Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
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?
Neither lived contemporaneous with Peter. Tertuillian AD 145-220, Ireneaus AD 120-202. So anything they have to report would be hearsay. They never claim to have actually seen Peter walking the streets of Rome.
I think many people who are not Catholics regard Rome as the equivalent of Mecca - that is, something essential to the religion. Rome is an historical place, there is ample evidence and tradition that St. Peter was (a) appointed by Our Lord to be his vicar and (b) was in Rome. However, none of this ultimately matters, because the Church can exist without Rome the city, and even, for a time and not ideally, without the Pope. It does not cease to exist, for example, between the time of the death of a pope and the installation of his successor.
The Body of Christ is formed by all of us, including the saints, that is, those who went before us and are now the clouds of witnesses, and if someone were to smite the shepherd, the flock might be scattered - but it would eventually be gathered together again.
As for Rome, it is sacred because of the blood of martyrs, it is symbolic, it has been vitally important for centuries - but it is not the Church, and the Church does not depend upon Rome for its existence.
"... but then the Catholics would all boycott the show."
_____________________
No, they would just start another thread and hope we would not dispute their view of "history".
"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."
The whole concept of "Apostolic succession" is flawed. We do not have any "God Breathed" inspired writings in the Canon written after the Apostolic era. We have no supernatural powers passed on to any of the leaders that came after the Apostles. Peter being in Rome and the Bishop of that church wouldn't really change the argument against "Apostolic succession" if you read the Bible.
"...there is ample evidence and tradition that St. Peter was (a) appointed by Our Lord to be his vicar and (b) was in Rome."
________________________________
Other than a questionable translation in Matthew what proof of these claims do you have?
"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".
And further:
"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.
Thank you, I had good teachers.
So they consign Tertullian to purgatory and deny him "sainthood" and yet quote him as a source for that legendary Petrine Bishopric in Rome that we have heard so much about all these many years. What does that say about what they really think about Tertullian and his writings?. Perhaps becoming a Montanist was his Penance for his sins of rhetoric embellishment?
Great points. Glad the thread is still on topic. And most amazingly, attracting many Catholic-bashers.
What,you want a photograph or a post card, willfull blindness and sophistry on your part, I can not correct.
When a Roman Catholic doctrine is challenged it is bashing.
Is it Protestant bashing when you challenge a belief of the "separated brethren"?
How can you assert, in the face of the mountain of evidence that Peter was in Rome, that he was not 2000 years later?
Well hang in there, buddy, because I am going to help you. I am going to do your part for you with the help of those left here in the land of the living threads and we will spring you from your purgatory as soon as possible. So keep the faith --- help is on the way.
[I hope they let you read this]
Willful blindness! I think not, just a strong desire for facts not hype or fable. If historical fact is not forthcoming then I must conclude that the events in question are still in question.
Rather than make light of my question how about giving me some historical proof. I accept nothing with blind faith. I accept much by faith (not blind) based solely on biblical pronouncements. The Bible puts Paul in Rome but says nothing about Peter being there. I can find nothing in either archeology or contemporary documentation that puts Peter in Rome. Im not saying he was not there; just that nothing of historical value puts him there.
Or maybe you want a hotel log saying "peter checked in here, AD 63, signed Nero"? Tell me the proof you need other than 2000 years of oral and written history attesting to that fact, a marked grave, markings throughout the catacombs indicating his presence, and the fact that a church and/or pilmgrimage area was built almost immediately over the spot of his execution since immediately after his death?
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.