Skip to comments.St. Peter and Rome
Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
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..
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.
Well, shucks. I thought Peter was the see of Rome.
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.
I wondered if we shouldn't ask Myth Busters to do a special on this but then the Catholics would all boycott the show.
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?
Your post is full of so many logical fallacies and strawmen that I don't know where to start. But most specifically the argument that God must be an idiot to rely on the Roman model for anointing (and I'm not clear on whether you refer to the Roman Empire or the Roman Catholic Church when you say "Roman").
All of it.
It rides and falls on the contention that "Peter and his successors" have a connection that allows them to be the final say no matter what. Doctrinal development, custom, everything is attached to this claim of essentially absolute authority.
The Pope is the last "absolute" monarch on earth.
Good to see that you've stepped into this discussion with humility, charity, and love to your brethren.
I said that we dont hear MUCH about Peter after he betrayed Jesus and we dont. I didnt say that we never hear about him again. He betrayed Jesus and was forgiven, however, his position within the fold diminished considerably after that.
This still does not answer my original question were is there physical proof that Peter ever visited Rome?
Whether he was there, or not, is irrelevant.
"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."
What proof is there that Peter was martyred upside down in Rome. We know Paul was because of the books he wrote.
I think your second point is much more on target about why Rome emerged as the dominant power within the early church. They were located where the money and power of the state was.
Are you being sarcastic? That would be an attitude that is condemned in the Bible as " mocking ". If so, isn't that an attitude inconsistent with the characteristics you cited, doing precisely what you are criticizing?
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.