The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[LittleLes]

The Orthodox Church has a far better claim on the Papacy than does Rome. The first successor to Peter's first See was Evodius, the second bishop of the Church of Antioch.

And no, Iranaeus is too late a source and the translations of his writing too questionable to be considered reliable.

Could it be that there are no writings within 100 years of Peter's death saying that he was in Rome nor anything in Acts or Paul's Epistles saying that he was in Rome for the simple reason that Peter wasn't in Rome?

If you read my post in response to Eusebius' claim that Peter was in Rome for 25 years, you'll probably be able to infer from Acts, Romans, and Galatians just where he was. And these were all written within 100 years of his death. And then recall also that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews (east) not the Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul in the west).

LittleLes

[Myles Domini]

[quote]The Orthodox Church has a far better claim on the Papacy than does Rome. The first successor to Peter's first See was Evodius, the second bishop of the Church of Antioch.[/quote]

Incorrect, since St Peter was alive when Evodius succeeded him, hence St Ignatius does not list St Peter as the first Bishop of Antioch but Evodius. Whilst the Apostles were still alive they governed the Churches they founded via messengers as you see Paul doing with Sts Timothy and Titus. Moreover, as I continually stress LL the Orthodox Church of Antioch has never claimed 'the Papacy' as you phrase it. But, as is evidenced from the letter of St Ignatius from the Romans, and has was reconfirmed throughout Patristic history and is held even up until today they have always accepted that Rome has envied no one but others she has taught.

[quote]And no, Iranaeus is too late a source and the translations of his writing too questionable to be considered reliable.[/quote]

According to whom? I cannot recall hearing of any Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant ecclesiastical historians who shared this view. I am a theology student at Oxford University and come Friday I have an exam, a large part of which is devoted to 'Against Heresies' and specifically those parts of it that deal with refuting threats to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. But alas, evidently you know more than the scholars of this 1200 year old venerable academic institution. Tell me where did you get your patristics doctorate? Cambridge? Duke? Yale? How many of your peers support this thesis? When will it be published for review?

[quote]Could it be that there are no writings within 100 years of Peter's death saying that he was in Rome nor anything in Acts or Paul's Epistles saying that he was in Rome for the simple reason that Peter wasn't in Rome?[/quote]

Given the volume of evidence the various posters on this thread have provided against that idea. No.

[quote]If you read my post in response to Eusebius' claim that Peter was in Rome for 25 years, you'll probably be able to infer from Acts, Romans, and Galatians just where he was. And these were all written within 100 years of his death. And then recall also that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews (east) not the Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul in the west).[/quote]

I apologise for being so abrasive but this is completely ignorant. There was a large community of Jews on the south bank of the Tiber and indeed when St Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles gets to Rome, he goes to them first! (cf. Acts 28:17-30) Acts of the Apostles itself completely debunks your theory as does the Annals of Tacitus and secular history upto today, which has always maintained the prescence of the Jewish diaspora at Rome and throughout the West in fact.

:shootme: Why d'you do it to yourself LL?

Edited March 8, 2005 by Myles

[peach_cube]

Less,

By your reasoning hardly any ancient history would fall under "reliable evidence".

No Herodotus, no Thucydides, no Tacitus, no Livy's Roman History, no Caesar's Gallic War. The earliest copy for all of those is about 900 years after the fact, using your reasoning then I would say that the bulk of Roman and Greek history never happened. Also, the best that these can offer is about 20 originals

Biblical writings date from 30-150 years after the fact with over 25,000 original manuscripts.

You can go on claiming what is and is not authentic, but you should a least be consistant. So here you go "There is no authentic evidence that places Julius Caesar in Rome, or anywhere." Sounds convincing doesn't it?

[LittleLes]

Hi Myles,

In explaining Eusebius it was shown that abundant testimony written during Peter's life and within 100 years of his death constantly put him in the the region of Palestine. 100 years after his death is was desirable to claim he was in Rome during this period (for 25 years according to Eusebius and Jerome!). The vast majority of Jews were at this time in Palestine, esp Jerusalem and also in the large Jewish colony remaining at Babylon. Some say Peter wrote an Epistle from there, but I doubt it. Yet that's where the apostle to the circumcised would logically be.

And I believe Peter and Paul died at least after Linus was made a bishop. But technically, it appears he was Paul's successor bishop. Where and indiviidual dies, is not the issue. It's when the see becomes vacant as did that in Antioch when Peter left.

And Hi Peach Cube.

I see you are attempting to make the either -or argument.

And there's a major difference between copying an existing writing and producing a new one.

If I write now a history of the civil war from legends I've heard, it will only be about 140 years after the fact. If I'm not copying an earlier work, would you consider it reliable.?

Little Les

[Myles Domini]

Yes the vast majority of Jews were in Palestine but the fact of the matter is, as Acts 28 shows there was a large Jewish population in Rome, just as there was in Antioch, and Alexandria. The Jewish nation had been scattered by the invasion of their nation by the Babylonians and the Macedonian army of Alexandria. Moreover, none of what you said refutes the claim of the Orthodox Church of Antioch that Peter left their city and went to Rome in 53AD. I ask again, are you going to tell the Church of Antioch what their history is? Or where Peter went? Moreover you misunderstand the governance of the Church in the Apostolic age, which was done mainly by letters. As you can see from the universal or cyclical nature of the Catholic epistles and the particular concerns shown by Paul for certain Churches i.e. Corinthians. It was only when the Apostles died that their liasons in the local churches took control and the episcopate developed. A Bishop does not need to reside in his See i.e. St Boniface and Sts Cyril and Methodius. If I thought you'd read it, I'd send you an article on this.
Just admit it LL your argument is little less than predjudice

[peach_cube]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 07:06 PM'] I see you are attempting to make the either -or argument.

And there's a major difference between copying an existing writing and producing a new one.

If I write now a history of the civil war from legends I've heard, it will only be about 140 years after the fact. If I'm not copying an earlier work, would you consider it reliable.?

Little Les [/quote]
Is this not your premise for rendering Irenaeus a nonreliable source? You don't seem to think that Eusebius to be a worthy translator/copiest.

You keep trying to place our culture in the culture of the past. People don't know much about the civil war today because it is written down. I'm sure you could still get the basics from people, getysburg, abe lincoln, north vs. south, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Burning of Atlanta, etc. It sure wouldn't be Paul Bunyan trampling the south while his ox eats the cotton fields.

Oral tradition help keep knowledge very effectively. One of the effects that we are seeing in globalization is the loss of many world languages. As these languages fade so do many cultural sources of knowledge. Many areas in Africa are seeing environmental loses due to the loss of their cultural tongues. The knowledge of the land and cultural practices are lost with the language. They can be communicated down through generations. Even when the brothers Grimm compiled their fairy tales there was a great cohesiveness even between cultures that where very far apart. The only explanation was that as the tale spread it was preserved in the oral tradition.

[LittleLes]

Nah! I'm not to keen on Eusebius' reliability. Anyone who claims that Jesus wrote a letter refusing to make house calls bears considerable watching. Eusebius was basically an apologist, not really a historian.

Little Les

And for Myles, I have no idea what the Orthodox Chruch 'says." I always worry about talking buildings too. Perhaps if could paraphrase and cite a reference....?

There were Jews all over the world, but most remained in the MidEast area, especially at Babylon. Did you know that only 5% returned from the Babylonian captivity. See a Crash Course in Jewish History - the Jews of Babylon on the web.

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 10:43 AM']Could it be that there are no writings  within 100 years of Peter's death saying that he was in Rome nor anything in Acts or Paul's Epistles saying that he was in Rome for the simple reason that Peter wasn't in Rome?[/quote]
Again, you make the mistake of ignoring Sacred Tradition.

Since you believe that the Church inserted Matthew 16:18 to justify Jesus' founding of His church, why didn't the Church also embellish the bible with passages regarding Peter in Rome?

[Cam42]

Again Les,

You have not addressed anything. You have gone on a rant that has no historical proof to it.

You asked for something within 100 years. I gave you something within 113. You are now clearly splitting hairs. Any theologian worth his salt will accept those numbers, especially dealing with a 2000 year gap. You, sir, are ubsurd.

Would you please cite and quote this letter from Eusebius? I am interested in it. Thanks.

[quote]And no, Iranaeus is too late a source and the translations of his writing too questionable to be considered reliable.[/quote]

Prove it. I want hard facts. PROVE IT.

[quote]If you read my post in response to Eusebius' claim that Peter was in Rome for 25 years, you'll probably be able to infer from Acts, Romans, and Galatians just where he was.[/quote]

It is unreliable, there is no citation. It is pure conjecture. Isn't that your MO?

How about giving some source texts for your thoughts. We have all done this....we have supported our position. You are attempting to set up straw men. The problem: we, Catholics, support your straw men and they don't fall over so easy.

Attention PM'ers!!!!!! I think that we should not respond again until Les starts answering the points we put forth. He needs to come with proof, documentation, and academic qualities to his statements. He is doing a masterful job of avoiding the topic and the rebuttal.

Cam

[Antonius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 1 2005, 04:23 PM']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.[/quote]
I'm curious, LittleLes, that if one accepts the 3 points of your thesis, what conclusion will he reach? That Peter did not found the papacy of Rome?

In other words, if those three points are your premises, they do not follow necessarily that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

[b](1) There is no New Testament placing Peter at Rome.[/b]
Yeah, so? There is no NT evidence that Jesus(or any of the Apostles for that matter) uriniated or defecated, but does that make it reasonable to doubt that He (or they) did so?

[b](2) There are no reliable historical writings written within 100 years of Peter's death which reports that he was bishop of Rome.[/b]
Likewise, in order for it to be reasonable to believe that a Legend or Tradition could develop, you should demonstrate to us what other numerous Legends and Traditions did spring up among the Early Christians and consequently be accepted as fact by bishops and historians for centuries afterward. I also think that Myles and peach_cube have successfully made it highly reasonable to believe in classical accounts that someone gave even if they did not witness to the fact. Did that writer not know who to ask?

[b](3) There is a writing placing him at Antioch.[/b]
Hmm... interesting. I guess since one guy said he was in Antioch, then he was in Antioch. I fail to see how your third point would bring me to believe that Peter was the bishop of Antioch and not Rome. Since you have denied the reliabillty of other writings, it would be reasonable to beleive that this also could be denied.

In short, the only way I could accept your argument is if I held that it is more reasonable to doubt tradition, that which is handed down by those who came before, than to trust it. That if an old man quoting history books told me something and a younger man told me that the old man was an idiot and we know better today and I shouldn't believe him... I would believe the kid because people just didn't have any sense in the old days. Because objective truth is constantly in a state of becoming, that my grandchildren will have better knowledge than I will. That the future holds more truth than the present and past.

In very short, only if I accepted Modernist assertions could I reasonably believe your logic.

"Skepticism is not an intellectual position. It is a moral one." -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

To Myles and peace_cube and the others: Good friggin' job.

[Archangel]

Well said, Antonius. Of greater import is the undeniable truth of Peter's primacy and leadership conferred upon him by Jesus Christ to lead the Apostles and the early church.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Historical Overview
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East

Historical Overview


Apostles Paul and Barnabas set up the Antioch see in 42 A.D It was then acceded for eight years (43 - 53 A.D) by Saint Peter as its first prelate who proceeded to establish other churches. However, there are well documented historical views that Saint Peter established the Antioch see with the help of Apostles Paul and Barnabas. He was succeeded on the Antioch office by Aphodius. Small wonder that St. Peter won the title "patriarch" (etymologically meaning "head of tribe") because Christianity spread first among the Jews, and Peter was the chieftain of this tribe. The naming by the Calcedonion Council (451 A.D.) of the title "patriarch" solely to the metropolitan of Antioch apart from other see prelates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandretta, Jerusalem) is a de facto concretization of this status quo.  That is why it can be surely said that St. Peter the Apostle is the first patriarch of Antioch see.

Insomuch as Peter emerged from Antioch in 53 A.D. to establish the see of Rome where he fell martyr during the reign of Nero, Paul and Barnabas among other many apostles emerged from Antioch to all countries worldwide to preach the new religion. This is simply because Antioch, along with Damascus, was the gate of Christendom passage to all inhabited world, especially eastwards where the preachers sowed the seeds of Christianity , thus bestowing them legitimate rights on the new churches in those expanses.  That is why we saw the metropolitan (patriarch) of Antioch well to the fore of other Eastern prelates since the first ages of Christianity.  It was he who presided the locum councils in the East (Ankara, 351 A.D;  Caesarea, 316 A.D).  And the first ecumenical council (Nicaea, 325 A.D) recognized Antioch church's presidency over all Orient metropolitans;  and the second ecumenical council (Constantinople, 381 A.D) confirmed this presidency.  On the other hand, the third ecumenical council (Ephesus, 431 A.D) declared the independence, under an archbishop,  of Cyprus church from Antioch.[/quote]

As you dont do links, and thus refused to go to this site as I told you to, here is an extract from this: [url="http://antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/viewcontent.php?content=%241%24Fqww80sV%24LJtl/mpIsne5lz0mZ5kCy0_%241%24cY2fEC.3%242X4rjsf3DqIjEbC53bz6R/_%241%24Fqww80sV%24LJtl/mpIsne5lz0mZ5kCy0b56a92baa0ee987eb7f7e4a179b60efb&id=1&cat=%241%24DdKoSQCb%24FO96gT8jCFwnHPxW4LNZj1_%241%24pCxQHS8F%24GHaBW0fpsqpxYoSn4BE0M/_%241%24DdKoSQCb%24FO96gT8jCFwnHPxW4LNZj150102e124822220aaa78a8e3b2ccba34&catid=3&contentname=Historical%20Overview&catname=Other%20Contents"]http://antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/vi...ther%20Contents[/url]

[LittleLes]

Hi Antonius,

I think you will find a number of Paul's Epistles as well as Luke's Acts of the Apostles placing Paul in Rome, but never Peter.

I think you will find Acts of the Apostles placing Peter in Antioch, again, also Paul's Epistles.

And I don't accept legends that have no historical basis, or more importantly, when there are reliable writings to the contrary.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

Thank you Myles for you posting of a writing by a unidentified "Patriach" which is undated and gives no dates or citations for the assertions it makes.

It's precisely undocumented (and in this case unidentifed and undated) writings such as this that most historians avoid.

Little Les

[Cam42]

[quote]Thank you Myles for you posting of a writing by a unidentified "Patriach" which is undated and gives no dates or citations for the assertions it makes.[/quote]

I do believe that he is posting from various Oecumenical Councils. Therefore there would not be any one person, but rather the body of bishops gathered together to make a decision on the Church.

[quote]It's precisely undocumented (and in this case unidentifed and undated) writings such as this that most historians avoid.[/quote]

This is really getting rather tired. Your double standard on citations is bordering on the stolidus. Seriously, unless you start proving your points, quit it. You are impressing no one and really becoming a nusance.

[quote]Calcedonion Council (451 A.D.)
the first ecumenical council (Nicaea, 325 A.D)
the second ecumenical council (Constantinople, 381 A.D)
the third ecumenical council (Ephesus, 431 A.D)[/quote]

You are now offically done with the no quote/no date line. Those are the citations from that post. I am sure that you are now just stirring the pot and not even doing a critical read.

Your tactic is ubsurd. By the way, are you going to address my points? I am still waiting. I will do this every post to you until you respond or recant.

Cam

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Thank you Myles for you posting of a writing by a unidentified "Patriach" which is undated and gives no dates or citations for the assertions it makes.

It's precisely undocumented (and in this case unidentifed and undated) writings such as this that most historians avoid.

Little Les [/quote]

Having eyes do you not see? The extract is not from the writings of a Patriarch but from the website of the current Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch--hence the link. I mean no wonder you havent responded to anybody yet, its quite evident that you dont [b]read[/b] their replies. If you have a beef with what the Patriachate says, write to them, as I keep stressing, I've given you the link. Try explaining to them that they dont know their own history. Trust me it wont get you very far the Orthodox are extremely concious of the 'faith of their fathers' and I see no reason for doubting the Antiochene Patriarchate's statement that Peter left Antioch in 53AD--especially since they try to slip in on the side that even though Paul and Barnabus founded it, Peter was also 'involved'. Hehe, everyone loves our Peter, eh?

[LittleLes]

It appears that questions and comments can be made faster than I can respond. But let me answer a few that stick out in my mind.

Someone asked where Eusebius claimed that Peter was in Rome for 25 years. While I don't have time to read completely through it, it 's in Eusebius' "Chronicles." But a much easier citation to find in Jerome's De Viris Illustribus, Chapter 1, page 1, right in the New Advent library (I assume the EWTN library has it as well, but I haven't checked). Whatever the case, Jerome's document, from which Eusebius probably copied, "Lives of Famous Men" has the claim that Peter was in Rome for 25 years right on top of the first chapter under "Peter."

I love it when "traditions" dictate history.

Someone also made the claim that Peter was the leader of the early Christian community. Sorry, that would be James, Jesus brother. See Acts 15 where James renders the judgment for the community. Also see where the apostles send Peter on a mission (do you send the boss anywhere?). Also see in Gal 2:4 where Peter is worried about getting in trouble with James. Paul berates him to his face for this. Does the boss ordinarily worry about getting in trouble for what he does with his subordinates, and is he usually told off to his face?

LittleLes

[Myles Domini]

Peter isnt afraid of getting in trouble with James, he's trying not to upset the circumcising party and the very nature of his authority is epitomised by the fact that all the Jews copy him. Again you are mistaken in claiming that James was the leader of the early Christian community. Indeed, he was Bishop of Jerusalem but nobody doubted Peter's authority. Indeed when Peter speaks in Acts 15 everyone is silenced and indeed when Peter leaves Jerusalem in Acts 12 when he leaves Jersualem he sends word of this to James. The journeys of Peter (and John) dominate the first 10 chapters of Acts effectively and throughout those chapters Peter's authority is hammered home time and again. He even kills people in the name of the Holy Spirit. Peter decides that Judas should be replaced, Peter addresses the crowds at Pentecost, Peter is the first to eat with the Gentiles and to baptise them etc.etc. Just read Acts 1-10 everything I've said can be verified therein.

[LittleLes]

"He even kills people in the name of the Holy Spirit." Catholicism has a long history of doing that!

1. Clement of Rome's First Epistle to the Corinthians (c 95-110 A.D.) was written within 100 years of Peter's death. Contrary to what some apologists like to claim, this epistle strongly indicates that Peter was not at Rome and was not martyred there.

2. Chapter 5 "...Peter through unrightous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors, and when he finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due him."

3. The Corunum Catholic Apologetis Web Page offer this as evidence of Peter's presence in Rome. But, obviously, the passage doesn't say that. Corunum omits quoting the second paragraph telling "the rest of the story."

4. "Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching BOTH IN THE EAST AND WEST, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and COME TO THE EXTREME LIMIT OF THE WEST, AND SUFFERED MARTYRDOM UNDER THE PREFECTS..."

5. Clement does not state that Peter was in the west nor was martyred under the Roman prefects although he clearly reports this of Paul. It's reasonable to assume he's talking about two different happenings.

6. Perhaps we should analyze the other evidence of Peter in Rome provided by Corunum. -_-

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

I have no dificulty either in accepting that Peter left antioch about 53 A.D. after establishing his first See there and appointing the Bishop Evodius as his successor.

Of course, this throws Eusibius' and Jerome's " evidence that Peter was in Rome for 25 years completely out.

But your Patriach certainly isn't supported by Acts in his calim that Peter went to Rome at that time. Paul's Romand does not identify Peter as being ammong the 23 leading Christians he cites in his 56-58 A.D "Romans," nor is it claimed that just before his paul's death (see Titus) any apostle other than Luke is there.

In the military we used to call it "awe of rank." Is that the same thing as "awe of Patriachs"? Do you believe everything they say?

And do you really claim a Council held in 451 A.D. as an authority for an event that happened in 64 A.D.? (Incidently, merely citing Councils without quoting what they said is not evidence).

Little Les