Posted on 12/17/2012 1:19:04 PM PST by RnMomof7
When Paul wrote to the Romans around 58ad and greets many and mentions many people but never mentions Peter even being in Rome. Paul wrote from Rome and to Rome and never even mentions Peter who the Catholics say started the church there.
Now show me the passage that you believe proves that Peter was in Rome at all let alone enough time to start a church there.
"And Saul was consenting unto his (Stephen's) death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, EXCEPT THE APOSTLES." Acts 8:1.
According to this, Peter was in Jerusalem, not Rome. Along with the other 11 apostles. Preaching the Kingdom gospel. To Israel. In the temple. Daily.
Now, we know for a Biblical FACT that Paul went to Rome. But Peter? Not so.
It definitely does!
And they were both in error. Irenaeus claimed that Paul and Peter preached together and started the church in Rome. Eusebius also claims that Peter founded the church at Antioch which is not true. When Paul writes to the Romans in 58AD he mentions and greets many by name but never names Peter. He says in Romans 1:7 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, … an apostle to all who are in Rome, Beloved of God, called to be saints. He didn’t even mention Peter and calls himself the apostle to all who are in Rome.
Peter was the apostle to the Jews and spent most of his time in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He was never in Rome.
Peace be with you, NL, and may Mary strike his heel, soon, and Christ Jesus be with us, availed to us ever in the Holy Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity.
This is one of the worst attacks I’ve seen on FR, and in the Holy Season approaching the coming of our Lord, astonishing.
Where was it I read of “silly women”? The devil is alive and increasing.
Blessed be the holy and undivided Trinity, now and forever more. Blessed be the Holy Mother of God, the holy saints and angels.
Blessed be Saint Michael, Saint Gabriel, Saint Raphael.
As for the Bishop of Rome holding a “Primacy” in the early Church, there is plenty of evidence. Now, you say the 1st 50 years after Christ which would put us around 80-85AD.
If we assume the above dating is correct, this would mean that Saint John the Apostle was still alive. So while I can’t provide anything definitive from the Church Fathers as the fist group of them are called the Apostolic Church Fathers because of their connection to the Apostles. One such is St. Clement of Rome who wrote an authoritative Letter to the Church at Corinth. I have provided a link below which is from Calvin College [Reformed University] and has the German Reformed Church History Scholar Phillip Schaff’s translation of Saint Clement of Rome’s Letter [which you can read yourself]. What I have linked is Professor P. Schaff’s introductory Note on St. CLements Letter
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.i.html
Now of interest here is that the testimony of later 2nd Century Church Fathers indicates that Saint Clement new the Apostles [Philip Schaff’s introductory note comes to that conclusion, for the record] as Saint Ireneaus of Lyons states that St. Clement “had seen the blessed Apostles” ....had been conversant with them....and might be said to have their preaching echoing in his ears and their traditions before his eyes...
Now we are at the end of the 1st century and what has to be asked here is What does Saint Clement’s intervention into the internal affairs of a Church in the East, i.e. Corinth mean. If we assume an eccelisiology of modern independent Protestantism, then it makes no sense. Corinth would tell Saint Clement to “go take a hike” However, we don’t see that. However, given that Clements letter was recieved by the Church of Corinth, implies that the Church of Rome had a role in calling back the Church at Corinth into orthodoxy. Thus, it is entirely an historical record that the Church of Rome was exercising some “Primacy” at the end of the 1st century.
In addition, in St. Clement’s Letter you will find a 1) clear distinction between the role of the clergy and layman, not that they are in opposition, but all serve in different capacities in the Church, the Body of Christ, 2) and Outline of Apostolic Succession, and 3) Strong Eucharistic Doctrine as he writes “Our sin would not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrafices.
Clement’s letter is usually dated around 95-97AD. Some 10 years after, we get St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letters [7 authentic] which show strong ecclessiology like the Catholic Church, strong Eucharistic Doctrine and of course the line “The Church of Rome...presides in Love [some translations state Holds the Presidency in Love”. Again, I have linked Schaff’s Introductory note, of course he does downplay that statement while acknowleding that the Church of Antioch and Rome had “Fraternal Relations”, which is a way of avoiding using the word “Communion”. Scaff’s note is honest enough to point out that many in the Protestant world questioned all of the Ignatian corpus because it so clearly laid out a model that is what the Catholic Church looks like and is, and thus many questioned all of it, although he concedes that 7 Letters of Ignatius are now all recognized as authentic by scholars.
So within 75 years of Christ death perhaps within Saint John the Apostles Lifetime [given Clements Letter] there are 2 clear references to the Church of Rome holding some form of “Primacy in the early Church.” On that point, anyone here on FR who doubts that now who has read this thread is being intellectually dishonest. If one wants to question whether Vatican I in its definition of Papal Infallability defined it in a way that was not necessary or was too much of a reach by Rome, then that is a legitimate point to make and discuss, not that I agree with it, but I can understand the argument, particulary from the Eastern Orthodox point of view. But to debate that the Church of Rome had a Primacy is putting your head in the sand and not being honest [which many FR Protestants, not going to name them, do all the time].
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.i.html
CynicalBear:
And you know they were wrong How? How does Paul not mentioning Peter suggest he was not in Rome or did not eventually get to Rome. Nothing you cite from Romans 1 suggest that Peter never was in Rome. If you want to say, Peter was not in Rome in 58AD, that is about all you can say.
Those closer to time all indicate Peter was in Rome.
You are sounding ignorant, arrogant and obnoxious, inciteful and definitely flatulent. It must be handy to incite and insult the Church hiding in anonymity, defiling sacred scripture with your alien interpretations, based on old wives tales and your barbaric manners.
I think you really need to do some study on when the RCC claims Peter was in Rome. I believe you will find that they claim that Peter was in Rome some 16 by the time Paul writes to the Romans saying he will establish them. I suppose I assumed wrongly that you knew what you were talking about rather then just parroting what the RCC states.
Oh my!!
Daniel 12:1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered.
Michael is indeed the guardian of Israel and will protect them during the tribulation.
Do not resort to name calling, but respond in love and respect. We are to forgive RnMomof7 70 x 7 times. If we love only those who look, sound, act and think like us, only those who respect us, those who show us kindness, and those who exhibit all of the Fruits of the Holy Spirit it is no more than an expression of self love. Real love is the unconditional desire of good for another solely for the sale of the other. The worse they are the more they need our love and forgiveness. Every antagonistic and hateful anti-Catholic posting can be a blessing because it gives us another chance to forgive.
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." - Luke 6:27-31
I assure you, Jesus cares more about how we understand this than what the definition of a saint is.
Peace be with you.
CynicalBear:
And you are saying was not in Rome based on What? Your conclusion that Paul makes not mention of it. That does not mean he is in Rome at the time. For one, perhaps Paul did not want to state that he was in Rome given the fact that if the Letter to Rome was intercepted, the Roman Authorities would use it to persecute and Kill Peter, which is what happened. and for the record, your writings seems to be based on the writings of some Protestant internet apologist named Allison Lewis that I have seen linked by Prots before. His arguments are just that and of course, he goes on to say that Didache is heretical because its views of Baptism don’t fit his are what he thinks the NT says.
St. Clement of Rome strongly implies that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome in his letter. Rather than me continue to debate you, I will defer to Philip Schaff’s translation of St. Clement of Rome’s Letter to the Church at Corinth which indicates that both St. Peter and Paul were killed in Rome. Schaff’s footnote in the link I provided clearly comes to that conclusion.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.v.html
St. Ignatius of Antioch, a pupil of St. Polycarp, who was a pupil of St. John the Apostle states in is letter to the Church at Rome, not as Peter and Paul do I command you....which only makes sense in the context of both St. Peter and Paul being in Rome.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.iv.html
Instead she should be a sweetheart like you, eh?
Thank you. I’m sure you are correct, as you say, these are hateful and antagonistic creatures, enemies of good, and the Church, of Christ Jesus, weherein He resides, but I won’t call names either. I will leave the fires of Ghenna to receive whom they will in their flames and pray that I can stand, undeserving as I am, a friend to goodness and to God, and to his ONE, Holy and Apostolic Church, by the kind Grace and the Gift He has entrusted to me, and to try and keep.
Forgive me for striking back in words, as Peter did to the mob of Christ killers and naysayers, taking an ear with his sword.. Set me aright, Guardian Angel, on the path of patience when set upon by enemies.
CynicalBear:
Another Church History scholar,Henry Chadwick in his The Early Church [Pengiun Books, Revised Edition, 1993] writes that Peter and Pauls relationship was ambigous and their disagreement recorded in Galatians must have been exceptional. Regardless, in death they were united in tha both were killed during the reign of Nero, although we have no definitive record of how long Peter was in Rome. In the footnote on page 18 of this version, Professor Chadwick comes to the same conclusion as Philip Schaff in that Peter’s martyrdom taking place in Rome is “Highly Probable” given the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and Ignatius Letter to the Romans and consistent testimoney of 2nd Century Fathers and the fact that a monument dating 160AD to Peters memory was built. Now, Prof. Chadwick does state that Peter being in Rome for 25 years is 3rd century legend so this statement by Prof Chadwick and his scholarship is consisent with Prof. Philip Schaff’s view that both Peter and Paul were killed in Rome and suggest that Peter did not arrive in Rome until after Paul’s Letter to the Church at Rome written most likely between 56-58AD.
Jaroslav Pelikan in his the Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600AD) writes (p.354) that Rome was where both Peter and Paul were buried and this had given the CHurch of Rome a unique eminence as early as the time of Tertullian...The Churches of the East owed a special allegiance to Rome...by hailing the authority of Leo, the fathers of Chalcedon gave witness to the orthodoxy of Rome. One See after another had capitulated in this or that controversy..Rome had a special position. The Bishop of Rome had the right by his own authority to annul the acts of a synod.
Now, Prof. Pelikan was a Lutheran when he wrote this, he eventuall became Orthodox because of his Eastern European Heritage but always longed for reunion between the TWO historic Apostolic Churches. Nevertheless, his scholarship is excellent and his conclusions are the same as Schaff and Chadwicks, that is Peter was in Rome. In addition, it is interesting about his statments regarding the eminence of the Church of Rome and the rights of the Bishop of Rome, by his own authority, could annul a Synod. This is only possible in the context that the Church of Rome based on Apostolic Succession draws that authority due to the fact that “both” Peter and Paul were killed in Rome.
If Mry is supposed to “take the place of God,” then why are there so few references to her in the mass? Once in the Creed, “Incarnate of the Virgin Mary,” and later in the canon at the head of the list of Saints.
If Mry is supposed to “take the place of God,” then why are there so few references to her in the mass? Once in the Creed, “Incarnate of the Virgin Mary,” and later in the canon at the head of the list of Saints.
For what? You did not sin against me. Ask RnMomof7 for forgiveness. If she believes the Word she will forgive you as you have forgiven her.
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’will be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." - Matthew 5:22-24
Peace be with you
And of course, we do not know who, or when , or for what purpose.
And since they are not available...? Some thought it was the work of Paul, but, in fact, it is uncertain who did write it. It sounds nothing like Paul.
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.