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.

---

[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.

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.

[OLD REGGIE]

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???

[Uncle Chip]

"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???

[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.

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

[Diego1618]

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.

[RobbyS]

“...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.

[Diego1618]

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.

[Claud]

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.

[Claud]

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".

[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. 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.

[Claud]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Diego1618]

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.

[Claud]

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.

[RobbyS]

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.

[Diego1618]

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

[Claud]

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!

[MHGinTN]

What a wonderful discussion this thread is!

[Claud]

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.

[Uncle Chip]

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.