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.

---

[Diego1618]

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

You are the one who pointed out that it was tradition. If you wanted to say it was history.....then why didn't you?

I was merely pointing out the obvious.....that even you consider it tradition, not history! I should have indicated the levity of the situation by posting "LOL".....but I didn't want you to think I was laughing at you.

[Diego1618]

But how would Peter know that since Revelations was not written until 96 AD.

That's a good point, but when you look at the geography of the area to which he writing [1 Peter 1:1-2].....and to whom he's writing, the answers are obvious. Babylon is no more cryptic that Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.

The Israelites had been placed on the north and west borders of Assyria primarily to act as a buffer. It would not be strange at all to find some of them 700 years later somewhat north and west of there, now settled on the shores of the Black Sea.

No, Peter is speaking of Babylon on the Euphrates. There is no evidence that Rome was ever referred to as Babylon until John wrote of it in Revelation. We are in agreement. This would have been long after Peter had died and there is nothing in his letter that appears cryptic.....or apocalyptic. Peter is blunt to the point of being extremely plain. There is nothing mystical about this letter and he is very direct in stating his message.

In A.D. 40, three years after Paul's conversion, Peter is still hanging around Jerusalem [Galatians 1:18]. He is imprisoned (by Herod Agrippa 1) but miraculously escapes [Acts 12:5-11] and Herod dies [Acts 12:23] in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius (A.D. 45). Paul again visits Peter in Jerusalem [Galatians 2]....14 years later and they agree on who should evangelize who. Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Israelites. It is now A.D. 54 and as far as I can tell Peter hasn't traveled too far! Peter does go to Antioch soon after where Paul had established his headquarters [Acts 15:35] and they have their famous meeting [Galatians 2:11-14].

From then to about A.D. 60 Peter evidently made a evangelistic journey throughout the eastern areas....taking along his wife [1 Corinthians 9:5] and it is assumed that Peter stayed in the east (Babylon) since about the same time Paul is writing from Rome, saluting 27 different people and Peter is absent....and is not even mentioned [Romans 16]. Paul probably doesn't allude to him at all because he has never been there. The church was Gentile and he would have had no business there to begin with.

Paul finally gets to Rome about 63 A.D., writes four epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon) and never mentions Peter. He states in [2 Timothy 4:11] that only Luke is with him. This is during his second trip to Rome about 67/68 A.D. shortly before his death.

[Claud]

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.

But this reasoning is circular. You can't assert "no writer ever referred to Babylon until after John's Revelation" and then use that to argue against any previous instance. If this is Rome that Peter is talking about, then that is your earlier reference right there. John could well have gotten it from Peter.

[Claud]

You are the one who pointed out that it was tradition. If you wanted to say it was history.....then why didn't you?

I feel no need whatsoever to draw such a bright line between the two concepts--one is the oral form, the other the written. During WWII, my grandfather served in Africa, my other grandfather made munitions at a factory. How do I know those things? Not through any books but from the tradition my family has passed down. I have no documentation of either of those events...yet I know intimately some of the principals involved, so I am certain the tradition is true. If I ever decided to write about those things, I'd be writing history based on tradition. See, it's not so easy to pick the two apart.

On the other hand, I well know how easy it is for some here to simply toss Christian authors of the 1st - 3rd centuries into the "tradition" pile and thereby invalidate their whole credibility. So sometimes I am a little more circumspect about using that word.

I was merely pointing out the obvious.....that even you consider it tradition, not history! I should have indicated the levity of the situation by posting "LOL".....but I didn't want you to think I was laughing at you.

Feel free to laugh! Humility is a virtue. :)

[OLD REGGIE]

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

Council of Jerusalem presided over by James with Peter as one of the participants. After much discussion and argument Peter spoke.

Acts 15:
[7] And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
[8] And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;
[9] and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.
[10] Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
[11] But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
[12] And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
[13] After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me.
[14] Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

[15] And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,
[16] `After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up,
[17] that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
[18] says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.'
[19] Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

Barnabas and Paul spoke, and James, after listening to the entire discussion, prounounced his judgment.

Peter was a participant, not the leader.

[Claud]

There is no evidence that Rome was ever referred to as Babylon until John wrote of it in Revelation. We are in agreement. This would have been long after Peter had died and there is nothing in his letter that appears cryptic.....or apocalyptic.

We are not in agreement at all. First of all, I don't define 30-odd years as "long after Peter died". Peter died in around 66-7, John was writing mid-90s. And Peter's letter was addressed specifically to the churches of Asia Minor...where John was. So I don't have any doubt that John was very familiar with Peter's letter--and it would be as natural as anything for John to pick up on Peter's reference to Rome as Babylon and expand on it in Revelations. The "fact" that Rome was not mentioned as Babylon earlier than Revelations is predicated on the resolution of this question in 1 Peter: if it is Rome, then the first-mention-in-Revelations position obviously can't be sustained.

As to the non-apocalyptic tone of Peter's letter, he didn't have to be writing an apocalypse in order to do a simple play on the city. He may have been cryptic about the city name for a reason...perhaps persecution.

Paul probably doesn't allude to him at all because he has never been there. The church was Gentile and he would have had no business there to begin with.

Paul says in Romans 15:20 that he has been "hindered from coming" to them because his aim was "to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man's foundation." If a) the Church in Rome was solely Gentile and b) Paul was the only Apostle to the Gentiles, then how could it be that an Apostle was there founding a church before him? Seems to me somebody besides Paul had business there, and probably somebody big by the sound of it.

And as to why Paul does not salute Peter in Romans, Peter may well have been galavanting around and not in the city. Priscilla and Aquila left when Claudius expelled the Jews...Peter may have as well. It is pretty clear (to me anyway) that Peter was not in Rome the whole time. He made trips to other places, as you mention. That in no way contradicts the fact that he came to Rome and that he died there.

[Claud]

Peter was a participant, not the leader.

Mmm...I don't see that. James has a very prominent role, no question. And perhaps supporting your argument is that he says "it is my judgment" in Acts 15:19...but then you see right after that it's the apostles and presbyters in union with the Church that send Paul and the letter to Antioch.

Yet I wouldn't minimize Peter's influence here either. There was "much debate" (v. 7) until Peter spoke. After Peter speaks, "the whole assembly fell silent" (v. 12). Then when James gets up, the first thing he does is cite Peter (v. 14), and then says essentially the same thing that Peter did.

I don't want to turn this into which Apostle has more authority, but I think it's clear that they both assumed a particular leadership here, and that Peter was very much more than simply a "participant".

[Uncle Chip]

But this reasoning is circular. You can't assert "no writer ever referred to Babylon until after John's Revelation" and then use that to argue against any previous instance.

Okay then list all the writers, theologians, poets, philosophers after Peter but prior to John who referred to Rome as Babylon??? You won't find any even prior to Peter.

If this is Rome that Peter is talking about, then that is your earlier reference right there.

Where in the text of that letter would anyone get the remotest idea that he is in Rome? The letter is written to the Jews dispersed in Asia Minor and to those Jews of the dispersion the word "Babylon" meant only one place: Babylon on the Euphrates.

He could have gotten it from Peter

But how??? The Book of Revelation was given directly to John on Patmos circa 96 AD by revelation from Jesus directly --- not from Peter or anyone else or from previous knowledge or experience. He wrote what he saw and was told at that time. And let's see what he says in that famous Chapter 17:

"1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters ..... And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH....and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou wonder?"

Why is he wondering??? Why does he not know that he is looking at the city of Rome personified as Mystery Babylon??? Is he dense??? Clearly even though John sees the words "BABYLON THE GREAT" on her forehead, he is still clueless as to her identity --- until the angel reveals it to him:

"I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns..... The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.... And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."

John clearly had not associated Babylon with Rome until the angel told him here at the end of the chapter. And all writers after this never associate Rome with Babylon by citing Peter's Epistle. They do so by citing John's chapter 17, particularly this last sentence.

[Claud]

Okay then list all the writers, theologians, poets, philosophers after Peter but prior to John who referred to Rome as Babylon??? You won't find any even prior to Peter.

I never said that there were any. For the purpose of this discussion, I am assuming that Babylon = Rome for the first time in 1 Peter. And as for the intervening period with Revelation, just how extensive do you think the Jewish/Christian literature is from 65 to 95 A.D?

The record is much more clear in the centuries *after* John, when both the Jewish communities of the dispersion and the early Christian communities were still around. I really don't understand how you can arbitrarily impose this false stricture that we can only use materials prior to the writing of Revelations.

Your line is that I can't take their word for it because they are too far from the event. Well, by that logic, then still less can I rely on the testimony of those living *today* that assert it is Babylon proper. Because all the early sources say Peter was in Rome...Babylon comes up much much later.

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

Yes, there were Jews in Rome but they had not been preached to and knew next to nothing about Christianity. If Peter had been there he certainly missed the Jewish leaders.

Acts 28:
[16] And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier that guarded him.
[17] After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews; and when they had gathered, he said to them, "Brethren, though I had done nothing against the people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.[16] And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier that guarded him.
[18] When they had examined me, they wished to set me at liberty, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case.
[19] But when the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar -- though I had no charge to bring against my nation.
[20] For this reason therefore I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain."
[21] And they said to him, "We have received no letters from Judea about you, and none of the brethren coming here has reported or spoken any evil about you.
[22] But we desire to hear from you what your views are; for with regard to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against."
[23] When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in great numbers. And he expounded the matter to them from morning till evening, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the law of Moses and from the prophets.
[24] And some were convinced by what he said, while others disbelieved.

[OLD REGGIE]

Mmm...I don't see that. James has a very prominent role, no question. And perhaps supporting your argument is that he says "it is my judgment" in Acts 15:19...but then you see right after that it's the apostles and presbyters in union with the Church that send Paul and the letter to Antioch.

Oh I see! Democracy in action. Not one man rule. No "Pope".

Yet I wouldn't minimize Peter's influence here either. There was "much debate" (v. 7) until Peter spoke. After Peter speaks, "the whole assembly fell silent" (v. 12). Then when James gets up, the first thing he does is cite Peter (v. 14), and then says essentially the same thing that Peter did.

No doubt Peter had great influence and personal experience. You are aware aren't you the "experience" Peter was speaking of?

Yes, the assembly fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul.

don't want to turn this into which Apostle has more authority, but I think it's clear that they both assumed a particular leadership here, and that Peter was very much more than simply a "participant".

That's just my point. No Apostle had "authority" over the others. James led the Council because he was the presiding Bishop of Jerusalem, not because he had any particular "authority". In fact, he could have been overruled by the Apostles and Presbyters present.

Bear in mind the Apostles collectively sent Peter and John on a mission. (Acts 8:14).

[Claud]

all writers after this never associate Rome with Babylon by citing Peter's Epistle. They do so by citing John's chapter 17, particularly this last sentence.

Yes but these are the very same writers (Irenaeus, Tertullian) who said that Peter was in Rome. So even if they thought Babylon was the one on the Euphrates (which there is no evidence of that I'm aware of), they still put Peter in Rome, which is the point here.

Let's step back a bit. I don't necessarily have to assert that Babylon in 1 Peter is Rome. The case can stand without it, because even if Peter was in Babylon proper, he could have also gone to Rome as well. No skin off my nose. But to say that Peter was *never* in Rome, you have no choice but to take the position you are taking on the interpretation of Babylon. It is the whole entire case: there are no histories, traditions, anything of Peter being in Babylon except (if accurate) this one citation here. Whereas with me it's just a part of a larger body of evidence. Authors from the early centuries put Peter quite definitely in Rome quite apart from the mention of Babylon in the epistle.

Moreover, we see that a Christian community grew up in Rome that was quite conscious of its origins from Peter. Were the Assyrian Christians conscious of such a foundation? On the contrary, they claimed and still claim an origin from St. Thomas the Apostle, and if they mention St. Peter at all, it is always with reference to Babylon in the epistle. No stories of martyrdoms, no idea of ecclesiastical organization. Just the bare fact....and not nearly as early as we see with Rome.

BTW, I threw that bit about Johannine borrowing of Peter's epistle out there as an idea, but I think you do have a point well taken regarding the vision. So toss it out.

[Claud]

Yes, there were Jews in Rome but they had not been preached to and knew next to nothing about Christianity. If Peter had been there he certainly missed the Jewish leaders.

So is it out of the realm of possibility that he preached to the Gentiles there? I ask because I understood Diego1618 to say that Peter would have had "no business" preaching to Gentiles in Rome because that was Paul's mission. Diego, feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing here.

[OLD REGGIE]

So is it out of the realm of possibility that he preached to the Gentiles there?

Anything is possible but Peter's mission was to the Jews. Do you believe he'd ignore the Jewish leaders while in Rome?

[Diego1618]

Diego, feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing here.

Nah! You're doin' great, Claud. Couldn't have said it better myself!

[Diego1618]

Actually you have a problem here. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter the apostle to the Jews. It was paul who went to Rome. We know this from the Bible.

Actually.....you are not correct. Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles, Their Kings "and the Israelites" (Judah and Israel) [Acts 9:15].

Peter was not only an Apostle to the Jews (Judah).....he was also an Apostle to the other 11 tribes of Israel [Matthew 10:5-6] as well.

You are correct in that Peter never went to Rome. Only Paul did that.