The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[Myles Domini]

Cam I'll leave him to you. I refuse to waste anymore time on someone who having ears doesnt hear, and having eyes does not see, lest he convert and it be forgiven him.

[LittleLes]

And isn't gullible....

Yes, indeed. Apologists have great difficulty if the person doesn't fall for:

(a) "It is beyond dispute that......."

(b) "The Church has always taught...."

© "The Pope/Patriach says it, so it must be so........."

(d) "Everybody knows............"

(e) "It's in the Bible so its inerrant......."

(f) ad infinitum.........

[Archangel]

Personal opinion doesn't help your case either.

[Cam42]

I am actually waiting for him to respond to my posts. I don't think that he will, because he can't. I am not interested in your opinion. I want quotes. I want citations, that disprove the Primacy of Peter.

We have given proofs in support. If you don't accept them, that is fine, but you are one man (I assume; Les could mean Leslie (f)). However, because you don't accept them doesn't invalidate them. A concept you apparently don't get.

Now, how about responding to my posts. I will not and I cannot respond to posts from others. If you want to continue this "conversation" respond to my points. I need proof against them, not conjecture and not opinion.

Mar 8 2005, 11:49 AM
Mar 8 2005, 02:28 PM
Mar 8 2005, 02:33 PM
Mar 8 2005, 10:07 PM
Mar 9 2005, 08:06 AM

You are amassing quite a list on this thread too. Please respond in a way that is scholarly and academic. No opinions, no conjecture.

Cam

[Cam42]

From William Jurgens "The Faith of our Fathers". Jurgens puts the date of Clement's writings at 80 AD as it was clearly written when he was Bishop of Rome.

From Clement:
[quote]Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their wards appointed by other illustrious men with the consent of the whole Church...[/quote]

[quote]The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ....they went forth in the complete assurance of the Holy Spirit, preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming. Through countryside and city they preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers.[/quote]

There are some who claim that Clement was Peter's convert and consecrated by Peter as a bishop, however this data is not certain. Clement was considered an apostolic father as he was of the apostolic age.

[quote]Ignatius of Antioch, the third bishop of Antioch following Evodius who followed Peter. He was an apostolic father by reason of hearing the Apostle John. In approximately 110 AD on his way to Rome to be martyred he wrote seven letters. These letters were long questioned by protestant scholars however the genuity has long since been vindicated by J.B Lightfoot, Adooph von Harnack, theodore Zahn and F.X.Funk and is now almost univerally accepted. (Jurgens "Faith of Our Fathers")[/quote]

Ignatius letter to the Romans:
[quote]Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church of the Romans....to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; to the Church also which holds the predency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father: her do I salute....[/quote]

Letter to the Smyrnaens:
[quote]You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father.... Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Chrsit is, there is the Catholic Church.[/quote]

[quote]...He [Dr. France] goes on to say, "Jesus' beatitude of Peter or His blessing is given to Peter alone. The other disciples may have shared his insight but Peter, characteristically expressed it. Matthew often illustrates Peter's place at the head of the disciples' group. He was the spokesman, the pioneer, the natural leader." He goes on to talk about how Peter is referenced to the Rock. France says, "It describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church."

This is a non-Catholic. This is an Evangelical Protestant who has absolutely no interest in supporting the Church's claims but he says, "The term Peter, Rock, points to Simon and not his character because he could be very unstable, but rather his official function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church. The word-play is unmistakable." He says, "It is only Protestant over-reaction to the Roman Catholic claim, of course, which has no foundation in the text, that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later Bishops of Rome." In other words France is saying, "We can't apply this to the Popes, the later Bishops of Rome." I'll overthrow that opinion in a few minutes, I think, but France is very candid in saying, "Look, it's only because we Protestants have over-reacted to the Catholic Church that we are not frank and sincere in admitting the fact that Peter is the Rock. He is the foundation stone upon which Jesus is going to build the Church."

One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this -- W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter." In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti- Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles." We will see."

Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."

Now let's just stop here and ask, "What is he talking about?" I think it's simple. Albright is saying that Jesus in giving to Peter not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He's quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known.

...Albright says, "In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying." Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it's undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, "The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel." In other words, the Prime Minister's office.

Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession. (Dr. Scott Hahn on the Papacy)[/quote]

He goes on to say:
[quote]Now, there are many misconceptions that people have. They sometimes think that the teaching of the Church is that the Pope is infallible; therefore, he can't sin. That's nonsense, although the present Pontiff goes to confession, I understand, at least once a week. He's got to have something to confess for it to be a valid sacrament administered to him. Others think that he always says the best thing at the right time. No, the Church has never insisted upon the fact that the Pope will always say the best thing at the right time. Rather, the teaching of the Church would allow for the Pope perhaps to postpone out of cowardice, a right thing. Or when he says the truth, when he teaches the truth, he might do so in a way that includes an ambiguity.

So we are responsible as Catholics to understand, not only what the Church teaches, but what the Church doesn't teach to help clear up these misconceptions. The Church teaches in a simple summary that the Holy Father, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the successor to Peter and the Vicar of Christ, when he speaks as the universal teacher from the Chair of Peter in defining faith and morals does so with an infallible charism or an infallible gift through the Holy Spirit so that we can give to him the full assent of our intellect and our will, and we can hear the voice of Christ coming to us through the voice of the Pope when he is speaking in this capacity. (Dr. Scott Hahn on the Papacy)[/quote]

Have fun....sometimes Scott Hahn is so good.

Cam

[LittleLes]

I am analyzing the claims that Peter was the bishop of Rome one at a time. You may have noticed I started with Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians today. And I showed that it strongly gives the impression that Peter died at a different palce than Paul. Despite apologists' claims, it make no statement that Peter was bishop of Rome, or for that matter was in Rome.

I'll continue analyzing the apologists' list of claims over the next few weeks.

It is always interesting when "tradition" tries to replace history. The party line is very weak in this area and deliberate omissions, as I demonstrated today, and alterations of the original tests are not unheard of. Stay tuned.....

LittleLes

Edited March 10, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

Are you going to respond? I am waiting to see if you will respond to my statements. I gave citations and everything.

Cam

[jasJis]

Alas. We are stuck with Troll vomit. Les keeps regurgitating the same old have digested crapp.

[Cam42]

Please respond to me, Les....

You can't, or won't.

Cam

[thirsty-for-orthodoxy]

The letter does not prove that Peter was not the Bishop of Rome. It appears that the focus of the letter is more about Paul rather than Peter. If you were writing about the groom at a wedding, you would logically go into detail about what he was: feeling, wearing, thinking, etc. and you would talk about the bride but you wouldn't go into great detail about her to avoid clouding your topic. Therefore all we can really conclude about Peter being the bishop of Rome from this epistle is that it cannot be proved or disproved due to a lack of conclusive evidence.

"Why would he be focusing on Paul if Peter is the bishop of bishops?" You might ask.

Well within the first 100 years after Jesus's (and Peter's) death, the general focus was probably more geared towards finding new believers, not deciding who holds the greatest earthly authority in the Church. So wouldn't it be logical that you would give them an example of a convert who did so many great things for his faith in this religion. I'm not saying that Peter wasn't a great example but Paul's story of conversion was so dramatic (ie killing Christians-->dying for being one) that it would most likely draw more people in than hearing of how Peter, who was with Jesus from the start of His ministries, continues to follow Him after His death. Who needs to know who the head leader a group of 144 (purely hypothetical derived from each apostle drawing in 12 more)as apposed to when you have 500- 1000 belivers in one city * X number of cities, then you might want to have one supreme pontif to unify all of the territories. Numbers aside, in the case of 144, they were all taght by people who had learned the ministry directly from Jesus and had the Holy Spirit descend and reside within them. So from region to region the teachings would be inspired by the same Holy Spirit, which means the same message would be the same regardless of location. Being already unified makes the supreme pontif, who is there for unification of belief (not soley), unnesisary in this instance.

The one thing that I really didn't understand throughout this whole thread is the reliability of a source within 100 years. I could write about the Iraq war, but if I really don't know that much about it, it won't matter if it was written within 100 years, I'm not a realiable source. If I am an expert on it and I write a book on it in the year 2110, does it make me less reliable (assuiming I have all my faculties?) No, it doesn't. In those times they put a great deal of importance of the passing on of traditions and history orally. So since Iranaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn the disciple of John, and John new what Peter was doing, given the importance of oral record keeping, would it not make sense that Polycarp would have passed on the knowledge given to him by John. Wouldn't it make sense that Peter's ministry and position in the Church be passed down nearly word for word to Iranaeus, remember the Holy Spirit was upon John and most likely upon Polycarp as well.

May God bless you all, I'm tired so I'm going to bed.

Your brother in Christ,

Kenny B. :sleep:

[phatcatholic]

LittleLes,

we're all still waiting for you to respond to Cam's posts on:

Mar 8 2005, 11:49 AM
Mar 8 2005, 02:28 PM
Mar 8 2005, 02:33 PM
Mar 8 2005, 10:07 PM
Mar 9 2005, 08:06 AM
Mar 9 2005, 07:02 PM

i second the notion that no one else should engage him until he responds to Cam's posts at those times (on pgs. 4 and 5 of this thread) and actually provides proof for his claims. by continuing to engage him you only allow him to avoid the issue.

truth demands a verdict.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 9 2005, 11:48 PM'] And I showed that it strongly gives the impression that Peter died at a different palce than Paul. Despite apologists' claims, it make no statement that Peter was bishop of Rome, or for that matter was in Rome.




[/quote]
You showed absolutely nothing but your personal opinion.

[LittleLes]

No C-Mother,

Please note that I quoted verbatim. Clement to the Corinthians does not state that Peter was in the west or in Rome, only that Paul was in the west and died under the prefects (Rome or Roman territory).

It does not say where Peter died. If you claim it does, please quote the passage.

LittleLes

[jasJis]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Mar 10 2005, 03:40 AM'] LittleLes,

we're all still waiting for you to respond to Cam's posts on:

Mar 8 2005, 11:49 AM
Mar 8 2005, 02:28 PM
Mar 8 2005, 02:33 PM
Mar 8 2005, 10:07 PM
Mar 9 2005, 08:06 AM
Mar 9 2005, 07:02 PM

i second the notion that no one else should engage him until he responds to Cam's posts at those times (on pgs. 4 and 5 of this thread) and actually provides proof for his claims. by continuing to engage him you only allow him to avoid the issue.

truth demands a verdict.

pax christi,
phatcatholic [/quote]
I vote "Yah" on the motion to not engage until Les responds to Cam's posts.

:thinking:

[Cam42]

[quote]Please note that I quoted verbatim. Clement to the Corinthians does not state that Peter was in the west or in Rome, only that Paul was in the west and died under the prefects (Rome or Roman territory).[/quote]

No, sir, you did not. I have read and re-read your posts. You make several assmptions based upon several writings. However, you provide no sourcing, nor do you set apart in quotation your verbatim statements.

You demand that we who are Catholic do this. I did this. You will not respond to me. I demand that you do this. You do not. You are losing credibility.

I do hope that you realize that your statements would fail in any college, high school, and grade school, based upon the fact that you 1.) Palagerized, or 2.) Failed to source your information when it was necessary.

Oh, by the way, I am waiting for you to respond to my posts. Are you? I was so looking to continuing the discussion with you. The dates of the posts are listed. C'mon....I haven't even untied 1/2 of my brain from behind my back yet (I love Rush Limbaugh :wub:).

Cam

Edited March 10, 2005 by Cam42

[LittleLes]

Continuing with Corunum Catholic Apologetic Web page "Peter's Presence in Rome," We have Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Romans, chapter 4, (c 110 A.D.)

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."

The argument here seems to be that Peter and Paul issued commandments, and, since the letter was written to the Romans, Peter and Paul had to have been in Rome to issue these "commandments."

What's the unsupported assumption here? "Commandments" or commands were issued to all the communities especially those of the Gentiles (see Act 15 in which Antioch is mentioned). There is no claim in Ignatious that Peter or Paul, or James, or any other issuing church leaders specifically went to Rome to do so. That's what "epistles"were invented for.

But there is yet another problem here. That of possible interpolation, a common practice with early Christian writings. As even the Catholic Encyclopedia says of Ignatius' "long recession" or collection of letters, the oldest surviving, "It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal view of its author."

So this reference is uncertain at best.

Little Les

[jasJis]

Troll vomit.

[LittleLes]

Hi JasJis,

Is "troll vomit" your only considered response to the evidence? But I guess if you have no counter-point, you just have to go with what you have.

LittleLes, aka The Troll

Edited March 10, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

Are you going to respond to my posts directly?

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote]What's the unsupported assumption here? "Commandments" or commands were issued to all the communities especially those of the Gentiles (see Act 15 in which Antioch is mentioned). There is no claim in Ignatious that Peter or Paul, or James, or any other issuing church leaders specifically went to Rome to do so. That's what "epistles"were invented for.[/quote]

[quote]From Irenaeus in the late second century until modern times, Christian tradition regarded Peter the apostle as author of this document. Since he was martyred at Rome during the persecution of Nero between A.D. 64 and 67, it was supposed that the letter was written from Rome shortly before his death. This is supported by its reference to "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13), a code name for Rome in the early church. (NAB; USCCB)[/quote]

Here is an interesting thought though. The Papacy is not contingent on Rome. It is clear that Rome is the third See created. Jerusalem is the First, Antioch is the Second and Rome the Third. The Papacy is contingent on Peter and the fact that Christ instituted it.

If Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome.

Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension.

William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.”

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 180), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome. That pesky Irenaues sticks his head into this thread again.

[quote]"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 180]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

"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 letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3). (Irenaeus, Against Heresies (A.D. 180)[/quote]

The historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

Now, I know that some of this is repetative, but since you refuse to answer it, I post it again.

Will you please address my posts directly?

Cam

Edited March 10, 2005 by Cam42