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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 851-855 next last
To: 1000 silverlings
Ah, that must be where we got Peter Rabbit from

Yes, since he probably died in Babylon shortly after writing his last Epistle from there, he became known as the "Eastern Bunny". And people say that there is nothing Christian about bunny rabbits and Easter or is it Eastern?

151 posted on 10/28/2006 7:32:49 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
So then you disagree with that great Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan who insists that Apostles were never Bishops and vice versa?

I don't know who F. A. Sullivan is, and don't know why you think I should consider him authoritative.

It is true that the office of Apostle is superior to that of Bishop, so that St. Peter would hold the office of Bishop of Antioch while keeping all of his authority as an Apostle.

As for his position in Antioch, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

The later tradition, which existed as early as the end of the second century (Origen, "Hom. vi in Lucam"; Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", III, xxxvi), that Peter founded the Church of Antioch, indicates the fact that he laboured a long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end of his life and then appointed Evodrius, the first of the line of Antiochian bishops, head of the community. This latter view would best explain the tradition referring the foundation of the Church of Antioch to St. Peter.

152 posted on 10/28/2006 7:33:25 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Sorry, that should have read:

It is true that the rank of Apostle is superior to that of Bishop, so that St. Peter would hold the office of Bishop of Antioch while keeping all of his authority as an Apostle.

153 posted on 10/28/2006 7:35:46 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

And holding two positions was frowned upon. How can you be bishop and apostle, and travel and reside in one place.


154 posted on 10/28/2006 7:41:49 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Uncle Chip

Why wasn't he just called Pope? Why "bishop" when the rank is lower?


155 posted on 10/28/2006 7:44:11 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I don't know who F. A. Sullivan is, and don't know why you think I should consider him authoritative.

He's cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia and wrote From Apostles to Bishops

It is true that the office of Apostle is superior to that of Bishop, so that St. Peter would hold the office of Bishop of Antioch while keeping all of his authority as an Apostle.

Holding two offices at the same time was frowned upon in the Scriptures. An apostle was a travelling missionary and founded churches and moved on. Peter travelled around the area as an Apostle while James was probably a bishop or presbyter along with others in Jerusalem. If anyone was the first bishop of Antioch, it would have been Stephen or Barnabas. Does Eusebius mention them?

156 posted on 10/28/2006 8:00:05 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Running On Empty
That's ridiculous

Been around since 1998. Voice of experience. Glad to meet you Mr. August of 2006.

157 posted on 10/28/2006 8:10:30 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Campion
One other thing about that quote from Eusebius. Peter spent more time in Jerusalem than in Antioch. Why wouldn't Eusebius say that Peter founded the church of Jerusalem ---which he apparently did. If he was Bishop anywhere, he would have been the Bishop of Jerusalem not Antioch.

Do you think that Eusebius was trying to disguise Peter's Jewish heritage by linking him to Antioch rather than Jerusalem?

158 posted on 10/28/2006 8:18:00 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Syriac Fathers say Peter was Bishop of Antioch for 30 years

Please post the writings of the Syriac fathers that explicitly say Peter was the Bishop of Antioch for 30 years.

Post the actual writings,NOT protestant interpretations please.

159 posted on 10/28/2006 8:50:23 PM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; Uncle Chip

Can you read Aramaic?


160 posted on 10/28/2006 8:55:07 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
Can you read Aramaic

NO,But I know people who can translate for me.

161 posted on 10/28/2006 9:04:15 PM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Cool


162 posted on 10/28/2006 9:06:21 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Didn't I read that Babylon was just a code name for Rome??? But then what do we call Babylon???


163 posted on 10/28/2006 9:08:04 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
Syriac Fathers say Peter was Bishop of Antioch for 30 years

Please post the writings of the Syriac fathers that explicitly say Peter was the Bishop of Antioch for 30 years. Post the actual writings,NOT protestant interpretations please.

Does that mean you want them in the original language?

Perhaps we can help each other. I will help you find all the writings of the Syriac Fathers in that regard, if you will help me find all the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers regarding the 25 year Bishopric in Rome? And we will compare them to determine which claim, or if either, is true? What say you?

164 posted on 10/28/2006 9:09:38 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
But then what do we call Babylon???

History

165 posted on 10/28/2006 9:16:03 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Lil Flower
I have a question for you. Are you a Christian?

Chip's only role here is to be an obnoxious starter of crap.

166 posted on 10/28/2006 9:16:27 PM PDT by AlaninSA ("Beware the fury of a patient man." - John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

It has been a pleasure talking with you. I must get back to my studies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Tonight its Irenaeus. Have a good evening ----


167 posted on 10/28/2006 9:17:45 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
both apostles commission was given from someone else...And of course it would be from God...Not Peter

The Great Commission is to evangelize the world, given all the natural apostles by Christ. I am referring to the last chapter of the synoptic gospels. So, I have no argument with that. However, the fact remains that Paul had to establish his credentials and he edscribes how he got them and from whom, in Galatians 2:9.

The Great Commission had nothing to do with Gentiles

Please. I bolded the references to the gentiles.

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt 28:19)

Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mark 16:15)

penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47)

When Peter had the experience with the Gentile in Acts 10, it was part of the 'transition'

What "transition"? Is it in the scripture or not? Peter baptized the first gentile, Cornelius. Peter received the vision the the whole Creation is clean. Peter, James and John decided that Peter would breach to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. So, it is incorrect to say that Peter has a limited commission or had nothing to do with the Gentiles.

168 posted on 10/28/2006 9:18:03 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: AlaninSA; Uncle Chip

You really should ping the one you are referring too, per FR rules.


169 posted on 10/28/2006 9:20:48 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; jo kus
Perhaps we can help each other. I will help you find all the writings of the Syriac Fathers in that regard, if you will help me find all the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers regarding the 25 year Bishopric in Rome? And we will compare them to determine which claim, or if either, is true? What say you? Certainly, But I doubt we are breaking new ground on this.
170 posted on 10/28/2006 9:21:12 PM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: AlaninSA

Discuss the issues all you want but do NOT make it personal!


171 posted on 10/28/2006 9:21:59 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I'll ponder what you wrote in #128. Had something else in response, but flushed it, could be taken wrong. That took some effort to put that together, and I thank you for it.


172 posted on 10/28/2006 9:25:38 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

Comment #173 Removed by Moderator

To: Aliska

Thank you for your questions.


174 posted on 10/28/2006 9:31:35 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Quix; All

In #123 it should be Armenian Church, one in the country of Armenia, which has nothing to do with a protestant theologian Arminius. Armenia together with Ethiopia hold the distinction of being first countries where Christianity became a state religion, by the way. Rome was third.

Among pre-chalcedon Churches are Coptic, Syrian and Armenian Apostolic (Catholicosate of Cilicia) Churches.

Sorry.


175 posted on 10/28/2006 9:40:20 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Much appreciate your clarification. Thanks.


176 posted on 10/28/2006 10:14:09 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 175 | View Replies]

To: annalex; All; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; JockoManning; Marysecretary; Iscool; MamaDearest; shield; ...

- The Protestant communities of faith that departed from the Latin rite of the Catholic Church , and continue fracturing themselves. Whatever their accomplishments are, their existence is wholly secondary to the Latin Church of Rome, of whom they received everything they continue to keep.

This is all I meant: that genetically the Protestant communities are children of Rome.
= = = =

I still read and construe history differently.

1. Believers did not receive from organizations and certainly not from human focused; human established; human structured organizations of any kiind or origin--and especially not RELIGIOUS organizations given to lording it over one another.

2. Believers received directly from CHRIST--KING OF KINGS; LORD OF LORDS; RULER OF ALL THAT IS.

3. Further, Christ left His Spirit to carry on a continual daily refilling of each believer; moment guidance of each believers; moment by moment praying always of each believer . . .

4. If anything, a much greater case than being a blessing can be made that particularly the Roman hierarchy and organizational edifice from approximately 200 whatever it really became established has been brutal to believers FAR MORE than it has been supportive and encouraging of them having a DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD

instead of a parasitic relationship with the organization and the hierarchy.

5. Believers everywhere have no SECONDARY EXISTENCE to one another nor to any human organization nor to any congregation.

6. BEFORE THE CROSS IS THE UTMOST OF LEVEL PLAYING FIELDS. Those not willing to be equal before The Cross shall be in danger of losing the benefits of The Cross or at least suffering serioius discip;ines.

7. As best as I can recall, EVERY effort in The Gospels to out rank another even disciple or believer WAS SLAPPED DOWN FIERCELY by Jesus The Christ.

8. There is no genetic delivery of Biblical truth from the Romanist tradition, imho. Whatever good may have filtered to other Christian groups from the Romanist traditions had already been wholesale delivered by Christ and His Spirit directly in a myriad of ways through a myriad of channels throughout the centuries including before the Romanist traditions began in 200 whatever AD.

9. God doesn't have grandchildren. He only has Children.

10. The Romanist tradition and all other human constructions and organizations will be tested and judged on what they did each and collectively with what God gave them. How well did they match up as being conformed to the image of Christ? No appeals to so called spiritual genetic ancestors will avail a gnat's fart's worth of benefit.


177 posted on 10/28/2006 10:29:20 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 123 | View Replies]

To: Quix

BTTT


178 posted on 10/28/2006 10:33:32 PM PDT by 185JHP ( "The thing thou purposest shall come to pass: And over all thy ways the light shall shine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP

Thanks Bro.

Nice to see you around once in a while! LOL.

LUB, God's best to you and your family. A FREEPMAIL update would be grand.


179 posted on 10/28/2006 10:36:31 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 178 | View Replies]

To: Quix; hosepipe
Thank you so much for sharing your testimony and insights and concerns!

Truly, God does not "need" man much less any institution of man to accomplish His will.

However, I also happily receive the promise that everything works together for the good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose. And the Roman Catholic Church - as well as other Christian confessions - are part of that "everything" which works together for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose.

As hosepipe puts it, "God didn't come to establish a religion but rather a family."

The religion was already in place from the law and the prophets. Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets, and neither will change until the new heaven and new earth.

It's all "about" Him, therefore religious labels just don't mean much of anything to me.

180 posted on 10/28/2006 11:24:47 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Very intelligent post there, Alamo Girl!


181 posted on 10/28/2006 11:29:04 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Thank you so very much for your encouragements!
182 posted on 10/28/2006 11:38:39 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Quix

your 1-10 is not a "reading of history". It is a summary of certain anti-clerical beliefs, sincerely held by many today, but with scant relation to history or scripture.

I'll only address what is a matter of scriptural or historical record.

1-2,5. The instance of conversion in the Scripture are numerous when a prozelytising effort of a particular witness is bringing about the conversion. The woman at the well volunteers to convert her Samaritan village; Philip converts the Eunuch, Peter converts Cornelius. Christ asked the apostles to proselytize the world. He did not have to do that: He is God. If He wanted to convert everyone Himself, He would not need the structure of the Church, that He has built, promised to marry, and promised that it not fail.

4. The Catholic Church is not blameless, but out of her bosom came the scriptures that you read, the heresies that the Protestant abhor just as much as we do were smashed by it, and due to her missionary effort the gospel is known on all continents and in all races. If the centralizing power of the word as explained by the Church were not there we would have an Arian church, a Donatist church, a Docetist church, a Marcionite church, an Albigensian sex club, ...

Christ said "like the Father sent me, so I sent you", and St. Paul agreed "unless one is sent, he cannot teach". It is not enough to read the scripture and form an opinion, one has to be sent before he can teach. The Church is that transmission belt. If Christ wanted something different He would have appeared to everyone like He appered to Paul, or he would have written the gospel Himself, like Mohammed wrote the Koran. He chose to spread the word the way He does, through the fallible men of His Church.

7. Vanity was "slapped". The response to vain designs by James and John was not "I shall entertain no hierarchy" but rather "can you drink my cup?". If Christ disliked hierarchy per se, he would not elevate Peter (whose martyrdom is the only one predicted in personal terms), and he would not relate status with service and martyrdom.

8. The gospels and the Epistles were written in 1 c. The sorting out of other writing continued till the early 5 c. before the Canon was established. I have no clue why "200 AD whatever" is used as any kind of a birthdate for the Church. The scriptural birthday of the Church is the Pentacost, as the Holy Ghost descended onto the disciples in the Upper Room. That was 50 days following the Resurrection, AD 33.

10. We are all judged by how well we carry our Cross, true. But the Great Commission to transform the world has not been rescinded. The Church is at work, and her cross is always standing.


183 posted on 10/28/2006 11:47:50 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

Tell that to Dorcis (Tabitha).

Tell that to St. Paul.

Tell that to the Gentiles (remember that vision Peter had in Acts -- rather key in letting Gentiles into the Church).

Tell that to Jesus.

Nope, I think we here quite a bit about Peter.


184 posted on 10/29/2006 1:59:03 AM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die; wmfights
The Papacy is similar to the Presidency. The claim is not based on residency or location, it is claimed on authority.

I understand the Catholics claim Linus as the "second" Pope. However, there is no indication Peter claimed himself as the first nor is there any indication that Peter had some "authority" over Paul.

185 posted on 10/29/2006 1:38:59 AM PST by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Peter, James and John decided that Peter would breach to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

I have no problem with you saying this is Catholic dogma...But let's not pretend that it is bible dogma...

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

When they saw...NOT when anyone determined...

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:)

The 'he' in the verse is clearly Jesus Christ...Jesus decided who would be an apostle to whom...It's there in black and white...

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.

The declaration came from God...You couldn't miss it if it was tie-dyed and 40 feet tall...

186 posted on 10/29/2006 1:47:57 AM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; Salvation; InterestedQuestioner; adiaireton8
THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO

An interesting aside in Ignatius' writings, he specifically states that Peter could not speak the language and had to use Mark as an interpreter. I sincerely doubt Peter would have felt comfortable living 25 years in a pagan culture, unable to speak the language, and finding their food repulsive while friends and family awaited him back in Jerusalem. Paul, on the other hand was fluent in multiple languages and felt entirely at home in many cultures. Paul also enjoyed traveling while Peter did not. When the Christians were scattered, the apostles stayed in Jerusalem. Ignatius doesn't specific how long Peter was in Rome but, IF he was correct (keep in mind he was going on hearsay), then I think it was a brief visit.

I believe your analysis is completely on target Uncle Chip.

187 posted on 10/29/2006 2:00:00 AM PST by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
Perhaps we can help each other. I will help you find all the writings of the Syriac Fathers in that regard, if you will help me find all the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers regarding the 25 year Bishopric in Rome? And we will compare them to determine which claim, or if either, is true? What say you?

Certainly, But I doubt we are breaking new ground on this.

But can you be sure? Don't you want to be certain of the facts underlying the faith of the fathers. We hear talk of ecumenism all the time. Why not have some ecumenism around this most vital question of whether Peter ever delivered those Keys to Rome or dropped them somewhere along that well worn path or maybe just left them in Jerusalem before he went to Babylon? Are you not the least bit curious as to what we will find?

You seem to have great Bible scholars here on Free Republic and great students of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Wouldn't it be nice to find out the real truth and be able to come to a common consensus around this most important claim of history that has divided the faithful, the separated brethren, and kept the dying lost from coming to the one true faith that can save them? Help me find all the evidence for that great claim of Jerome and Eusebius so that we can see if they were telling the truth or embellishing their manuscripts on this point or just made a mistake that has misled people for centuries. What say you?

188 posted on 10/29/2006 3:03:15 AM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: annalex
There is this early apocryhpal book, The Acts of Peter and Paul. It explains that Peter came to Rome first, and it describes how Paul eventually joined Peter. But the narrative begins with Peter already being in Rome.

Would you know if Jerome included this apocryphal work in his Latin Vulgate?. And whether it ever appeared on the list of the early church known as "non-recipiendi", ie, "not to be received [believed]". Wasn't this well known even by Jerome to be a heretical work of Gnostic fiction? Certainly this discredited work was not relied upon as the source of the great legend of that 25 year Petrine Bishopric in Rome or was it?

189 posted on 10/29/2006 3:22:30 AM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Yes, Paul had been preaching to the Gentiles prior to his conference with Peter, James and John, because he received the call from Christ. We don't need Gal 2:7-8 to know that, we have entire Acts 9, where Paul's call to preach to the Gentiles is mentioned before he was even baptized. However, he felt the need to seek the approval of the "pillars", he received it, and now it is important for him to establish his credentials with the Galatians with it. It is that latter point that I am making: that prior to the conference Paul could preach but he had nothing but his private revelation to establish himself as a preacher; his apostolship had not been publicly established till the episode described in Gal 2:9. In the letter to the Romans he speaks to the need of a publicly acknowledged mission as a general rule: "how shall they preach unless they be sent" (Rom 10:14).

Likewise, Peter was preaching to Gentiles prior to the division of effort mentioned in Gal 2:8-9.

This is similar to any vocation: the future cleric receives the call of the Holy Ghost inwardly and then seeks ordination into the vocation. Whatever preaching he does prior is his personal opinion; following the ordination he speaks for the Church.


190 posted on 10/29/2006 3:42:03 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; Aliska
if Jerome included this apocryphal work in his Latin Vulgate?.

No, I don't think so. It is not canonical, and I refer to it as a historical evidence that lacks verification.

Wasn't this well known even by Jerome to be a heretical work of Gnostic fiction?

It is not listed as such in the New Advent library, where works of Gnostic origin are labeled as such: Fathers In the article (3) APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES another book is mentioned as bearing gnostic elements:

Acts of St. Peter

There exist a Greek and a Latin Martyrdom of Peter, the latter attributed to Pope Linus, which from patristic citations are recognized as the conclusion of an ancient Greek narrative entitled "Acts, or Circuits of St. Peter". Another manuscript, bearing the name "Actus Petri cum Simone", contains a superior translation with several passages from the original narrative preceding the Martyrdom. The work betrays certain tokens of Gnosticism, although it has been purged of its grossest features by a Catholic reviser. It describes the triumph of St. Peter over Simon Magus at Rome, and the Apostle's subsequent crucifixion. These Acts as we have them are of high antiquity, though it is impossible to always discern whether patristic writers are quoting from them or an earlier tradition. Undoubtedly Commodian (c. 250) employed our extant Acts of Peter.

Possibly, what I referenced to Aliska is that "revised" version, or else it is a different book entirely.

191 posted on 10/29/2006 4:01:25 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
An interesting aside in Ignatius' writings, he specifically states that Peter could not speak the language and had to use Mark as an interpreter. I sincerely doubt Peter would have felt comfortable living 25 years in a pagan culture, unable to speak the language, and finding their food repulsive while friends and family awaited him back in Jerusalem. Paul, on the other hand was fluent in multiple languages and felt entirely at home in many cultures. Paul also enjoyed traveling while Peter did not. When the Christians were scattered, the apostles stayed in Jerusalem. Ignatius doesn't specific how long Peter was in Rome but, IF he was correct (keep in mind he was going on hearsay), then I think it was a brief visit.

Paul was also a Roman citizen and Peter was not. And after Claudius issued his decree for all Jews to leave Rome, Peter would not have been able to even get into Rome [unless he was there as an illegal alien]. I would really like to know just exactly what Ignatius did write about Peter in Rome. The most that I can find that he ever wrote was the following often erroneously cited as evidence of such in his Epistle to the Romans:

"I do not as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were Apostles"

This is often cited by the magisterium as proof of that 25 year Petrine Bishopric but I don't see it. I'm trying hard to torture this quote and squeeze out of it all I can but it will tell me no more than what it already has. I am trying to decide whether to include it in my treatise but honest scholarship might force me to set it aside.

Ignatius is simply saying that he does not issue commandments to you Romans like Peter and Paul did at the Council of Jerusalem. Doesn't that sound like what he means by these words. Furthermore Ignatius identifies Peter [and Paul] here as "Apostles" not Bishops.

So if anyone can find anything in Ignatius's writings about Peter in Rome, please post it to me anytime and I will include it in my treatise. And there might be some here who are putting together a treatise AGAINST Peter being in Rome. So they might be interested in things that testify against that 25 year Petrine Bishopric --- and maybe even this quote above for their treatise.

192 posted on 10/29/2006 4:07:21 AM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Have you ever read these apocryphal books personally or are you just taking someone else's word for them? My under standing is that what they claim in there could hardly be relied upon by a historian as trustworthy. And that's why they were set aside. While Jerome included the questionable Apocryphal OT books in his bible, he must have known better than to include these. But I will look further into them --- Thank You for the information.


193 posted on 10/29/2006 4:17:01 AM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
As I have said before-There is more writings to suggest Peter was in Rome, that coupled with the fact that No one (as far as I can tell challenged this until about 1400 years) leads me to use simple logic and believe Peter was in Rome.

Here are more genuine historical writings attesting to the fact that Peter was indeed in Rome, and that he died there...

St Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", 3,1,1, 180 A.D., J208
"...in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."
St Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", chapter III,
"...the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops."

Eusebius, "History of the Church", 2,14,6, 300 A.D., J651dd
In the same reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one among the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others, to Rome."

Tertullian, "The demurrer against the heretics", chapter XXXII,1,
"...like the church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter."

Who has the authority to ordain priests? Only Bishops do. Clement was ordained by the Bishop of Rome, Peter.

Saint Peter of Alexandria, "The Canonical Letter", canon 9, 306 A.D.
"Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome."

Eusebius, "The Chronicle" Ad An.Dom 68, J651cc
"Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make a persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously in Rome."

Eusebius, "History of the Church", 3,2, 300 A.D., J652a
"After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first appointed to the Episcopacy of the Church at Rome."

Lactantius, "Of the manner in which the persecutors died":
This letter is addressed to Donatus. It not only shows that Peter was actually in Rome, but that he died there also at the hands of Nero. Chapter II. "His apostles were at that time eleven in number, to whom were added Matthias, in the room of the traitor Judas, and afterwards Paul. Then were they dispersed throughout all the earth to preach the Gospel, as the Lord their Master had commanded them; and during twenty-five years, and until the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Nero, they occupied themselves in laying the foundations of the Church in every province and city. And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and steadfast temple unto the Lord. When Nero heard of those things, and observed that not only in Rome, but in every other place, a great multitude revolted daily from the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, went over to the new religion, he, an execrable and pernicious tyrant, sprung forward to raze the heavenly temple and destroy the true faith. He it was who first persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul: nor did he escape with impunity; for God looked on the affliction of His people; and therefore the tyrant, bereaved of authority, and precipitated from the height of empire, suddenly disappeared, and even the burial-place of that noxious wild beast was nowhere to be seen."

Saint Damasus I, "The Decree of Damasus" 3, 382 A.D., J910u
"The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it."


Saint Augustine, "Letter to Generosus", 53,1,2, 400 A.D., J1418
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it."
194 posted on 10/29/2006 4:59:51 AM PST by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Here is something I had saved-It makes perfect sennse to me
From
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/prim.htm

A lot has been written about the primacy of peter. I present a point of view which is difficult for any detractor to refute. There is a law in Bible study called 'The Law of First Mention'. It means, the first time something is mentioned in the Bible, the same meaning holds true for that subject in all subsequent verses in which it is mentioned. This law helps to hold the harmony and integrity of scripture. GOD is eternal and unchanging, therefore what he said in Genesis has the same meaning for all chapters.

The 'Primacy of Peter' has been disputed by detractors on many points. Peter was given the primacy in Matt 16:18, "AND I SAY TO THEE, THOU ART PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH." Some say Peter was not the 'rock'. Others try to separate Peter from the Bishop of Rome, by trying to show he was never in Rome. Still others say the words 'I WILL' in Matt 16:18, denotes some future tense. They include Matt 16:19, "I WILL give thee the keys..." as 'proof' that Peter did not receive the keys, but somehow ALL the Apostles received them in Matt 18:18. It is obvious that Jesus spoke to Peter alone in Matt 16:19 and gave him personally, the power of binding and loosening. It is also obvious that Jesus again gave him the power of binding and loosening along with the other Apostles in Matt 18:18, and yet again in John 20:23. However, Jesus gave Peter and Peter alone, the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matt 16:19. Detractors of the primacy of Peter have arguments that are so weak, they are almost non-existent. I could discuss each of these points, but in this section of this letter I will discuss only one point, which makes all other arguments against the primacy of Peter moot.

The Law of First Mention...
When something is first mentioned in the Bible, the meaning of it remains the same throughout the rest of the Bible.

When GOD gave authority to someone in Scripture, HE changed the name of that person.

1. GOD renamed Abram to Abraham when He made him the 'Father of a Multitude of Nations', in Gen 17:5. HE gave Abraham 'primacy' over all other men.

2. GOD renamed Sara to Sarah when HE made her the 'Mother of Nations' in Gen 17:15-16. HE gave Sarah 'primacy' over all other women.

3. GOD renamed Jacob to Israel, the name of the Jewish Nation, and Jacob became the first Israeli in Gen 32:29, 35:10.

4. GOD renamed Simon to Peter in Matt 16:18, thus giving him 'primacy' over all of the Apostles. Why else would GOD give a new name to Simon?

The 'Law of First Mention' as applied to Abraham, Sarah, and Israel, works very well indeed. Why then do some believe it does not work for Simon-Peter?

Matthew 16:13-17...
Jesus said, "Who do men say the Son of Man is?" (13)
But they said, "Some say, John the Baptist; and others Elias; and others Jeremias,
or one of the prophets." (14)
He said to them, "But who do YOU say that I am?" (15)
Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living GOD." (16)
Then Jesus answered and said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has
not revealed this to thee, but My Father in Heaven." (17)
This verse expresses a blessing for Peter from the Son.

Did you notice that Peter was the only Apostle who knew who Jesus Christ was?
All of the rest expressed an opinion.
GOD the Father, Himself, told Peter alone, and not one of the other Apostles.
It was a blessing for Peter from the Father.
This is a clear sign of the Primacy of Peter from the Father.

John 21:1-11...
There are at least three examples of the primacy of Peter in these verses.
In verse 2-3, seven of the disciples are gathered together when Peter makes a decision to go fishing. The others agreed to go with him. They fished all night and caught nothing, as usual. Jesus told them where to cast the net, they did, and caught so many fish, all of them together could not draw the net up (verse 6). John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, told Peter (he informed Peter first) that it was the Lord standing on the beach. Peter jumped off into the sea after hearing of this (verse 7). The other six disciples came with the boat, dragging the net full of fishes. In verse 10, Jesus asked that they bring some of the fishes to Him. In verse 11, it was Peter alone who hauled the net full of 153 large fishes onto land. Now, how much did 153 large fishes weigh? We do not know the average weight of each but since they were large, even at only three pounds each, they totaled over 450 pounds and yet Peter alone managed to haul them ashore when all seven disciples could not draw up the net in verse 6. This clearly shows the super human power of Peter. Once again, the presence of Jesus allowed them to make a huge catch, and after knowing it is the Lord, Peter suddenly has super human power to bring in the catch alone.

John 21:15-17...
Three times in these verses Jesus Christ tells Peter to "Feed My Sheep", or to "Feed My Lambs". For proper understanding of these verses it is necessary to refer to the underlying Greek text.
In verse 16, the Greek word used for "feed" is "poimaino" (second person singular), which means, to act as a SHEPHERD, to rule, to govern, to pastor, or the presiding officer. It is the only time this Greek word is used in the Gospel of John. In verses 15 and 17, the Greek word used for "feed" is "bosko", which means to feed. So verses 15-17 say 'feed my lambs, shepherd my lambs, and feed my sheep'. Jesus told Peter alone to be the SHEPHERD of His flock.
In John 10:16, Jesus said, "...and there shall be one fold and ONE SHEPHERD." The Greek word used here is "poimen (masculine, singular)". Clearly, Jesus said in these verses that there will be only ONE SHEPHERD, and that shepherd will be Peter, the first Bishop of Rome and the first Pope.

Acts 15:7, during the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem...
And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them,
"Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe."
Who made the choice? GOD did. Who did GOD choose? He chose Peter. Now that is primacy.

Some detractors of Peter's primacy try to show that James (Acts 15:13-21), held the primacy simply because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Well, he may have been the Bishop of Jerusalem during this Council, but Peter was the Bishop of the whole world. See Acts 1:8, where Jerusalem was only one of many Church locations to be founded by the Apostles. The books of Acts, Revelation, and a few others, record more than 30 additional locations for the Church other than Jerusalem.
Jerusalem would certainly not even have been considered by the Apostles to be the seat of Christianity, as they had been forewarned by Jesus Himself that the city would soon be totally destroyed. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when Roman legions did indeed destroy it.
See Matthew 24 beginning with verse 15.

Eusebius (263-339) Bishop of Caesarea and known as "The Father of Church History", wrote in 'The History of the Church' volume 2 chapter 1, "But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: 'For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem'."

Peters primacy: Matt 10:2,16:15-19, *Luke 22:24-33,24:34, John 10:16,21:1-11,15-19,
Acts 2:14-41, Acts *5:29,9:36-43,10:1-48,11:1-18, *Acts 15:7, 1Cor 15:5.

The names of Peter, which include Simon and Cephas, are mentioned more times in the New Testament than any other Apostle.
"Of Peter the most is known. Peter is mentioned 195 times, the rest of the Apostles only 130 times. The one mentioned next in frequency to Peter is John, to whom there are 29 references."
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, "Life of Christ", page 106.

The name James, is mentioned a total of 38 times and of that number there were 2 persons, James the Greater, and James the Less. So if James the Less is said to have the primacy, then why is he mentioned so few times compared to Peter?

Every time the names of the Apostles are listed, except for Gal 2:9, his name appears first. In Mt 10:2 it even says that Peter is first, "Now these are the names of the twelve Apostles: first Simon, who is called Peter,...". See also Mk 3:16, Lk 6:13-14, and Acts 1:13.
Peter's name appears first also when 3 or 4 of the Apostles are listed: Mt 17:1, Mk 5:37, Mk 9:2,
Mk 13:3, Mk 14:33, Lk 5:8-10, Lk 8:51, Lk 9:28.
As for Gal 2:9, it was customary then, as it is to this very day, to name the Bishop of the Diocese first. If the Pope visited a Diocese, the Bishop would be named ahead of him as it is the proper protocol. In Gal 2, Peter was visiting Jerusalem, as verses 1-8 show.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who deny the Primacy of Peter, will invariably point to this one and only verse where Peter is named second and will completely ignore the many verses which list his name first. If James held the primacy as some would like us to believe, then why is he mentioned first in only one single verse?

Throughout our salvation history, GOD has always provided a 'Father Figure' to guide His people. Some examples are, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, and Peter and the succession of Popes.

50 New Testament verses which show the 'primacy' of St. Peter....

* Matthew 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The "rock" (Greek, "petra") referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see 1 Pt 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God - that is, the seed of the doctrine of the papacy. Moreover, "Rock" embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (see 1 Pt 2:4-8; Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church; administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

* Matthew 16:19: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." The "power" of the keys has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (see Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament, a steward, or prime minister, is a man who is "over a house" (Gen 41:40; Gen 43:19;44:4; 1 King 4:6;16:9;18:3; 2 King 10:5;15:5;18:18; Isa 22:15,
Isa 20-21).

* Matthew 16:19: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law and, secondarily, to "condemn," "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (see Jn 16:13), as well as to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him pre-eminent.

* Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him "the first" (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)

* Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (see, for example, Gal 1:18-19; 2:7-8). Taken in context, Paul is in Jerusalem (2:1), the See of James. Protocol, even to this day is for the Bishop of the diocese to be mentioned first before any visitor is mentioned, even for the Pope. Saint Paul is merely following proper protocol in vs 2:9.

* Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, "Rock," solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42;
Mt 16:18).

* Peter is asked three times by Christ to feed His lambs, is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).

* Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith fail not" (Lk 22:32).

* Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

* Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).

* Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

* Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

* Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Act 2:37-41;5:15).

* Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money
(Mt 17:24-27).

* Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11) perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (Mt 4:19).

* Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).

* Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).

* Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.

* Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).

* Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost
(Acts 1:15-22).

* Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

* Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the Gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

* Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

* Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God
(Acts 5:2-11).

* Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

* Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

* Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1- 6).

* Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

* Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

* Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age
(an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).

* The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter "without ceasing" when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

* Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

* Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles
(1 Cor 15:4-5).

* Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29;
1 Cor 9:5).

* Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments
(Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67).

* Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples
(Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

* Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).

* Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

* Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times
(162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas).
John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.

* Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel" - an example of "binding and loosing."

* Peter was the first "charismatic," having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

* Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

* Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

* Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Act 10:44-48).

* Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but had not traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

* Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

* Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."

* Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).

* Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pt 3:15-16).

* Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (pope) of the early Church, according to most scholars. "Babylon" (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

This section of the 50 New Testament Verses was written by:
Dave Armstrong - a convert to Catholicism from Evangelicalism.

Is Peter "Rock", or is he only a "pebble"?

Protestants charge that Peter is not the "rock" because the Greek word used for "rock" in this verse means a little pebble. Right away, it is obvious from the very beginning, that there is a translation problem here. Scholars have determined that Matthew was not written in Greek, but in Aramaic, and was soon translated into Greek, so we have to go to the original written language to find the true meaning of this verse.
Peter was called "Cephas" or "Kepha(s)" in Aramaic, by Christ in Matthew 16:18, and it means a large massive stone or rock. Christ said this at Caesarea Philippi, the site of a large rock mass. See Matthew 16:13. The Aramaic word for a small stone or pebble is "evna". "Kepha", when translated to the Greek language means "Petra" (a large rock) or "Petros" (a small stone). However, unlike Aramaic words which have no gender, Greek words do have gender, and "Petra" is feminine. Translators from the Aramaic to the Greek, changed the word to the masculine gender or "Petros" because they were unwilling to assign a name with feminine gender to a man.
In Matthew 16:18, it is correct to say that Jesus would have said, "You are 'Kepha', and upon this 'Kepha', I will build My Church." In Greek, it would translate to, "You are 'Petros', and upon this 'Petra', I will build My Church." It was the translation of the Aramaic word, "Kepha" (Cephas), into the Greek language that caused the confusion among some who look upon Peter as not being called "rock", but only a "pebble".
Matthew 16:13, 18, John 1:42, 1Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, Galatians 2:8-9

Detractors argue that Peter could not be the rock because GOD is, 2Samuel 22:2. Well, not only does Scripture call Peter the rock, but it also calls Abraham the rock, in Isaiah 51:1-2. Also, who is the Light of the World? Jesus Christ is in John 8:12, but yet the Disciples are in Matthew 5:14.
The words "Rock" and "Light of the World" are not limited to describe GOD alone.

Peter's commission:
Here are some of the attributes of Jesus Christ which He passed on and shared with Peter by working through him...



Jesus is:
Peter is:

The Good Shepherd, John 10:11-14
Shepherd of the Church, John 21:17

The Door of the Sheep, John 10:7
John 20:21-23, 21:17

The Rock, 1Corinthians 10:4
Matthew 16:18

The Foundation, 1Corinthians 3:11
Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 2:20

The Key Holder, Revelation 3:7
Matthew 16:19

Infallible, John 14:6
Luke 10:16, 22:28-32

The Recipient of GOD's Word, John 5:30
Matthew 16:17, Acts 15:7

Having the Authority, Matthew 28:18
Matthew 18:15-20, Acts 2:14-40, 15:7

A Worker of Miracles, Mark 2:2-12
Acts 3:6-12, 5:15

Able to raise the dead, John 11:43-44
Acts 9:36-42

The Invisible Head of His Church, Eph 5:23-24
The Visible Head of Christ's Church, Matt 16:18

Church Fathers were the closest to the Apostles and whatever we have, came to us through them.
To qualify as a Church Father, four conditions had to have been met.
1. He had to have lived before the year 800. The last Father in the East was St. Damascene 674-749, and of the West was, St. Bede the Venerable 672-735.
2. He had to have followed the orthodox teaching, faithful to the true doctrines of the Church.
3. Sanctity, all major Fathers and most minor Fathers were canonized Saints, and lived virtuous lives.
4. He had to have the sanction of the Church, a general acceptance.

Primacy of Peter as written by the Church Fathers...

St. Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 4. J555-556, 251 A.D.

On him He builds the Church and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep (Jn 21:17); and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.
Indeed the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too are all the shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by the Apostles in single minded accord.
If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?
If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?

Origen, Commentaries on John 5:3 J479a, 226 A.D.

Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ...

St. Cornelius I, Pope, Letter to Cyprian Epist 49. J546-546a, 252 A.D.

We are not ignorant of the fact that there is one GOD, and one Christ the Lord whom we confess, and one Holy Spirit; and there must be one bishop in the Catholic Church.

St. Cyprian, Letter to Quintas 71:1. J592a, 254 A.D.

For Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disagreed with him about circumcision, did not claim anything for himself insolently nor assume anything arrogantly, so as to say he held the primacy and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those more recently arrived.

Firmilian, Bishop, Letter to Cyprian 75:17 J602a, 255 A.D.

In this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and evident stupidity of Stephen; that although he glories so much in the place of his bishopric, and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church have been laid...

Eusebius, History of the Church 2:14:6. J651dd, 300 A.D.

In the same reign of Claudius, the all good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one of the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others to Rome.

Aphraates, Treatises 21:13 J693a, 336 A.D.

And Jesus handed over the keys to Simon, and ascended and returned to Him who had sent him.

St. Julius I, Pope, Letter to Bishops of Antioch 22:35. J806a, 337 A.D.

For what we have received from the Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you.

Damasus, Decree of Damasus 3. J910u,382 A.D.

The first see, therefore is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Catholic Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.

*St. Ambrose of Milan, On Twelve Psalms 40:30+. J1261, 387 A.D.

It is to Peter himself that He says; "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church (Matt 16:18)." Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal.

St. Jerome, Letter to Pope Damasus 15:2, J1346,1346a, 374 A.D.

I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness, that is the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails...He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me.

*St. Augustine, Letter to Generosus 53:1:2. J1418, 400 A.D.

If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it (Matt 16:18)." Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, etc...
See this complete listing of the unbroken line of Popes.

*Augustine, Sermons 295:2+. J1526, 391 A.D.

Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19)."

St. Peter Chrysologus, Letter to Eutyches 25:2. J2178, 449 A.D.

We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it.

*St. Leo I, Pope, Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne 10:1. J2178a, July 445 A.D.

But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the Apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most Blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles.

St. Leo I, Pope, Letter to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica 14:11. J2179a, 446 A.D.

Through them the care of the Universal Church would converge on the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.

St. Leo I, Pope, Sermons 4:2. J2191, 461 A.D.

From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the fathers of the Church.


195 posted on 10/29/2006 5:17:12 AM PST by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Quix; annalex
Reply via cross-reference!
196 posted on 10/29/2006 5:22:18 AM PST by .30Carbine (May Jesus Christ be praised)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
Thank you for the quotes from Irenaeus. I will include them in my treatise, as his words show that he believed that Peter had been in Rome with Paul even though Catholic scholar F. A. Sullivan questions his credibility on this matter.

Does Irenaeus say anything about: 1]when Peter and Paul were in Rome together and how long --- before or after Paul's Epistle to the Romans in about 56 AD in which he states that no Apostle had been there to Rome yet but he was on his way. He didn't say "We" just "I". 2] that legendary 25 year reign of Peter 3] that Peter was Bishop 4] that Peter was martyred there under Nero crucified upside down.

I haven't found anyone in these early Ante-Nicene Fathers to affirm these claims of Jerome and Eusebius --- but I am diligently searching.

And can you find anything in the writings of Clement of Rome or Justin Martyr about Peter in Rome. I have searched thus far and have been unsuccessful. Their testimony on this matter would be quite helpful to my treatise.

And thank you for the later writings. I will look into them when I get there. Peter of Alexandria? Was he an Ante-Nicene Father of the Church?

197 posted on 10/29/2006 5:46:44 AM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Thank you for all of your words about Peter, but I am most interested in the pure words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers at this point on the matter of that legendary 25 year Petrine Bishopric in Rome and subsequent upside down crucifixion under Nero. If you have anymore citations from the Fathers as evidence of such, please feel free to post and ping me anytime.


198 posted on 10/29/2006 5:54:19 AM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Quix
especially given God's aversion to graven images and all.

where to begin....I guess God forgot to check with you when He told the Israelites to put those "graven images" on the Ark of the Covenant....as I recall He dictated exactly how they were to be made

Father sends His only son to die for a bunch of critters

I doubt our Heavenly Father sees us as "a bunch of critters"

God would then allow Holy Spirit's anointing to remain on that group???? That's nonsense. Sheer affrontery.

I'll refer you to Matthew 18:16, you know all that gates of hell shall not prevail "nonsense"

To think that God would have left HIS ANOINTING on such a pile of horse processed hay OF ANY denominational flavor is to construe God as an idiot

Again I'll refer you to the Old Testament where God chose Abram, changed his name to Abraham (a name change, well isn't that interesting), and made him the father of the Jewish nation and Jewish religion.

As Pastor says . . . God must regret that He didn't redeem monkies, instead.

I doubt God regrets carrying out His own plan

199 posted on 10/29/2006 6:24:37 AM PST by Lil Flower ("Without Love, deeds, even the most brilliant, count as nothing." St. Therese of Lisieux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way." Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome." Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..." Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325).

"This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome...Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..." Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).


200 posted on 10/29/2006 6:26:06 AM PST by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 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