Skip to comments.St. Peter and Rome
Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
The Churchs one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her
And for her life He died.
She is from every nation,
Yet one oer all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.
The Church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord to defend,
To guide, sustain, and cherish,
Is with her to the end:
Though there be those who hate her,
And false sons in her pale,
Against both foe or traitor
She ever shall prevail.
Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, How long?
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song!
Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
Till, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest.
Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won,
With all her sons and daughters
Who, by the Masters hand
Led through the deathly waters,
Repose in Eden land.
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with Thee:
There, past the border mountains,
Where in sweet vales the Bride
With Thee by living fountains
Forever shall abide!
No one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 3:11
He was commanded by God himself directly in the Scriptures to receive the very first Gentile convert intom the Church.
His mission field was allotted to him by Christ directly at the end of the Gospel of Matthew when he was commanded by Jesus to go forth and preach to all nations.
St. Peter did consecrate the Antiochean bishop, and he did come, serve, and was martyred in Rome, like you said. He also had consecrated a bishop in Armenia. We read of his travels and extensive missionary work in the Acts, so none of this is surprising, or contradictory to the traditional view of him.
It is indeed likely that by the time St. Peter established himself in Rome, there had been a Christian community there.
We have scriptural evidence of St. Peter's primacy among the apostles and we have the evidence of the early Fathers that they considered him the first bishop of Rome.
If there had been a leader of the Roman community prior to St. Peter, it is strange no never have his name mentioned.
You speaking to me??? I'm one of the Saints...
Peter is adressed three times by name, and is told to feed the sheep (with variations in proper name and in the verb used and the gender of the sheep) in John 21. Peter was not alone when Jesus spoke, but the speech is addressed to Peter alone. Which gospel do you read where a similar charge was given someone else?
I would say the food is the word of God
It is a valid interpretation, however the Eucharist is also described as "food indeed".
I can't imagine where you got that opinion [that Peter and James authorised Paul]
There is NOTHING in [Gal 2:9) you refer to that puts James, John and Peter above Paul
"18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord" (Gal 1)
"9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal 2:9).
The reference to "pillars", and the imperative "that we should" shows that it was a decision taken by Peter and James. We also know that the decision "to go into Gentiles" originated with Peter alone: "in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10).
We are the Gentile church
We owe our conversion to the Father who coverted us to Christ, to Peter who decided to prozelytize among the Gentiles, to Paul who did most of that work, and to the Catholic Church which maintained the deposit of faith for us for centuries and fought off heresies.
if the three would have disapproved that Paul would have halted his ministry to the Gentiles, which God commanded him to do???
They wouldn't have disapproved, -- this is an impossible hypothetical that three apostles of Christ would disapprove of the work done for Christ. However, Paul felt it necessary to establish his credentials as an adoptive apostle as one sent by the natural apostles. It was indeed important for him, because "how shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Rom 10:14).
Does the bible end (for you) after Jesus was crucified???
Ah. So grace through faith without works, eternal security and the rest of Luther's heresies are from the Arabs?
We don't know who consecrated (priests are ordained; bishops are consecrated) St. Paul. His apostleship is directly from Christ, so he was an apostle rahter than bishop, and required no consecration. The scripture however does tell us that his work among the Gentiles was authorized by St. Peter according to his vision (Acts 10 and following; Gal 2).
And I say this statement betrays ignorance of the scripture even by the enfeebled Protestant standard, and I gave you where to read in #18.
As you likely know, the we should was found in no manuscripts and was inserted by faith from the translaters...
Paul's commission to go to the Gentiles was already established by God...
Sure...Paul went to Mecca searching for God while Peter jumped on a Lear to Rome...
There are other copies at the university. We will now examine those as well to see if they will tell us any more.
I trust that this will be acceptable as evidence in our treatise, though it doesn't say that the commandments Peter and Paul gave were to the Romans. But perhaps in the hands of your rhetorical wizards they can be tortured to confess and tell you what you want them to say.
I trust you are well Adiaireton8. Keep the faith. I hope they let you read this.
THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO
Part I] Evidence From the Holy Scriptures: There is no evidence at all.
Part II] Evidence From the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: (a work in progress by Uncle Chip on Adiaireton8's behalf)
A. Clement of Rome [1st Century] --- No Evidence
B. Justin Martur of Rome [100-165 AD] --- No Evidence
C. Ignatius of Antioch [35-110 AD] --- (still under examination)
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were Apostles" [Epistle to the Romans 110 AD]
D. Irenaeus of Lyons [130-200 AD] --- (questionable)
E. Dionysius at Corinth [2nd Century]--- (pending)
F. Tertullian of Carthage [160-230 AD]--- (pending)
G. Hippolytus of Rome [170-236 AD] --- (pending)
They should change their name to "Tommyrot and Foolishness".
It is inconceivable that Paul would not have referred to the presence of one who was one of the foremost apostles.
It is not "inconceivable" at all. If you were a member of a tiny group persecuted by both Jews and Romans, would you put down on paper, which might fall into the hands of the authorities, the whereabouts of your critical leaders? I mean, come on, Paul wasn't stupid.
Indeed, the circumstances in Antioch were such that Peter was sternly rebuked by Paul, whose authority was much greater than Peter's. (Galatians 2:11).
Nothing in Gal 2 says that Paul's authority was "much greater than Peter's," or greater at all, in fact. Paul makes a big deal out of rebuking Peter for his bad conduct precisely because Peter's authority was recognized and important.
The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon were all written from Rome
Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't. Ephesians and Collossians refer to "fetters" and being an "ambassador in chains," and Philemon refers to imprisonment, but Paul was imprisoned in the Holy Land before going to Rome, so that proves nothing. Nor do we know that they were written before Peter's death, so that again proves nothing.
So if Peter was in Rome he enjoyed a immunity which was not accorded to Paul
Says who? He was a hunted criminal!
Not only does he never once mention Peter, but emphatically, at the last moment declares "Only Luke is with me."
And for all you or they know, Peter was already dead by then.
Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome.
A non-conclusion based on a non-argument fraught with wishful thinking. Mildly persuasive, except for the evidence. Except for the writings of the fathers, in particular, Ignatius, who knew both Peter and Paul, and who mentions them as commanding the church in Rome in his letter to the Romans. Except for the writings of Eusebius, who is the most authoritative historian of the early church, far more authoritative than a bunch of Protestant pampleteers in London. And except for that troublesome tomb on Vatican Hill, and the words on it: Petros eni ... "Peter is here".
kai gnontes ten charin ten dotheisan moi Iakovos kai Kefas kai Ioannes oi dokountes styloi einai dexias edokan emou kai barnaba koinonias ina emeis [men] eis ta ethne autoi de eis ten peritomenword by word, hyphenating what is a single word in the original:
and knowing the grace the given me Jacob and Kephas and Iohann the esteemed pillars are right-hand gave me and Barnabas fellowship so-that we [on-one-hand] to the gentiles they on-the-other-hand into the circumsized
"Men" is a mere particle: "men folld. by de in the correlative clause or clauses, on the one hand, on the other hand" (see at Lidell, Scott link above, part II). The text without "men" is incomplete grammatically (the proper grammar is "men ... de"), but the meaning is not altered: the natural apostles establish "koinonia", communion or fellowship, with Peter and go on their missions.
The modality "should" is not the missing "men" anyway. It is expressed by "ina". Compare the same word used 6 times in Galatians 2, starting with "that they might bring us into bondage" in verse 4.
Thank you for the opportunity to research this. So, who teaches that "should" in its imperative modal sense was inserted? The original, and Lidell-Scott show that a particle is missing, but the modality is present. Another thing that is missing in all Greek versions is the verb "go", and that indeed is extrapolated by all translators.
Paul's commission to go to the Gentiles was already established by God
What the scripture tells (Gal. 2, Acts 10f) us is that it was established by St. Peter and possibly in congress with James and John, who, of course, were all lead by the Holy ghost in all they did. The impetus to go to the Gentiles originated from Jesus at the parable of the guests at the wedding and the workers at the vinyard; it was given the natural apostles as the Great Commission, but St. Paul had to be adopted into the apostolic college and be given the mission at that later time.
What you are doing is baiting another poster who has already indicated he wants nothing to do with you. Keep it up and you'll be watching from the sidelines
St. Peter is addressed as "Simon Peter: Simon son of John", then as "Simon, son of John" two more times in John 21. You are not implying that Christ was talking to someone other than St. Peter, are you? These are all Peter's names.
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.