Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
Well, he went to Rome so that Michelangelo and others could build a cathedral there at a later date.
And all this time I thought it was for the spaghetti!! ;o)
The Roman viewpoint =
the VERY EDITED AND ANNOTATED pseudo-"facts."
My view of the historical record is that the
did not even begin until at least 200 years after Paul died.
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.
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.
"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.
Hey, has anybody over here seen or heard from Adiaireton8?. I'm worried about him. Is he Okay????
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.
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?
"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)".
Ahhh !!! Finally some sacred words from Holy Father Irenaeus!!! Thank you!!! Let us meditate on them but first some questions:
1]Does Irenaeus list his sources for including "Peter's" name in the above quote. Clearly, if he had, the Scriptures in his hand, he could cite Luke, Paul, and Peter as sources for Paul "evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" there, but where oh where did he get the information to put "Peter's" name there???
2]Certainly he had Saint Justin Martur's writings in his hands or that early presbyterian Saint Clement of Rome, later papalized? What did these Ante-Nicene Fathers say about Peter and Rome?. If anyone should know, they should. Post their sacred writings on this matter so we can meditate on them as well, or are they silent on the matter and thus arguing to the contrary from silence?
3]And could Irenaeus have been influenced by all of that Gnostic literature that he was digesting, possibly believing that some of its imaginative stories were actually true. Could he have thought that the apocryphal Acts of Peter or the Acts of Peter and Paul were true, or believable in some way, or even that these wonderful apocrypha were canonical in any way? Maybe he believed these myths about Peter were actually true, after all the magisterium claim that the canon of Scripture was not established until the 4th century, right?. How could Irenaeus possibly know that these books were going to be put on the "not to be read " list? How can we fault poor Irenaeus?
4]What do the great scholars of the Holy See have to say about Irenaeus. Try these words from the great Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops:
"Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as 'greatest, most ancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul'. Here we must admit a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul".
"According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone, appointed Linus as the first in the succession of bishops of Rome. This suggests that Irenaeus did not think of Peter and Paul as bishops, or of Linus and those that followed him as successors of Peter more than Paul".
Some very sobering points made by an honest Catholic author who has probably had very few masses said for him. How did you guys forget Paul all these years? Father Irenaeus would be ashamed of you. You could have atleast made them co-Popes, but no, you had to rob Paul to papalize only Peter.
Is that enough of our meditation on the sacred words of Father Irenaeus or is there more? No evidence so far of Peter being "bishop" but actually words to the contrary. And where is anything so far from Irenaeus on that legendary "25 year reign on the sacerdotal chair and upside down crucifixion under Nero"? Is he arguing for this from his silence on the matter? And was he too consigned to purgatory for his sins of being rhetorical or maybe not being rhetorical enough? Let's all pray that we find the evidence to spring him from there.
Salvation, you might just as well post stuff like this on a "caucus" thread. Evidently other folks on this board can post all kinds of tendentious anti-Catholic stuff, call it "devotional" or a "caucus thread", and then brand anyone not of their tradition who even politely asks a question a "bully" and have them silenced.
wow, so many comments.