Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
EWTN ^ | November 1998 | Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger & Bishop Tarcisio Bertone

Posted on 08/21/2007 5:01:42 PM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-176 next last
To: Uncle Chip
Also, you keep citing 200 years. Irenaeus of Lyons is writing oh, 160-170. So it's really only about 100 years from Peter's martyrdom in about 66 or so. I cited above a number of sources rom around 200....which would be 140 years.

My grandfather (may God rest his soul) was born in 1909...98 years ago. So we're not exactly talking in the hazy mists of prehistory here.

141 posted on 08/23/2007 1:54:11 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Quite certain. Seven mountains for the seven hills of Rome, persecutes the martyrs, rules over the kings of earth. I can't imagine what other city fits.

And it fits this description?

"Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations."

But was he singled out as the leader of the Apostles? Certainly. There's no other candidate that comes even close....it's really quite lopsided.

Yet he was subordinate to James at the Council Of Jerusalem???

142 posted on 08/23/2007 3:04:45 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Claud
"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, 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" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 2).

Can you point out the words above that indicate that Irenaeus believed in the primacy of Peter???

The most that can be said is that he believed that Peter and Paul were the two most glorious apostles [although he clearly overlooks John], and that the church there in Rome should be listened to because it was founded by the two apostles --- Peter and Paul --- not Peter alone. Am I reading him correctly here???

143 posted on 08/23/2007 3:12:06 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Also, you keep citing 200 years. Irenaeus of Lyons is writing oh, 160-170. So it's really only about 100 years from Peter's martyrdom in about 66 or so. I cited above a number of sources rom around 200....which would be 140 years.

I was measuring it from the birth of the church in 30 AD to Cyprian circa 250 AD.

144 posted on 08/23/2007 3:24:00 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Claud; OLD REGGIE; Uncle Chip
With regards to Peter....As to him not exercising or claiming primacy, well, if you're looking for him wearing a golden tiara then no, he didn't do that. But was he singled out as the leader of the Apostles? Certainly. There's no other candidate that comes even close....it's really quite lopsided.

Well....besides the scripture being silent on any venture into Rome or it's environs.....The Word is quite specific on just what Peter is to do....and where to go.

[Matthew 10:5-6] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Rome was Gentile....and don't tell me there was a large population of Israelites living there.

This is the reason you do not find Peter in Rome. He was an Apostle to the circumcised....."Israelites". [Galatians 2:7-9] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.....according to the Apostle Paul.

Think about it. Why would it have been necessary for the Lord to commission the Apostle Paul as "The Apostle to the Gentiles" if He was just going to have Peter (and the others) take care of it anyway? [Acts 9:15] But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.....speaking of Paul. Notice that Paul is given authority to evangelize the The Children of Israel (the circumcised) also....as well as the Gentiles. In addition, he was given authority to bear The Lord's name before Kings. Peter had no such authority.....only to evangelize the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" and specifically....to stay away from the Gentiles!

[John 21:15-17] So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

All subsequent scripture to the meeting with Paul in Jerusalem....."14 years later" [Galatians 2:1] shows Peter to be engaged in a ministry to these Israelites.....not the Gentiles in Rome.

145 posted on 08/23/2007 3:32:19 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

“...and don’t tell me there was a large population of Israelites living there.”

But there was. There were Jews all over the Roman Empire, and a large colony in Rome. As to Peter’s mission, he was the one who converted Cornelius to Christ, guided by a vision. It seems the Lord amended Peter’s instructions.


146 posted on 08/23/2007 4:33:16 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; Claud; OLD REGGIE; Uncle Chip; Ping-Pong; DouglasKC
But there was. There were Jews all over the Roman Empire, and a large colony in Rome.

The "Jews" in Rome were not a large population at all. The ministry to which Peter and the other eleven had been commissioned was to go to the "House of Israel". The Jews comprised only three tribes of this house and the majority of the "Israelites" lived beyond the Euphrates according to secular history [Josephus, Antiquities, Book XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2] and not under control of the Romans. Josephus says "Their numbers are such as to be uncountable!"

And....scripture itself tells us that is exactly where Peter and others were.....beyond the Euphrates, in Babylon. [1 Peter 5:13]

[1 Peter 1:1-2] Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

"Strangers scattered" Strong's # 3927. parepidemos (par-ep-id'-ay-mos)an alien alongside, i.e. a resident foreigner and.....1290. diaspora (dee-as-por-ah')dispersion, i.e. (specially and concretely) the (converted) Israelite resident in Gentile countries.

These folks who Peter was evangelizing in these areas around the southern shore of the Black Sea were indeed some of the Israelite communities that had been taken away during the Assyrian exile (721 B.C.). They had a foreknowledge of God, [II Kings 17:6-7]....they were not Jews [II Kings 17:18], and they most certainly were not Gentiles! The Apostle Paul was even prevented from visiting this area by the Holy Spirit.....as it belonged to the ministry of Peter and the other eleven. [Acts 16:6-8]

As to Peter’s mission, he was the one who converted Cornelius to Christ, guided by a vision. It seems the Lord amended Peter’s instructions.

Peter's mission to Cornelius was not to convert him (he was already a God fearing man) (Acts 10:22) but to show everyone that the "Gospel" was for Gentiles also....as well as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:45]. Notice that all were astonished (who came with Peter) that this gift had been given to the Gentiles. This is further indicated by [Acts 11:1-3]. These early Christians had no idea that salvation would be for everyone and Peter was being criticized for his actions. Paul had come on the scene but was still in Arabia sorting things out [Galatians 1:17], so Peter had been commissioned by the Holy Spirit for this particular event and his mission and ministry still, thereafter, was limited to the Israelites.

147 posted on 08/23/2007 5:42:37 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
And it fits this description? "Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations."

Of course it fits that description! Do you have any better candidate for what this means?

Yet he was subordinate to James at the Council Of Jerusalem???

Show me from Scripture an instance of such subordination and we'll go from there.

148 posted on 08/23/2007 5:50:36 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; Rutles4Ever
Can you point out the words above that indicate that Irenaeus believed in the primacy of Peter???

That's not in the quote I have above, but I fail to see why that matters in this case, because usually we are demonstrating Petrine Primacy, which is easier to prove, to get to the Roman primacy, which is harder to prove. Irenaeus asserts the primacy of Rome quite directly; so the chains are a little futher downfield in his case.

The most that can be said is that he believed that Peter and Paul were the two most glorious apostles [although he clearly overlooks John], and that the church there in Rome should be listened to because it was founded by the two apostles --- Peter and Paul --- not Peter alone. Am I reading him correctly here???

Well, I think the "most glorious" there does not have to be necessarily exclusive of St. John or James. Sort of the way we say "this is a most glorious day".

I think you are basically reading him correctly although I believe the emphasis is not only on the double-Apostolic origin but also on the particular fame of these two Apostles...two of the major leaguers.

But also note that "and" there..."and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition". So not just the origin of the See, but the continued purity of its doctrine is what Irenaeus is getting at. This we see more clearly developed in the later quotes that Rutles4Ever supplied above, where the Roman See is referred to as pure, spotless, etc. That same idea might have been what Ignatius of Antioch was getting at in his Epistle to the Romans: "purified from any strange taint".

149 posted on 08/23/2007 6:09:14 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

The Jews in Rome were a colony and relations between Jews and Romans dated to the alliance between the two people against the Greeks. Later the Herods were a puppets of the Romans. The attraction to Rome was natural because, especially after Augustus began to rebuild the city, it was becoming the huge cosmopolitan center whose remains we can still descry. As to I Peter it may tell us where he had been but Rome is as likley a place where he was. Babylon was hardly a major center by the year 50 AD. The association of bother Peter and Paul with Rome is too concrete to be pushed aside, at least not by means of the scanty evidence you present. When reading the New Testament, I am astonished to see how difficult it is to construct any kind of chronicle. We do have Acts, but it offers an incomplete record for three decades of the Church;s history. As for the rest, almost like trying to write a history of a war using the diaries or some dispatches of a few general officers. So much from the perspective of single persons, difficult to weave into a single narrative.


150 posted on 08/23/2007 6:17:27 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
The "Jews" in Rome were not a large population at all. The ministry to which Peter and the other eleven had been commissioned was to go to the "House of Israel". The Jews comprised only three tribes of this house and the majority of the "Israelites" lived beyond the Euphrates according to secular history [Josephus, Antiquities, Book XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2] and not under control of the Romans. Josephus says "Their numbers are such as to be uncountable!"

There were plenty of Jews in Rome. Josephus reports as follows:

Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers.[11] Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.(Antiquities Book XVIII, Chapter 6)
That's at least 4000 Jewish men in the city of Rome. Add women and children, you're talking a population in the tens of thousands at leasy. When Sejanus died, they all came back. And Claudius banished the Jews from Rome again, after which they came back again.

I looked up your Josephus passage and it dates from the time of Xerxes and Esdras, so around 450 B.C. That's almost 500 years before the time we are talking about...before the collapse of secular Babylon, when the 10 lost tribes were still in the area. By the time of the New Testament Babylon proper was a desolate ruin, and the 10 lost tribes were....well, lost....which they have been ever since.

151 posted on 08/23/2007 6:33:29 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
The Jews in Rome were a colony and relations between Jews and Romans dated to the alliance between the two people against the Greeks.

[Acts 18:2] (50/52 A.D.) And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

Most of the Jews had left Rome mid first century; a few stayed and the ones that did made themselves inconspicuous.

The fact that Babylon was not a large commercial center has nothing to do with the fact that millions of Israelites still lived in the area that had previously been the Assyrian/Babylonian Empires.

I have given you secular history indicating that millions of Israelites still lived beyond the Euphrates. This was the population Our Own Saviour said He was sent to: [Matthew 15:24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. By reading this scripture and reading [Matthew 10:5-6] are you still insisting that Our Lord really meant that Peter should go to Rome.....ignoring at least three biblical commands to go to these folks instead....not to mention the fact that he was to stay away from the Gentiles?

After reading [1 Peter 1:1-2] and knowing the location of these Israelites with a foreknowledge of God do you still think Peter was spending any time in Rome? He even says exactly where he's at (5:13}.

Scripture after scripture proves your error. Your story rests solely on tradition.

152 posted on 08/23/2007 7:10:17 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Claud
There were plenty of Jews in Rome.

No there weren't! There were millions elsewhere!

I looked up your Josephus passage and it dates from the time of Xerxes and Esdras, so around 450 B.C. That's almost 500 years before the time we are talking about...before the collapse of secular Babylon, when the 10 lost tribes were still in the area. By the time of the New Testament Babylon proper was a desolate ruin, and the 10 lost tribes were....well, lost....which they have been ever since.

You are incorrect. [Josephus, Antiquities, Book XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2]: When Esdras had received this epistle, he was very joyful, and began to worship God, and confessed that he had been the cause of the king's great favor to him, and that for the same reason he gave all the thanks to God. So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media. And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by number.

Josephus indeed begins his narrative during the time of Esdras....but he then switches to the present time (first century) when speaking of the ten tribes still beyond the Euphrates.....beyond the reach of the Romans. Notice how he speaks of the Jews during the first part of the paragraph.....but then speaks of Israel when he switches to the ten tribes? The reason he says only two tribes were in Asia and Europe was because Judah and Benjamin were those tribes [II Chronicles 11:1] and the Levites were counted among them....not owning any property.

These are the folks to whom the Twelve Apostles were sent. Paul, being selected for a special mission, was of course sent elsewhere.....which allowed him to go to Rome. Peter was not given that permission and that is why scripture never mentions him being there. He wasn't.

153 posted on 08/23/2007 7:33:34 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; RobbyS
Most of the Jews had left Rome mid first century; a few stayed and the ones that did made themselves inconspicuous.

They were expelled under Claudius but they came right back under Nero...it was only a few years between. At any rate, Peter's arrival in Rome is traditionally dated well before that event as around 42 or so...his presence in Rome may well have contributed to the expulsion by Claudius "at the instigation of one Chrestus".

I'm trying to find estimates of the Jewish population of Rome in the 1st century...I'm seeing numbers in the 10s of thousands, which sounds about right given the 4000 men that were sent to Sardinia. There were a number of synagogues in Rome in this period.

I have given you secular history indicating that millions of Israelites still lived beyond the Euphrates.

In around 450 B.C. though. We are talking about a date 500 years later after, among other things, Alexander the Great's invasions. Do you have any similar quotations about Jews in Babylon in the 1st century?

Babylon in the Epistle of Peter means Rome, not Babylon proper.

154 posted on 08/23/2007 7:44:32 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Claud

Well, there were Jews in Babylon. After all. we do have the Babylonian Talmud. But history in the New Testament is more often than not history by lighning flashes.


155 posted on 08/23/2007 7:50:11 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Claud
They were expelled under Claudius but they came right back under Nero...it was only a few years between. At any rate, Peter's arrival in Rome is traditionally dated well before that event as around 42 or so...his presence in Rome may well have contributed to the expulsion by Claudius "at the instigation of one Chrestus".

I'm glad you said traditionally......

In around 450 B.C. though. We are talking about a date 500 years later after, among other things, Alexander the Great's invasions. Do you have any similar quotations about Jews in Babylon in the 1st century?

See post #153.

Babylon in the Epistle of Peter means Rome, not Babylon proper.

I know you want to believe that but it says Babylon....it means Babylon. And the Babylon it means is the area of the Empire.....not the city.

Babylonian Jewry

156 posted on 08/23/2007 7:52:16 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by number.

I didn't read carefully enough, yes, he says now.

I'm still suspicious though. First of all, you are saying millions, and I dunno where you get millions. No actual figure is in the text. Second of all, I'm wondering whether Josephus might be making an assumption about their location. I'll do some more digging on this tomorrow.

But you are still dead wrong about Peter not being mentione Scripturally in Rome. Babylon was Rome, not Babylon. Revelations makes that clear. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Peter went to Babylon, while every historian/church father/apocryphal writer from the second century onward put him in Rome.

To you, that may be "tradition". Well, that's one tradition more than you got. Nobody ever put him in Babylon.

The people who ought to know best where Babylon was in the Epistle of Peter put Peter in Rome. Now how on earth I'm going to take your word for it over theirs is a mystery to me!

157 posted on 08/23/2007 7:55:27 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Claud

What a wonderful discussion this thread is!


158 posted on 08/23/2007 7:59:59 PM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for those in the womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
I'm glad you said traditionally......

LOL...oh I forgot. Everything written by Christians outside the NT is "tradition", not history.

I find it odd that you make it a point of pride to say how Josephus is a secular historian and therefore should be believed, and yet Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and all the CHRISTIAN authors from the same time period you so blithely throw in the pile of "tradition" to be ignored. Strange.

159 posted on 08/23/2007 8:01:43 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Claud; Diego1618
Babylon was Rome, not Babylon. Revelations makes that clear.

But how would Peter know that since Revelations was not written until 96 AD. No writer, secular or religious, ever referred to Rome as Babylon until after John's Revelation began to circulate.

160 posted on 08/23/2007 8:18:47 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-176 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson