St. Peter and Rome

Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 11-15-04 | Amy Barragree

[Iscool]

Peter was not called to the Jews in any exclusive sense -- it was Peter who opened the Chruch to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and converted the first Gentile (Acts 11).

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..

[Theoden]

Here's a good book that dispels many myths about the Papacy as written by Patrick Madrid, one of our greatest contemporary apologetics. He clearly dispels the myth that St. Peter never went to Rome.

[Uncle Chip]

Historical evidence does show that Peter did go to Rome and exercised his authority as head of the Apostles from there. The earliest Christians provided plenty of documentation in this regard.

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.

[ContraryMary]

Good article.

[HarleyD]

No, Peter did not "rule" the Church from Rome. What he and Paul did was to lend their authority to the see of Rome, especially since each man was martyred there.

Well, shucks. I thought Peter was the see of Rome.

[HarleyD]

Paul received his authority from Peter and James.

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.

[HarleyD]

Come on Harley, let's not let facts get in the way of current tradition!

I wondered if we shouldn't ask Myth Busters to do a special on this but then the Catholics would all boycott the show.

[wmfights]

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?

[Conservative til I die]

Another consideration is in the same "Was Peter in Rome?" article. It simply should not matter if Peter or a successor of his went to Rome.

Very good point, and one that does not come up much in these types of debates. Even today, the Pope does not have to reside in Rome to be the Pope, though he of course is still the Bishop of Rome.

Take the Avignon Popes, for example.

[wmfights]

"And after denying Christ, we don’t hear about him much."
_____________________________

I agree with your assessment about being skeptical.

Peter was a great Apostle, but his mission field was among the Israelites and if I understand the history correctly there was not a large Jewish or Israelite community in Rome. Jesus did bring Peter back into the fold with the miraculous catch and the meal after wards where he told him to "feed my lambs".

[Bainbridge]

He was on a thread on 10/25, entitled "Fundamentalist" by Peter Kreeft

[Conservative til I die]

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").

[Conservative til I die]

Nope...I'm saying Peter wasn't there...And the bible hints at that as well...

The verse you cited does no such thing. Just because Paul or some other Apostle went to Rome does not logically mean that Peter didn't.

If I write, "CTID posts on FreeRepublic" does that somehow mean that Iscool doesn't?

[Bainbridge]

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.

[Conservative til I die]

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.

The claim to the Papacy does not hinge on how many times or how long Peter was in Rome. The Papacy is based on Christ anointing Peter the Rock. But as you said, Linus was appointed successor, and we recognize him as the second Pope.

The Papacy is similar to the Presidency. The claim is not based on residency or location, it is claimed on authority.

[Conservative til I die]

Good to see that you've stepped into this discussion with humility, charity, and love to your brethren.

[doc1019]

I said that we don’t hear MUCH about Peter after he betrayed Jesus and we don’t. I didn’t 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?

[doc1019]

Whether he was there, or not, is irrelevant.

?

[wmfights]

"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.

[Bainbridge]

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?