Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

St. Peter and Rome
Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 11-15-04 | Amy Barragree

Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation

St. Peter and Rome
11/15/04

Dear Catholic Exchange:

Why did St. Peter establish the Church in Rome?

Ed


Dear Ed,

Peace in Christ!

We do not know why Peter went to Rome. The Church has always maintained, based on historical evidence, that Peter went to Rome, but has never taught why this happened. In speculating on this matter, there are two primary considerations.

First, at the time of Jesus and the early Church, the Roman Empire controlled the lands around the Mediterranean, a large portion of what is now Europe, and most of what is now called the Middle East. Rome was one of the biggest, most influential cities in the Western world. It was the center of political authority, economic progress, cultural expression, and many other aspects of life in the Roman Empire. This may have played a role in Peter’s decision to go to Rome.

Second, Jesus promised the Apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them. Scripture shows Peter following the promptings of the Holy Spirit throughout his ministry. It somehow fits into God’s providence and eternal plan that His Church be established in Rome. Peter may have gone to Rome for no other reason than that is where the Holy Spirit wanted him.

Historical evidence does show that Peter did go to Rome and exercised his authority as head of the Apostles from there. The earliest Christians provided plenty of documentation in this regard.

Among these was St. Irenæus of Lyons, a disciple of St. Polycarp who had received the Gospel from the Apostle St. John. Near the end of his life St. Irenæus mentioned, in his work Against Heresies (c. A.D. 180-199), the work of Peter and Paul in Rome:

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 (Book 3, Chapter 1, verse 1).
The African theologian Tertullian tells us that Peter and Paul both died in Rome in Demurrer Against the Heretics (c. A.D. 200):
Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each.... [I]f you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority [i.e., in Carthage] derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [i.e., the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island.
Tertullian was certainly not the only ancient author who testified that Peter was crucified in Rome. An ancient, orthodox historical text known as the "Acts of Saints Peter and Paul" elaborates on the preaching and martyrdom of the two Apostles in Rome. The dating of this document is difficult, but historians cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia placed its probable origins between A.D. 150-250.

One of the earliest thorough histories of the Church was Bishop Eusebius of Cæsarea’s Ecclesiastical History. Most of this work was written before Constantine became emperor in A.D. 324, and some portions were added afterward. Eusebius quotes many previous historical documents regarding Peter and Paul’s travels and martyrdom in Rome, including excellent excerpts from ancient documents now lost, like Presbyter Gaius of Rome’s "Disputation with Proclus" (c. A.D. 198-217) and Bishop Dionysius of Corinth’s "Letter to Soter of Rome" (c. A.D. 166-174). Penguin Books publishes a very accessible paperback edition of Eusebius’s history of the Church, and most libraries will probably own a copy as well.

For more ancient accounts of Peter’s presence in Rome, see the writings of the Church Fathers, which are published in various collections. Jurgens’s Faith of the Early Fathers, volumes 1-3, contains a collection of patristic excerpts with a topical index which apologists find very useful (Liturgical Press). Hendrickson Publishers and Paulist Press both publish multi-volume hardcover editions of the works of the Church Fathers. Penguin Books and St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press publish a few works of the Fathers in relatively inexpensive paperback editions.

More treatments of Petrine questions may be found in Stephen K. Ray’s Upon This Rock (Ignatius); Jesus, Peter, & the Keys by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess (Queenship); Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction (Basilica); and in the Catholic Answers tracts “Was Peter In Rome?” and “The Fathers Know Best: Peter In Rome.”

Please feel free to call us at 1-800-MY FAITH or email us with any further questions on this or any other subject. If you have found this information to be helpful, please consider a donation to CUF to help sustain this service. You can call the toll-free line, visit us at
www.cuf.org, or send your contribution to the address below. Thank you for your support as we endeavor to “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.”

United in the Faith,

Amy Barragree
Information Specialist
Catholics United for the Faith
827 North Fourth Street
Steubenville, OH 43952
800-MY-FAITH (800-693-2484)



Editor's Note: To submit a faith question to Catholic Exchange, email
faithquestions@catholicexchange.com. Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange becomes the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Judaism; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; rome; stpeter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-855 next last
The Catholic viewpoint = the facts.
1 posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:41 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; sandyeggo; Lady In Blue; NYer; american colleen; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ...
Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

2 posted on 10/27/2006 8:15:55 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Experts: Catholics

More information:

Expert: Sal
Date: 2/10/2004
Subject: Peter, Rome

Question
Hi Sal,

Many anti-Catholics argue that Peter was not the first leader of the Catholic church because James was the bishop of Jerusalem.  If James was the bishop of Jerusalem, where was Peter at the time?
Why did the Catholic church move from Jerusalem to Rome?  Was there a power struggle between Peter and James?  Did James accept Peter as Pope of Christ's church?

Thanks,

Les

Get the answer below


Answer
Hello Les:

Thanks for the questions.

It is a common ploy among anti-Catholics to assert that St. James was the “Bishop” of Jerusalem and then to equate that position with leadership over the entire Church. Firstly, the title “Bishop” is used by anti-Catholics as if it had the same meaning then as it does now. No Apostle could  technically be called a “Bishop” as we use the term today. A bishop is the head of a particular area (diocese). The Apostles were sent out to the world not to a particular area (see Matthew 28:18-20). Secondly, even if one concedes that St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, bishops are still under the authority of the pope. Thus Bishop James would still submit to Pope Peter (“I will entrust to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven”-Matthew 16:19). Thirdly, never was the Bishop of Jerusalem considered to be the head of the Church. Only the Bishop of Rome has ever been called the head of the Church, i.e. the Pope. This is because St. Peter died in Rome and his successors were seen as the new heads of the Church (“The gates of death shall not prevail against it”-Matthew 16:18). No early Christian concerned himself with who succeeded St. James in Jerusalem.

“You wrote also, that I should forward to (Pope) Cornelius (Bishop of Rome), our colleague, a copy of your letter, so that he might put aside any anxiety and know immediately that you are in communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (Letter of St. Cyprian, 251 AD).

“Therefore, shall you write two little books and send one to (Pope) Clement (Bishop of Rome)…Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (Hermas, 140 AD).

The anti-Catholic in putting forth the “Bishop of Jerusalem” gambit is simply trying to take the focus off of the most devastating piece of evidence against their position. That evidence is that Jesus himself declared Peter to be the head of the Church.

“I for my part declare to you, you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19).

Our Lord said no like statement for St. James-case closed.

The Catholic Church moved its headquarters from Jerusalem to Rome because it was God's plan for the Church to take the gospel to the entire world (“Make disciples of all the nations”-Matthew 28:19). Jerusalem was the starting point for worldwide evangelization.

“You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes down on you; than you are to be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, yes, even to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

So the gospel message would start in Jerusalem, then “throughout Judea” to all the Jews, then to Samaria, to the half-breed Jews, then finally “to the ends of the earth”, to the Gentiles. This is what we see happening in the early Church as Pope Peter is called upon by God to accept into His Church the first Samarians (see Acts 8:14-17), and then the first Gentiles (see Acts 10:34-48). These actions could have destroyed the infant Church, but since it was Pope Peter who allowed this (“Whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven”-Matthew 16:19) hardly any complaints arise.

God allowed persecution of the Church in order to force the Church out of Judea. “The members of the Church who had been dispersed went about preaching the word. Philip for example, went down to the town of Samaria and there proclaimed the Messiah” (Acts 8:4-5). It was by allowing further persecution on the Church that God forced the Church into Gentile territory.

“Those in the community who had been dispersed by the persecution that arose because of Stephen went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, making the message known to none but Jews. However, some men of Cyprus and Cyrene among them who had come to Antioch began to talk even to the Greeks, announcing the good news of the Lord Jesus to them” (Acts 11:19-20).

The best and quickest way to reach the entire world was by using the world's greatest empire. It was only through Rome's technological advantages that much of the world became reachable. So we see in the Book of Acts a great push to get the gospel planted firmly in Rome. St. Luke states, “This is how we finally came to Rome” (Acts 28:14). Many have remarked how the Book of Acts seems to end so abruptly without a proper ending. This ending seems so unsatisfactory to them. These people, I submit, think this because they fail to grasp the real point of the Book of Acts, namely, to get the Church established in Rome. Therefore, when this goal is accomplished, St. Luke ends his book.

“For two years Paul stayed on in his rented lodgings, welcoming all who came to him. With full assurance and without any hindrance whatever, he preached the reign of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 28:30-31).

There is no Scriptual evidence of a power struggle between Sts. James and Peter. St. James, like all the Apostles, recognized St. Peter as Pope. Jesus, in front of all the Apostles, declared Peter to be the rock on which his Church would be built. In front of all he gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter alone. Then when the Apostles wondered who should be regarded as the greatest among them, Jesus told them, “Let the greater among you be as the junior, the leader as the servant” (Luke 22:26). The very next thing that Jesus does, again in front of all the Apostles, is to pray for Peter alone.

“Simon, Simon! Remember Satan has asked for you (Greek plural-“you all”), to sift you all like wheat. But I have prayed for you (Greek singular-“you alone”) that your faith may never fail. You in turn must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32).

After the Resurrection Jesus appears to the disciples and confirms Peter as head of the Church. Recall the St. Peter had denied the Lord 3 times (see John 18:15-17, 25-27); therefore, Jesus may have deemed it necessary to confirm that Peter was still the chosen earthly head of the Church. This was probably more for Peter's benefit then for anyone else. For St. Peter was still seen as a natural leader. When he said, “I'm going out to fish.” All the other Apostles who were present (six) replied, “We will join you” (John 21:3). Interestingly, after St. Peter's three-fold denial, our Lord makes him perform a three-fold affirmation. “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Jesus asks three times in John 21:15-17. This where the Good Shepherd (see John 10:11, 14) confirms Peter as the new shepherd of Jesus' universal flock. “Feed my sheep” (v.17).

One final note on the other Apostles recognizing St. Peter as the undisputed earthly head of the Church. Any Jew upon hearing Jesus state that he was giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose would immediately know that Peter had just be made the prime minister, the vicar, the second-in-charge, only answerable to the king himself. This is so because in making Peter the head of the Church, Jesus quoted from the installation ceremony of the primeminister of the Davidic kingdom (a type of Jesus' heavenly kingdom).

“I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open” (Isaiah 22:22).

In conclusion, everyone in the early Church recognized St. Peter as the Christ-ordained head of the Church.

God Bless You,
Sal

P.S. Good luck with your Confession, my prayers are with you.

3 posted on 10/27/2006 8:23:04 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Well, he went to Rome so that Michelangelo and others could build a cathedral there at a later date.


4 posted on 10/27/2006 8:26:49 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Historical fact that Peter ever went to Rome is missing. Show me any evidence that Peter was ever in Rome and I might reconsider my basic protestant argument. After many hundreds of years, Rome has yet to give any “proof” that Peter ever set foot in Rome.


5 posted on 10/27/2006 8:40:29 PM PDT by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Another frequent canard is that Christ somehow wanted to unflatteringly compare Peter to some other rock in Matthew 16:18, and that the hidden meaning is somethingg like "You Simon are a pebble but I will build my Church on a real, big rock". It is absurd given the context, and the other Christ's affirmations of Peter, but it is also linguistically incorrect.

There is so much desire to explain these verses away. For the record, I would like to comment on the linguistic aspect of verse 18.

This is the literal word-by-word for the Latin:

tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam
you are Peter and on this rock I-shall-build church my

To see the Greek original, go to

http://unbound.biola.edu/

, and select Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) as the first version and any English translation for the second version. Select Matthew as book and chapter 16 verse 18. Leave other controls as by default. You will see the Greek original and the translation in a separate window. The Greek will be in Greek letters, but this is, roughly, what they would be transliterated into English alphabet letter-by-letter:

kago de soi lego oti su es petros kai epi taute te petra oikonomeso mou ten ekklesian kai pulai adou ou katischusousin autes

and-I to you say that you are Petros and upon this the rock I-shall-build my the church and doors of-hell not prevail against-her

Greek words have "gender". Words ending in "os" are masculine. Words ending in "a" are feminine (they also inflect, and there are other endings beside these two, but these two are sufficient for our purpose here). "Petra" is "rock"; it is a feminine noun. Accordingly, "taute" and "te" are feminine prepositions that together mean "this [feminine thing]". "epi taute te petra" means "upon this rock", straight up, -- no wordplay.

Then there is this word, "petros". It is a masculine form of "petra". You can take any Greek word ending in "-a", and make up a similar masculine word out of it replacing "-a" with "-os". We can't do so in English because we don't have gender for inanimate nouns. We have a similar effect with some names, e.g. "Brenda" and "Brendan". But in Greek we can do so systematically. Usually, if we take a regular Greek feminine word and form a masculine counterpart, we get a non-word. "Petros" is a non-word. It suggests "petra" but is wrong, masculine, gender. How can we use such non-word? We can give a man a nickname. The nickname, e.g. Petros, will follow the proper grammar for men, but will still suggest "petra", -- Rock.

There is no record of the proper name Petros used prior to the spread of Christianity. It might have been a rarely used name, or it might have been a non-word till Christ invented it. In any event, there is nothing in the text to indicate any desire on the part of Christ to make Peter a "stone" (the word for that would be "lithos") or a "pebble". There is nothing that suggests pointing away from Peter at some rock far off.

It is possible that the actual words were uttered in Aramaic, and indeed Peter is called Cephas, Aramaic for Rock, elsewhere. In this case the Greek word formation, "petros" is how Matthew rendered the renaming while making the Greek grammar still work.

Nor, of course, is there anything in the broader context to suggest irony on the part of Christ. Simon alone recognized Jesus as the messiah; Jesus indicates that Peter has a divine revelation about that, renames him (in the tradition of Old Testament patriarchs) and promises to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He also explains that the "keys" will hold the power to legislate on earth in such way that Christ Himself will enforce these laws in heaven.

(Source)

6 posted on 10/27/2006 8:43:59 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

And all this time I thought it was for the spaghetti!! ;o)


7 posted on 10/27/2006 8:49:53 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
The tract "Was Peter in Rome?" is mentioned in #3. The bulk of it deals with the indirect evidence of early Christian writing, in itself formidable. This part deals with the archaeological evidence:
What Archaeology Proved

There is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome, but Boettner, like other Fundamentalist apologists, must dismiss it, claiming that “exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin” (118).

Boettner saw Roman Catholicism through the presses in 1962. His original book and the revisions to it since then have failed to mention the results of the excavations under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, excavations that had been underway for decades, but which were undertaken in earnest after World War II. What Boettner casually dismissed as “some bones of uncertain origin” were the contents of a tomb on Vatican Hill that was covered with early inscriptions attesting to the fact that Peter’s remains were inside.

After the original release of Boettner’s book, evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.

Was Peter in Rome?
8 posted on 10/27/2006 8:52:27 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


9 posted on 10/27/2006 8:53:37 PM PDT by Coleus (Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Thanks for that link, too. I thought about posting it as well, but I'm glad you did.


10 posted on 10/27/2006 8:56:11 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
Another consideration is in the same "Was Peter in Rome?" article. It simply should not matter if Peter or a successor of his went to Rome.
At first glance, it might seem that the question, of whether Peter went to Rome and died there, is inconsequential. And in a way it is. After all, his being in Rome would not itself prove the existence of the papacy. In fact, it would be a false inference to say he must have been the first pope since he was in Rome and later popes ruled from Rome. With that logic, Paul would have been the first pope, too, since he was an apostle and went to Rome.

On the other hand, 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.

(Source: Ibid)

11 posted on 10/27/2006 8:56:37 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

The Roman viewpoint =

the VERY EDITED AND ANNOTATED pseudo-"facts."

My view of the historical record is that the

Roman edifice

did not even begin until at least 200 years after Paul died.


12 posted on 10/27/2006 9:00:35 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Like most historians, I’m still waiting for proof that Peter ever ventured to Rome. Why would he, he had already shown that he was unworthy by denying Christ three times. And after denying Christ, we don’t hear about him much. So this has been , denier (sp) of Christ went on to Rome and became the first pope . Excuse me if I don’t buy into this whole thing.


13 posted on 10/27/2006 9:04:15 PM PDT by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

BTW, I'm not anti Universal Church of all those who Love The Lord Jesus . . .

I am against hierarchical organizations which end up doing the same thing the religious leaders of the most kosher RELIGIOUS organization of Jesus' dusty pathed days did to those who wanted a real realtionship with God.

The same problems in the Roman group abound in the Protestant groups. Human nature is the same in both camps and now as 2,000 years ago.

The Romans have not learned some secret about keeping organizations and their leaders humble servants to true relationships with God. It has appeared a number of decades and even centuries that actually, the Roman group was euqal to or worse than the RELIGIOUS organization and leaders ruling the roost in Jesus' earthly days.

I do NOT believe that Christ installed Peter as leader of anything.

But EVEN IF HE DID, the supposed successors have truly botched the operation big time multiple times to horrific results over and over and over.

The notion that God still rests His anointing on the Roman Group makes of God an idiot.

God is not that dumb, blind or helpless when He sees His priorities and His anointing trashed compared to His goals and standards.


14 posted on 10/27/2006 9:06:30 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I thought it was because Babylonia was too hard to spell.
15 posted on 10/27/2006 9:16:59 PM PDT by irishtenor (We survived Clinton in the 80s... we can survive her even when her husband is gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
"I thought it was because Babylonia was too hard to spell."

Even Tai Babilonia couldn't figure it out...

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

16 posted on 10/27/2006 9:28:04 PM PDT by decal (Building a wall on the border is like treating lung cancer with cough syrup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

Why, isn't Bernini's Cathedra Petri evidence enough, to say nothing of the whole cathedral around it? Whether he was there, or not, is irrelevant. Quite a lot of excellent art was specifically created on the assumption that he went there, and for that art we ought to be grateful.


17 posted on 10/27/2006 9:40:11 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
still waiting for proof

A marked grave ain't enough?

after denying Christ, we don’t hear about him much

Read the book called the "Bible". It is for sale in "Christian" book stores. Inside, look for Acts, two letters of Peter, and Galatians and do a word search for "Cephas" and "Peter".

Also, read the following in the Gospel of John (it is also a part of the "Bible" book):

Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. 18 Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. 19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.
This is after the betrayal.

The "Bible" book is also available online: Douay-Rheims Bible

It is good that you have such vibrant interest in Christianity. I'll be glad to help if you have questions, as will many others.

18 posted on 10/27/2006 9:46:53 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: decal

Much thanks for the picture... But I am at WORK>>>>>


19 posted on 10/27/2006 9:54:19 PM PDT by irishtenor (We survived Clinton in the 80s... we can survive her even when her husband is gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Quix

It what ways are things being "trashed" as you say by the Catholic Church?

In my way of thinking, it is the Catholic Church who as stood alone on many issues, among them:

The sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman
The holiness of the priesthood, (Yes, some have abused that office, but for the most, it is an extremely holy and honored sacrament.)
The stand against abortion
Against contraception and for Natural Family Planning
The stand against euthanasia
Against embryonic stem cell killing

Wouldn't you agree that the Catholic Church has stood faithfully and alone on these issues. Other faiths have chosed to join these ongoing fights at later dates.


20 posted on 10/27/2006 10:44:36 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Seems a little odd that the Jewish leaders didn't mention the first pope...Apparently the Jewish leaders had never been in contact with Peter...Act 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.

Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Act 28:24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

If Peter was in Rome, Paul then was building on another man's ministry, contrary to the bible and Roman theology...

21 posted on 10/27/2006 10:57:08 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

So are you saying that Peter and Paul worked against each other?

I don't think so!!


22 posted on 10/27/2006 10:59:08 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Peter was told to feed the sheep...Paul told the elders to feed the church...

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

And who ordained the overseers??? Was it Peter??? Nope...How about Paul??? Nope...It was the Holy Ghost...

Was 'feed the flock' a special admonition given to only Peter??? Of course not...

And what was the food that was to be fed???

23 posted on 10/27/2006 11:17:14 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
So are you saying that Peter and Paul worked against each other?

Nope...I'm saying Peter wasn't there...And the bible hints at that as well...

24 posted on 10/27/2006 11:19:55 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

You have the testimony of Ireneaus and Tertullian. Absent evidence to the contrary, that should be enough. Besides, this is as unexceptional as asserting that a Frenchman might go to live in Paris. Rome was a magnet drawing people from all over the world and had a large Jewish population.


25 posted on 10/27/2006 11:20:59 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Please tell me the chapter and verse where the Bible "hints" at that.


26 posted on 10/27/2006 11:35:29 PM PDT by Running On Empty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Uncle Chip; Forest Keeper; Frumanchu; Gamecock; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan; ...
From Irenaeus of Lyons:

Irenaeus tells us several things. First, Peter AND Paul established the Church of Rome. Second, when the Church of Rome was established they left it in the hands of Linus. Finally, they left Rome.

Paul had several journeys to Rome and Irenaeus seems to suggest that Peter had at least one. But Irenaeus does not make Peter the Pope of Rome nor does he say that Peter stay around to oversee it. On the contrary, he says he left. I find Catholic writings often leave out these important facts in Irenaeus' writings. Later writings is nothing more than speculation.

27 posted on 10/28/2006 12:08:47 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

The charge to Peter in the last chapter of John was self-evidently given to St. Peter alone.

References to consecration and ordination are numerous in the epistles and the Acts.

The food was primarily the Eucharist, which, Christ taught, was "food indeed". Nothing prevents us to understand is expansively as the entire teaching of the Church. This is how Peter himself understands it in 2 Peter -- as the deposit of faith he received firsthand.

There is no mutual exclusivity between St. Paul and St. Peter. Whatever St. Paul did, even if arguing with St. Peter, he did because St. Peter and St. James, "the pillars" authorized him.

It is a bit late. If you are not sure of the verses I am referring to, I will give you references tomorrow.


28 posted on 10/28/2006 12:09:01 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

No, Peter did not "rule" the Church from Rome. What he and Paul did was to lend their authority to the see of Rome, especially since each man was martyred there. As a result the capital city of the empire became the main focal point of the Church, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem.


29 posted on 10/28/2006 12:14:47 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Paul received his authority from Peter and James. He was sent to the Gentiles, but Peter had the universal order to wield the keys and "feed the lambs".


30 posted on 10/28/2006 12:20:17 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Come on Harley, let's not let facts get in the way of current tradition! ;-)


31 posted on 10/28/2006 12:56:08 AM PDT by Gamecock (The GRPL: Because life is too short for bad Theology*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Is that why Paul had to confront Peter about his hypocrisy? Is that why God had to give peter a vision about the unclean becoming clean? The gentiles were infidels in the eyes of Peter until God gave him the vision. Paul was called to the gentiles while peter was called to the Jews.
32 posted on 10/28/2006 1:21:22 AM PDT by John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?

The decision was already made at the Jerusalem council to let go of the dietetic law. That was done under St. Peter's leadership who had the vision (Acts 10) about it. St. Paul objected to Peter's personal behavior, but as we know from Scripture, it was Peter who initiated the reform. This was a doctrine that came from Peter and possibly John and James (Gal 1:9f, 2:1), so Paul could not be making a doctrinal point when he made his remark to Peter in Galatians 2:11f.

Peter was not called to the Jews in any exclusive sense -- it was Peter who opened the Chruch to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and converted the first Gentile (Acts 11).


33 posted on 10/28/2006 1:52:39 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I think there was already a church at Rome before Peter got there. It sounds from the bible like he founded the church at Antioch first, or was at least was instrumental in its early history. The church of Antioch exists today and traces its lineage back to St. Peter.

The only way Peter could have founded the church at Rome was if he had appointed/commissioned the first leader of the church and sent him there. Paul wrote to the Romans and makes no mention of Peter's being there which is odd since he names so many others.

By the time Peter finally got to Rome, which I believe he did, and wrote a letter from there with the code word "Babylon" (I don't think he was literally at the ancient Babylon), someone else had already been leading the church; it could have been informally organized by early lay people, like I believe many others probably were in the earliest times, the leaders may have been "ordained" by the laying on of hands by one of the apostles.

That is not to say he couldn't have been the first pope, but I'm not fully convinced he was. It doesn't take many years for historians to get wrong information recorded that was handed down by word of mouth, and sadly, I think some writings were later altered to give more substance to claims.

I've read all the claims; none are totaly convincing one way or another.

34 posted on 10/28/2006 2:31:13 AM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

I would direct you to the end of the Gospel of John, the Acts of the Apostles and the Letter of Peter. Then again, maybe those aren't the "proper sources" for your not hearing much about him.


35 posted on 10/28/2006 2:31:55 AM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Dr. Eckleburg; adiaireton8
Many anti-Catholics argue that Peter was not the first leader of the Catholic church because James was the bishop of Jerusalem. If James was the bishop of Jerusalem, where was Peter at the time? Why did the Catholic church move from Jerusalem to Rome? Was there a power struggle between Peter and James? Did James accept Peter as Pope of Christ's church?

Gosh, maybe for the partial answer to these questions you should consult the great Eusebius in Church History; Book III; Ch22:

"At this time, Ignatius was known as the 2nd bishop of Antioch, Euodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the 2nd ruler of the Church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first."

Golly gee, I wonder who that could have been? Hmmmm.Try Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles saw I none, except James, the Lord's brother". Yes, James, one of Jesus's four brothers, son of Mary [Mt 13:55]. There goes your postulation and that legend of perpetual virginity in one fell swoop.

Paul in Galatians describes his meeting with the three pillars of the Church in Jerusalem: James[bishop? maybe], Cephas [Peter the Apostle], and John [the Apostle?]. Is that 2 Apostles and a Bishop? We take your Queen.

Not only do you guys not believe the Holy Scriptures but you don't even believe your own Ante-Nicene Fathers. Where do you get these great pontifications? Maybe you should meditate on the great Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan who explained in From Apostles to Bishops, that apostles were not bishops and bishops not apostles, and that the Church in Rome until atleast the middle of the 2nd century was run by a college of presbyters. Yes, my dear deceived brethren, the first church in Rome was Presbyterian. And you have the audacity to call them "separated brethren". You all should return to the First Presbyterian Church of Rome, the church of your fathers, and quit this nonsense

36 posted on 10/28/2006 4:47:00 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seem to be right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Whatever Peter's position or authority, whatever validity the R.C. Church may or may not have, there are Ireneaus and Tertullian saying explicitly that Peter was in Rome. Do we have anyone from around the time of those two saying Peter never went to Rome?

It's interesting to me how this conversation draws arguments about Peter's postion and authority and against the R.C. Church. That just clouds the question, UNLESS the argument is in essence ad hominem [that's meant to be a descriptive, not an evaluative, phrase] and goes something like "The R.C. Church is full of lying, neurotic, superstitious fools, and has been since the time of Ireneaus and Tertullian. Consequently their evidence is of no weight."

I think the argument could be plausibly offered with respect to Tertullian. Anybody who could write as wittily as he did about "'Christians to the Lion' What? So many to one lion?", cannot be all bad, IMHO. But I know of no a priori reason to think that Ireneaus was incredible.

So we have one credible early witness to an even earlier "common knowledge" that Peter was in Rome. What is there in the "against" column except the strong desire of some that it not be true, so that every possible suggestion that the RC Church might somehow be the Church in its fullest can be discredited?

But as I and others far more worthy and important than I have said, the question of where Peter was is a different question from what his vocation was and what the Church is.

37 posted on 10/28/2006 4:56:20 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Now we are all Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
We do not know why Peter went to Rome. The Church has always maintained, based on historical evidence, that Peter went to Rome, but has never taught why this happened. In speculating on this matter . . .

"Speculating on this matter". There is no speculating in the Church of Rome, because once the "Holy Fathers" have spoken, the matter is settled, there is no more debate. And this matter is settled history. Both Jerome and Eusebius put it to bed. Jerome clearly writes: "Simon Peter . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus."

What is there left to "speculate" about. Holy Father Jerome says that Simon Peter went there not to preach the Gospel but in order to overthrow Simon Magus [Simon the Magician]. Was Saint Jerome mistaken? Surely the Holy Fathers are never wrong.

38 posted on 10/28/2006 5:08:11 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Hey, has anybody over here seen or heard from Adiaireton8?. I'm worried about him. Is he Okay????


39 posted on 10/28/2006 5:10:51 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The charge to Peter in the last chapter of John was self-evidently given to St. Peter alone.

I can see where it was probably given to Peter 'first', but not alone...That is evident...

The food was primarily the Eucharist, which, Christ taught, was "food indeed". Nothing prevents us to understand is expansively as the entire teaching of the Church. This is how Peter himself understands it in 2 Peter -- as the deposit of faith he received firsthand.

Act 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

I would say the food is the word of God...It builds you up as well as provides for the inheritance, because it contains the Truth for your salvation...

1Pe 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

There is no mutual exclusivity between St. Paul and St. Peter. Whatever St. Paul did, even if arguing with St. Peter, he did because St. Peter and St. James, "the pillars" authorized him.

I can't imagine where you got that opinion...It certainly didn't come from the bible...

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Paul, at the very least, was on equal footing with Peter...

My church, your church and every other Christian church in the U.S. fall under the scope of the ministry of the apostle Paul, not Peter...We are the Gentile church...

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

There is NOTHING in the verse you refer to that puts James, John and Peter above Paul...They didn't give him the hand of permission, they gave him the hand of fellowship...

You think that if the three would have disapproved that Paul would have halted his ministry to the Gentiles, which God commanded him to do??? I think not...

40 posted on 10/28/2006 5:16:02 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Peter was not called to the Jews in any exclusive sense -- it was Peter who opened the Chruch to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and converted the first Gentile (Acts 11).

Peter was converting Jews and learning to pass this along to Gentiles even tho he was stumbling while Paul was in Arabia learning first hand from God about the mystery of the adoption of the Gentiles, grace thru faith without works, eternal security, etc..

41 posted on 10/28/2006 5:23:10 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
Here's a good book that dispels many myths about the Papacy as written by Patrick Madrid, one of our greatest contemporary apologetics. He clearly dispels the myth that St. Peter never went to Rome.


42 posted on 10/28/2006 5:23:51 AM PDT by Theoden (Muslims who live by the sword shall die by mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Historical evidence does show that Peter did go to Rome and exercised his authority as head of the Apostles from there. The earliest Christians provided plenty of documentation in this regard.

Where is this "documentation from the earliest Christians" on this matter. Please post all that you have. Search the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and send them to me. We are doing a wonderful ecumenical treatise on the Evidence that Saint Peter was in Rome for that 25 year Bishopric as Saint Jerome pontificates and to date we have no evidence from Scripture or the "earliest Christians" or the Ante-Nicene Fathers, other than Jerome and Eusebius, of course, way off in the 4th century. But what were their sources????

They didn't pontificate on this matter without proof, did they? Or were their sources that thin over their heads there on Vatican hill or perhaps that ream of whole cloth down there in the basement that the magisterium have been using for years?

Please post all that you have from the Ante-Nicene Fathers that in the wildest imagination could be construed by the most rhetorical among us to possibly be some shred of evidence of that legendary Petrine Bishopric in Rome followed by upside down crucifixion under Nero. Just the words not the rhetoric.

43 posted on 10/28/2006 5:55:17 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Good article.


44 posted on 10/28/2006 6:00:17 AM PDT by ContraryMary (New Jersey -- Superfund cleanup capital of the U.S.A.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
No, Peter did not "rule" the Church from Rome. What he and Paul did was to lend their authority to the see of Rome, especially since each man was martyred there.

Well, shucks. I thought Peter was the see of Rome.

45 posted on 10/28/2006 6:21:30 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Paul received his authority from Peter and James.

Nonsense. Paul went preaching for three years before he even met Peter. Paul never states that he was ordained by Peter. Instead he states that God called him.

46 posted on 10/28/2006 6:23:31 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Come on Harley, let's not let facts get in the way of current tradition!

I wondered if we shouldn't ask Myth Busters to do a special on this but then the Catholics would all boycott the show.

47 posted on 10/28/2006 6:25:05 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

What does it matter whether the Apostle Peter founded the church in Rome or not?

Why is it important that he was the first Bishop of Rome for 27 years?

What part of your dogma is Peter so critical to that without him the dogma becomes meaningless?


48 posted on 10/28/2006 7:41:10 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Another consideration is in the same "Was Peter in Rome?" article. It simply should not matter if Peter or a successor of his went to Rome.

Very good point, and one that does not come up much in these types of debates. Even today, the Pope does not have to reside in Rome to be the Pope, though he of course is still the Bishop of Rome.

Take the Avignon Popes, for example.
49 posted on 10/28/2006 7:50:19 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
"And after denying Christ, we don’t hear about him much."
_____________________________

I agree with your assessment about being skeptical.

Peter was a great Apostle, but his mission field was among the Israelites and if I understand the history correctly there was not a large Jewish or Israelite community in Rome. Jesus did bring Peter back into the fold with the miraculous catch and the meal after wards where he told him to "feed my lambs".
50 posted on 10/28/2006 7:50:37 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-855 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson