THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

EWTN ^ | November 1998 | Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger & Bishop Tarcisio Bertone

[NYer]

1. At this moment in the Church's life, the question of the primacy of Peter and of his Successors has exceptional importance as well as ecumenical significance. John Paul II has frequently spoken of this, particularly in the Encyclical Ut unum sint, in which he extended an invitation especially to pastors and theologians to "find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation".¹

In answer to the Holy Father's invitation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to study the matter by organizing a strictly doctrinal symposium on The Primacy of the Successor of Peter, which was held in the Vatican from 2 to 4 December 1996. Its Proceedings have recently been published.²

2. In his Message to those attending the symposium, the Holy Father wrote: "The Catholic Church is conscious of having preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the ministry of the Successor of Peter".³ In the history of the Church, there is a continuity of doctrinal development on the primacy. In preparing the present text, which appears in the Appendix of the above-mentioned Proceedings,⁴ the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has used the contributions of the scholars who took part in the symposium, but without intending to offer a synthesis of them or to go into questions requiring further study. These "Reflections" - appended to the symposium - are meant only to recall the essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy, Christ's great gift to his Church because it is a necessary service to unity and, as history shows, it has often defended the freedom of Bishops and the particular Churches against the interference of political authorities.

 

I. Origin, Purpose and Nature of the Primacy

3. "First Simon, who is called Peter".⁵ With this significant emphasis on the primacy of Simon Peter, St Matthew inserts in his Gospel the list of the Twelve Apostles, which also begins with the name of Simon in the other two synoptic Gospels and in Acts.⁶ This list, which has great evidential force, and other Gospel passages⁷ show clearly and simply that the New Testament canon received what Christ said about Peter and his role in the group of the Twelve.⁸ Thus, in the early Christian communities, as later throughout the Church, the image of Peter remained fixed as that of the Apostle who, despite his human weakness, was expressly assigned by Christ to the first place among the Twelve and was called to exercise a distinctive, specific task in the Church. He is the rock on which Christ will build his Church;⁹ he is the one, after he has been converted, whose faith will not fail and who will strengthen his brethren;¹⁰ lastly, he is the Shepherd who will lead the whole community of the Lord's disciples. ¹¹

In Peter's person, mission and ministry, in his presence and death in Rome attested by the most ancient literary and archaeological tradition - the Church sees a deeper reality essentially related to her own mystery of communion and salvation: "Ubi Petrus, ibi ergo Ecclesia".¹² From the beginning and with increasing clarity, the Church has understood that, just as there is a succession of the Apostles in the ministry of Bishops, so too the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ's Church and that this succession is established in the see of his martyrdom.

4. On the basis of the New Testament witness, the Catholic Church teaches, as a doctrine of faith, that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter in his primatial service in the universal Church;¹³ this succession explains the preeminence of the Church of Rome,¹⁴ enriched also by the preaching and martyrdom of St Paul.

In the divine plan for the primacy as "the office that was given individually by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be handed on to his successors",¹⁵ we already see the purpose of the Petrine charism, i.e., "the unity of faith and communion" ¹⁶ of all believers. The Roman Pontiff, as the Successor of Peter, is "the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity both of the Bishops and of the multitude of the faithful" ¹⁷ and therefore he has a specific ministerial grace for serving that unity of faith and communion which is necessary for the Church to fulfil her saving mission. ¹⁸

5. The Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council indicated the purpose of the Primacy in its Prologue and then dedicated the body of the text to explaining the content or scope of its power. The Second Vatican Council, in turn, reaffirmed and completed the teaching of Vatican I,¹⁹ addressing primarily the theme of its purpose, with particular attention to the mystery of the Church as Corpus Ecclesiarum.²⁰ This consideration allowed for a clearer exposition of how the primatial office of the Bishop of Rome and the office of the other Bishops are not in opposition but in fundamental and essential harmony.²¹

Therefore, "when the Catholic Church affirms that the office of the Bishop of Rome corresponds to the will of Christ, she does not separate this office from the mission entrusted to the whole body of Bishops, who are also 'vicars and ambassadors of Christ' (Lumen gentium, n. 27). The Bishop of Rome is a member of the 'College', and the Bishops are his brothers in the ministry".²² It should also be said, reciprocally, that episcopal collegiality does not stand in opposition to the personal exercise of the primacy nor should it relativize it.

6. All the Bishops are subjects of the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum²³ as members of the Episcopal College which has succeeded to the College of the Apostles, to which the extraordinary figure of St Paul also belonged. This universal dimension of their episkope (overseeing) cannot be separated from the particular dimension of the offices entrusted to them.²⁴ In the case of the Bishop of Rome - Vicar of Christ in the way proper to Peter as Head of the College of Bishops²⁵ - the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum acquires particular force because it is combined with the full and supreme power in the Church:²⁶ a truly episcopal power, not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, over all pastors and other faithful.²⁷ The ministry of Peter's Successor, therefore, is not a service that reaches each Church from outside, but is inscribed in the heart of each particular Church, in which "the Church of Christ is truly present and active",²⁸ and for this reason it includes openness to the ministry of unity. This interiority of the Bishop of Rome's ministry to each particular Church is also an expression of the mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church.²⁹

The episcopacy and the primacy, reciprocally related and inseparable, are of divine institution. Historically there arose forms of ecclesiastical organization instituted by the Church in which a primatial principle was also practised. In particular, the Catholic Church is well aware of the role of the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria - as reference-points of the Apostolic Tradition, and around which the patriarchal system developed; this system is one of the ways God's Providence guides the Church and from the beginning it has included a relation to the Petrine tradition.³⁰

 

II. The Exercise of the Primacy and Its Forms

7. The exercise of the Petrine ministry must be understood - so that it "may lose nothing of its authenticity and transparency"³¹ - on the basis of the Gospel, that is, on its essential place in the saving mystery of Christ and the building-up of the Church. The primacy differs in its essence and in its exercise from the offices of governance found in human societies:³² it is not an office of co-ordination or management, nor can it be reduced to a primacy of honour, or be conceived as a political monarchy.

The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church's obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church's divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation.³³ The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy.

8. The characteristics of exercising the primacy must be understood primarily on the basis of two fundamental premises: the unity of the episcopacy and the episcopal nature of the primacy itself Since the episcopacy is "one and undivided"³⁴ the primacy of the Pope implies the authority effectively to serve the unity of all the Bishops and all the faithful, and "is exercised on various levels, including vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the liturgy and the sacraments, the Church's mission, discipline and the Christian life";³⁵ on these levels, by the will of Christ, everyone in the Church - Bishops and the other faithful - owe obedience to the Successor of Peter, who is also the guarantor of the legitimate diversity of rites, disciplines and ecclesiastical structures between East and West.

9. Given its episcopal nature, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is first of all expressed in transmitting the Word of God; thus it includes a specific, particular responsibility for the mission of evangelization,³⁶ since ecclesial communion is something essentially meant to be expanded: "Evangelization is the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity".³⁷

The Roman Pontiff's episcopal responsibility for transmission of the Word of God also extends within the whole Church. As such, it is a supreme and universal magisterial office;³⁸ it is an office that involves a charism: the Holy Spirit's special assistance to the Successor of Peter, which also involves., in certain cases, the prerogative of infallibility.³⁹ Just as "all the Churches are in full and visible communion, because all the Pastors are in communion with Peter and therefore united in Christ",⁴⁰ in the same way the Bishops are witnesses of divine and Catholic truth when they teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff.⁴¹

10. Together with the magisterial role of the primacy, the mission of Peter's Successor for the whole Church entails the right to perform acts of ecclesiastical governance necessary or suited to promoting and defending the unity of faith and communion; one of these, for example, is to give the mandate for the ordination of new Bishops, requiting that they make the profession of Catholic faith; to help everyone continue in the faith professed. Obviously, there are many other possible ways, more or less contingent, of carrying out this service of unity: to issue laws for the whole Church, to establish pastoral structures to serve various particular Churches, to give binding force to the decisions of Particular Councils, to approve supradiocesan religious institutes, etc. Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: "prima sedes a nemine iudicatur".⁴² This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.

11. The unity of the Church, which the ministry of Peter's Successor serves in a unique way, reaches its highest expression in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the centre and root of ecclesial communion; this communion is also necessarily based on the unity of the Episcopate. Therefore, "every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people. Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it",⁴³ as in the case of the Churches which are not in full communion with the Apostolic See.

12. "The pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this age, carries the mark of this world which is passing".⁴⁴ For this reason too, the immutable nature of the primacy of Peter's Successor has historically been expressed in different forms of exercise appropriate to the situation of a pilgrim Church in this changing world.

The concrete contents of its exercise distinguish the Petrine ministry insofar as they faithfully express the application of its ultimate purpose (the unity of the Church) to the circumstances of time and place. The greater or lesser extent of these concrete contents will depend in every age on the necessitas Ecclesiae. The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit's voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate.

Consequently, the nucleus of the doctrine of faith concerning the competencies of the primacy cannot be determined by looking for the least number of functions exercised historically. Therefore, the fact that a particular task has been carried out by the primacy in a certain era does not mean by itself that this task should necessarily be reserved always to the Roman Pontiff, and, vice versa, the mere fact that a particular role was not previously exercised by the Pope does not warrant the conclusion that this role could not in some way be exercised in the future as a competence of the primacy.

13. In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church's concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.

14. In recalling these essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter's Successor, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is certain that the authoritative reaffirmation of these doctrinal achievements offers greater clarity on the way to be followed. This reminder is also useful for avoiding the continual possibility of relapsing into biased and one-sided positions already rejected by the Church in the past (Febronianism, Gallicanism, ultramontanism, conciliarism, etc.). Above all, by seeing the ministry of the Servant of the servants of God as a great gift of divine mercy to the Church, we will all find with the grace of the Holy Spirit - the energy to live and faithfully maintain full and real union with the Roman Pontiff in the everyday life of the Church, in the way desired by Christ.⁴⁵

15. The full communion which the Lord desires among those who profess themselves his disciples calls for the common recognition of a universal ecclesial ministry "in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith".⁴⁶ The Catholic Church professes that this ministry is the primatial ministry of the Roman Pontiff, Successor of Peter, and maintains humbly and firmly "that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is -- in God's plan -- an essential requisite of full and visible communion".⁴⁷ Human errors and even serious failings can be found in the history of the papacy: Peter himself acknowledged he was a sinner.⁴⁸ Peter, a weak man, was chosen as the rock precisely so that everyone could see that victory belongs to Christ alone and is not the result of human efforts. Down the ages the Lord has wished to put his treasure in fragile vessels:⁴⁹ human frailty has thus become a sign of the truth of God's promises.

When and how will the much-desired goal of the unity of all Christians be reached? "How to obtain it? Through hope in the Spirit, who can banish from us the painful memories of our separation. The Spirit is able to grant us clear-sightedness, strength, and courage to take whatever steps are necessary, that our commitment may be ever more authentic".⁵⁰ We are all invited to trust in the Holy Spirit, to trust in Christ, by trusting in Peter.

 

NOTES:

1. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, 25 May 1995, n. 95.

2. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro, Atti del Simposio teologico, Rome, 2-4 December 1996, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1998.

3. John Paul II, Letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in ibid., p. 20.

4. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro nel mistero della Chiesa, Considerazioni della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, in ibid., Appendix, pp. 493-503. The text was also published as a booklet by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

5. Mt 10:2.

6. Cf. Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1: 13.

7. Cf. Mt 14:28-31; 16:16-23 and par.; 19:27-29 and par.; 26:33-35 and par.; Lk 22:32; Jn 1:42; 6:67-70; 13:36-38; 21:15-19.

8. Evidence for the Petrine ministry is found in all the expressions, however different, of the New Testament tradition, both in the Synoptics - here with different features in Matthew and Luke, as well as in St Mark - and in the Pauline corpus and the Johannine tradition, always with original elements, differing in their narrative aspects but in profound agreement about their essential meaning. This is a sign that the Petrine reality was regarded as a constitutive given of the Church.

9. Cf. Mt 16:18.

10. Cf. Lk 22:32.

11. Cf. Jn 21:15-17. Regarding the New Testament evidence on the primacy, cf. also John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, nn. 90ff.

12. St Ambrose of Milan, Enarr. in Ps., 40, 30: PL 14, 1134.

13. Cf. for example St Siricius I, Let. Directa ad decessorem, 10 February 385: Denz-Hun, n. 181; Second Council of Lyons, Professio fidei of Michael Palaeologus, 6 July 1274: Denz-Hun, n. 861; Clement VI, Let. Super quibusdam, 29 November 1351: Denz-Hun, n. 1053; Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur caeli, 6 July 1439: Denz-Hun, n. 1307; Pius IX, Encyc. Let. Qui pluribus, 9 November 1846: Denz-Hun, n. 2781; First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 2: Denz-Hun, nn. 3056-3058; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, Chap. 111, nn. 21-23; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 882; etc.

14. Cf. St Ignatius of Antioch, Epist. ad Romanos, Introd.: SChr 10, 106-107; St Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, III, 3, 2: SChr 211, 32-33.

15. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 20.

16. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz-Hun, n. 3051. Cf. St Leo I the Great, Tract. in Natale eiusdem, IV, 2: CCL 138, p. 19.

17. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz-Hun, n. 3051; John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 88. Cf. Pius IX, Letter of the Holy Office to the Bishops of England, 16 November 1864: Denz-Hun, n. 2888; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896: Denz-Hun, nn. 3305-3310.

18. Cf. Jn 17:21-23; Second Vatican Council, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, n. 1; Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Evangelii nuntiandi, 8 December 1975, n. 77: AAS 68 (1976) 69; John Paul Il, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 98.

19. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n 18.

20. Cf. ibid., n. 23.

21. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3061; cf. Joint Declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hun, nn. 3112-3113; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896: Denz-Hun, n. 3310; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 27. As Pius IX explained in his Address after the promulgation of the Constitution Pastor aeternus: "Summa ista Romani Pontificis auctoritas, Venerabiles Fratres, non opprimit sed adiuvat, non destruit sed aedificat, et saepissime confirmat in dignitate, unit in caritate, et Fratrum, scificet Episcoporum, iura firmat atque tuetur" (Mansi 52, 1336 A/B).

22. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 95.

23. Cor 11:28.

24. The ontological priority that the universal Church has, in her essential mystery, over every individual particular Church (cf Congr. for the Doctrine of the Faith, Let. Communionis notio, 28 May 1992, n. 9) also emphasizes the importance of the universal dimension of every Bishop's ministry.

25.Bull Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3059; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 22; cf. Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur caeli, 6 July 1439: Denz-Hun, n. 1307.

26. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, nn. 3060, 3064.

27. Cf. ibid.; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 22.

28. Second Vatican Council, Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 1l.

29. Cf. Congr. for the Doctrine of the Faith, Let. Communionis notio, n. 13.

30. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Decr. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, nn. 7 and 9.

31. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 93.

32. Cf. ibid., n. 94.

33. Cf. Joint Declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hun, n. 3114.

34. First Vatican Council, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz.-Hun, n. 3051.

35. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 94.

36. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Grande munus, 30 November 1880: ASS 13 (1880) 145; CIC, can. 782, §1.

37. Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Evangelii nuntiandi, n. 14. Cf. CIC, can. 781.

38. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 4: Denz-Hun, nn. 3065-3068.

39. Cf. ibid.: Denz-Hun, 3073-3074; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25; CIC, can. 749, §1; CCEO, can. 597, §1.

40. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 94.

41. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25.

42. CIC, can. 1404; CCEO, can. 1058. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3063.

43. Congr. for the Doctrine of the, Faith, Let. Communionis notio, n. 14. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1369.

44. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 48.

45. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const., Lumen gentium, n. 15.

46. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 97.

47. Ibid.

48. Cf. Lk 5:8.

49. Cf. 2 Cor 4:7.

50. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 102.

---

[ichabod1]

Do you deny that Paul said it was better to be single?

[trisham]

bump

[Uncle Chip]

This is precisely why we put so much weight on the Church Fathers.

And the Church Fathers put more weight on the scriptures than anything else. Name any other primary document cited time and again by the patriarchs other than the scriptures. 90% of the bible can be reproduced from the writings of the church fathers alone. The scriptures were their primary documents, and even Irenaeus said that in matters of importance, the church should defer to the "writings of the apostles".

How Peter's role was actually lived out in the 1st century is a bit of traditional knowledge that we cannot now recover--the people who saw it with their own eyes are long gone. BUT, we have documents that are somewhat later than the NT that shed some light on it--Clement, Irenaeus, etc.

Something as momentuous as Peter's supposed Roman bishopric and no one writes about it for over 100 years??? Please. And there is no mention of it in Clement of Rome's writings, Justin Martyr's writings, Josephus, Tacitus, and hardly a word or two in Irenaeus and Tertullian's writings. It wasn't written about because it never happened. Peter was not the foundation of the early church --- the scriptures that testified of Jesus Christ were.

the people who were taught by the Apostles presumably carried on some of that tradition from Peter's time and--eventually, especially when important matters were in doubt--wrote it down.

You mean "made it up out of whole papyrus" that became apocryphal literature that was then sanitized by Jerome to create the legend of the Roman Peter.

So your court of law analogy is not quite accurate--any court worth its salt is going to look at not only the primary documents themselves (i.e. NT) but also the supporting documents that explain it (i.e. the Fathers), much as we rely on the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution.

Except that the author of the Federalist papers was also an author of the Constitution and could write with authority. In a court of law supporting documents are secondary and bow to the primary. They never take their place as they do in the RCC.

[klossg]

I believe there was at least one copy of the bible in every household

All archeology and written history goes against your opinion.

[Uncle Chip]

There were no printing presses. A 'book' was written on parchment and scribes may have made copies. To 'circulate' anything back then, required land transportation.

And they didn't have land transportation back then and scribes were incapable of making copies??? Get real. Entrepreneurs like Origen employed hundreds of scribes in his manuscript factories churning out bibles.

Recent interpreters assign James to the period A.D. 90-100

He was martyred in Jerusalem circa 64 AD, so that must have been a real feat for him to pen that after his death.

For those christians marching into the Coliseum, there were only fragmentary scraps of Scripture. The New Testament had not been written and the Canon had not been compiled. These new christians went to their death based on oral tradition.

No --- they had the Book of Romans, the Gospel of Matthew, Thessalonians, Galatians, and Luke, all of which by then had separated fact from fiction, putting down in writing only those things that they knew to be true. They left out hearsay and fables and old wives tales.

[Claud]

Something as momentuous as Peter's supposed Roman bishopric and no one writes about it for over 100 years??? Please. And there is no mention of it in Clement of Rome's writings, Justin Martyr's writings, Josephus, Tacitus, and hardly a word or two in Irenaeus and Tertullian's writings. It wasn't written about because it never happened.

It was written about, because it did happen.

Peter mentions Rome in his own epistle. He says he is writing "from Babylon", which in Christian parlance referred at that time to Rome and NOT ancient Babylon--that's straight out of Revelations 17.

Then the Fathers. Clement of Rome in around 90 mentions Peter's martyrdom, though not where. Ignatius of Antioch a few years later says to the Romans that he does not "command you as Peter and Paul did". Eusebius cites a letter to Soter written by Dionysius of Corinth (A.D. 170) where he says explictly that Peter and Paul were at Rome. Eusebius also cites a fragment of Gaius's Disputation with Proclus from around A.D. 200) who says that the "trophies" of the Apostles who founded the Church of Rome were at the Vatican and the Ostian Way in Rome. Clement of Alexandria is quoted in Eusebius as saying Peter preached at Rome. Tertullian said explicitly that Peter was in Rome and poured out his doctrine as well as his bloodl this was again around 200

And as for Irenaeus, writing around 180 or so...you call his description of Peter in Rome a "word or two"? How does this description qualify as a "word or two"?

"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" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

My goodness, he sounds practically ultramontane in his description of the Bishop of Rome!

[magisterium]

“I believe there was at least one copy of the bible in every household, most people had access to at least some of scripture.”

This is simply untenable in the early centuries of the Church. First, everything had to be hand-written - there were no printing presses at all until the mid-15th Century. Therefore, hand-writing copies of Scripture took lots of time and was expensive to accomplish. Even when considering the Old Testament had plenty of time to be disseminated by the beginning of Christianity, it is not true that even every Jew had a copy. It was only possible for the synagogues and the extremely wealthy individual to have the OT books at hand. In the first centuries of Christianity, the same problems apply, only now you have to add 27 more books and distribute them to a larger group of people. Couldn’t be done. It is simply silly to say that a copy of the Bible was in every household back then, just from the impossible logistics. Add to that that many of the early Christians couldn’t read, many were slaves and couldn’t own a Bible or hide one, and having too many Bibles floating around in an era of widespread persecution would lead to sacrilegious confiscation/destruction, etc. When the NT Christians were “studying Scripture,” they were doing so as communities using the books of the Bible they had, virtually never as individuals.

[Claud]

When the NT Christians were “studying Scripture,” they were doing so as communities using the books of the Bible they had, virtually never as individuals.

Exactly!

And I might add this...suppose someone comes to Ephesus one day bearing a letter that says it was from St. Paul. HOW do the Ephesians know it was actually written by St. Paul or under his authority?

Methinks people don't realize how important the Church *as an institution* was in verifying the Scriptures.

[magisterium]

To argue that the *entirety* of the oral teachings of the Apostles is contained in the mere 200 pages (if you take out the duplication involved in the four Gospels, barely half of that total is left) or so that the New Testament takes up in modern typesetting is absurd. Why, by the time the NT was compiled definitively in its present form in the late 4th Century, the commentary on it alone had already reached many volumes. The Apostles would have similarly expanded on the often bare-bones nature of the NT text.

[MHGinTN]

You asked, “If the Bible is that instrument, then why didn’t Jesus himself write it, or dictate it to a scribe as Jermiah did ...” Are you seriously denying that the Holy Spirit inspired the writing we have as our New Testament? Is that a Catholic belief there?

[MHGinTN]

Those two posts were most edifying! Thank you for taking the time to post them.

[RobbyS]

These were in the FORM of scrolls and Codices, individual volumes. A collection of all Scriptures—assuming that it had been settled WHICH books belonged in the collection—would be more like a multivolume encyclopedia than the Bible we have in our house. Only a few men, those who could afford a privare library, would have the whole collection. They or the person whose dwelling served as a house-church. The Scriptures are intended for PUBLIC use, to be read in public to a largely illiterate congregation. The Great Bible of the Middle Ages was a very large book, and highly valuable. The Paris Bible was a kind of revolution in publishing. They look as though they were printed, and it is amazing to learn that these handwritten books were produced by the thousand! They were made for use by the preaching friars.including of course the Austin friars to which Luther belonged. I bet he had one. Their size is explained by the need to fit in the pocket of the gown of a traveling friar. In Latin, of course, but it served as a text for the members of these orders, whose function it was to preach the Gospel, on the steets as often as in churches. In the 15th century, St. Bernadino beaks to crowds as large as those that heard Whitefield and Wesley in the 18th, and to the same sort of person.

[Uncle Chip]

Then the Fathers. Clement of Rome in around 90 mentions Peter's martyrdom, though not where. Ignatius of Antioch a few years later says to the Romans that he does not "command you as Peter and Paul did". Eusebius cites a letter to Soter written by Dionysius of Corinth (A.D. 170) where he says explictly that Peter and Paul were at Rome. Eusebius also cites a fragment of Gaius's Disputation with Proclus from around A.D. 200) who says that the "trophies" of the Apostles who founded the Church of Rome were at the Vatican and the Ostian Way in Rome. Clement of Alexandria is quoted in Eusebius as saying Peter preached at Rome. Tertullian said explicitly that Peter was in Rome and poured out his doctrine as well as his bloodl this was again around 200

This is the extent of the evidence of Peter being in Rome. They knew nothing more than that??? The "Prince of the Apostles" warrants an occasional mention of which even these writers are unsure about their statements of his presence there. He leaves no footprints, no monuments, no church named after him, no decrees, no relics, and no bones ---- just claims that turn out later to be unverifiable.

And as for Irenaeus, writing around 180 or so...you call his description of Peter in Rome a "word or two"? How does this description qualify as a "word or two"? "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" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

Irenaeus is incorrect here. Paul's letter to the Romans demonstrates that for the church of Rome was founded and established before Paul had even visited it as he wrote in his letter circa 56AD. Irenaeus gets several of his facts wrong, but even he admits that in cases like this one should defer to the scriptures and ignore his statements.

He says that Paul and Peter did this together and yet history has Paul in prison during most of his entire Roman sojourn with no time for evangelizing. And when he was out of prison, tradition says that Paul travelled to Spain. So just when could Peter and Paul have been evangelizing together????

Ask your magisterium how much of what you quoted from Irenaeus is accepted by them to be true.

[fatima]

Your welcome.I am just learning about this.I asked Father yesterday about it and he said it was the basis for the Apostles Creed.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm
Apostles’ Creed

A formula containing in brief statements, or “articles,” the fundamental tenets of Christian belief, and having for its authors, according to tradition, the Twelve Apostles.
I. ORIGIN OF THE CREED

Throughout the Middle Ages it was generally believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed our present Creed between them, each of the Apostles contributing one of the twelve articles.

[Uncle Chip]

And I might add this...suppose someone comes to Ephesus one day bearing a letter that says it was from St. Paul. HOW do the Ephesians know it was actually written by St. Paul or under his authority? Methinks people don't realize how important the Church *as an institution* was in verifying the Scriptures.

Those churches that valued the scriptures were able to tell the difference between the real and counterfeit. Those that didn't fell for fraudulent apocryphals, substitutes, secondary documents, and oral claims that led them astray.

[OLD REGGIE]

Whenever God renames someone in the Bible (Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel, and Simon/Peter, for example), there is a rather blunt significance to it. You might do well to consider this before trotting-out the well-worn and grammatically impossible argument that the renaming is based on Peter’s confession, and not on the fact of his foundational status, upon which the Church of Jesus Christ would be built.

Catechism Of The Catholic Church"

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

Maybe you should teach your rules of grammar to the Catechism Of The Catholic Church.

Is there any significance to the fact Jesus called Peter "Simon, Son of John" the last time, recorded in Scripture, He spoke to him? (John 21)

[RobbyS]

No, I am denying that the book itself can serve as a substitute for the Church, the persons whom the Scripture referrs to as “the body of Christ,” and ourselves as his members. As to the Scriptures, the fact that only some Christian writings were included in the canon and were read in the assembles means that some human agency had to decide which writings were revealed truth and which ones were “inspired” in a lesser manner. The difference between Catholics and the Reformers was really only in deciding whose authority in the matter of Scripture was greater.

[magisterium]

Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians is genuine, written in the 90’s AD. The second one, attributed to him, there is good evidence to believe was not his own. But even that evidence points to a date of about AD 150. It is still useful for the purpose of this discussion, though, since, with such a still relatively early provenience, it is a witness to the already accepted tradition of only 50 years earlier.

But, even apart from Clement, there is a lot of early evidence that Peter’s protracted ministry in Rome and his martyrdom there were universally understood and accepted. Is St. Irenaeus merely a Roman stooge in Against Heresies 3? Is Tertullian merely ignorant when he talks about Clement’s ordination by Peter in Rome? Does Cyprian know what he’s talking about when he states baldy that it was upon Peter that Christ built His Church? Does Pope Victor know what a troglodyte he was when he threw his weight around the universal Church, as Bishop of Rome, during the Quartodeciman controversy?

Look, the primacy of Peter is Christ-established and disciple-confirmed. It is an ecclesiastical exercise in revisionist history to claim that no one in the early Church had any notions of papal primacy until Gregory the Great came along. Sure, that primacy has been used in a heavy-handed manner form time to time, but the principle of its existence is pefectly valid. Thank God that the Church had a visible head amid all of the heresies promulgated, primarily in the East, in the patristic age!

It seems to me that you must belong to a brand of eastern Orthodoxy that likes the trappings of a liturgical Church, but is so hell-bent on denying the legitimacy of Rome’s claims that it must deny much of the early writings and traditions at the same time. Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, finds much of its roots in the early patristic writings. Don’t ignore the legitimacy of many of the early Fathers just to score spurious talking points against Rome.

[OLD REGGIE]

I love that last gospel of John,it so clearly shows Christ telling Peter to feed the lambs and the sheep. And after giving him charge,He lets Peter know how to accomplish this feeding and tending.

Jesus was speaking to "Simon, Son of John". Why? Why not "Peter"?

I have never been able to understand how anyone who read the Bible could doubt that Christ established a Church and put Peter in charge.

I can't understand how anyone could read the Bible and believe Jesus put Peter in charge. Peter never presided over a Council. James did. If Peter was in charge he would be presiding over the Council, not among the participants.

[Claud]

This is the extent of the evidence of Peter being in Rome. They knew nothing more than that???

Oy vey. LOL. Yes! That's the extent! And what's the extent of him not being in Rome? What's the extent of the evidence disproving/arguing against all this lineup I posted? Where are the contrary voices?

The Fathers wrote what they knew. And what they knew was more--by far--than what you or I know. Nobody contradicted them...nobody said, nah, Peter was never in Rome. It was simply accepted.

He leaves no footprints, no monuments,

The Tropaion of Gaius at the Vatican is not a monument? It went up probably in 170-180 A.D. Peter's logo is scratched all over the place down there...in the form of a key made of a P and and an E.

And St. Peter's is not a monument? It was purposely--and with no small effort mind you--built overtop of what just happens to be a first century graveyard. The grave area under the altar was left intact, and tons and tons of soil were used to fill it up so that it would not be disturbed. Another part of the Vatican hill was flattened. With the result that Constantine built the main altar DIRECTLY over a particular grave which, according to you, had no importance whatsoever.

no church named after him, no decrees, no relics, and no bones ---- just claims that turn out later to be unverifiable.

LOL...my goodness, Rome is practically an entire monument to Peter!

We're not sure about the bones. They may be Peter's, they may not. And as for decrees, what do you think Peter's Epistle was, chopped liver?

Irenaeus is incorrect here. Paul's letter to the Romans demonstrates that for the church of Rome was founded and established before Paul had even visited it as he wrote in his letter circa 56AD.

So Uncle Chip judges Irenaeus incorrect. Nice. Somehow Uncle Chip knows more about the founding of the Roman See than a guy who knew some of the very people who were there when it happened.

Some sources indicate that Peter was in Rome for 25 years. He is believed to have gotten there around 42 or so. In any case, it's no skin off of anyone's nose to say that there were Christians in Rome prior to his getting there. The point is that when he got there, his Apostolic Authority gave it a dignity it didn't previously have.

And here's another bit of evidence, since you bring up Paul. Paul says in Romans 15: "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand. For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you.

Somebody was preaching in Rome before he wrote this!