greek, and only later Latin translations survive. Where do you suppose they came from?[/quote]

The original languages of the document I cite were Armenian and Latin. Not Greek.