Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)

Ignatius Insight ^ | 2005 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[betty boop]

Hardly. How can anyone say with any certainty that he lives in a “material” world when he does not know what matter “is”?

We run into this phenomenon of assuming a greater knowledge domain from a smaller observer vantage point all the time on science threads where the correspondent insists that randomness exists and yet one cannot say that randomness exists in a system unless he knows what the system “is.”

Great points, Alamo-Girl. Especially thank you for your "little epistemological list." It bears close study!

[Uncle Chip]

"There is no evidence that Peter was ever in modern day Iraq"

He was in Babylon according to 1 Peter 5:13 where he wrote this first epistle circa 65 AD. It was not even part of the Roman Empire then, but part of the Parthian Empire with a substantial Jewish population centering around the Babylonian Talmud.

[Uncle Chip]

Peter being a Jew and not a Roman citizen, would have been personna non grata there.

As evidenced by the fact that they crucified him upside down.

----- 25 years later?????? They wouldn't know that he was there for 25 years? After Claudius issued his decree for all Jews to leave Rome, Peter would never have been allowed into Rome at all, and if found escorted out. They weren't crucifying Jews, just expelling them from Rome, and many went to Asia Minor, Pontus, etc,. That is why he referred to them in Asia Minor as "sojourners" and had probably visited them before going to Babylon.

[adiaireton8]

The whole of Christian tradition and the fathers take Peter's use of the term 'Babylon' as a reference to Rome. No Bible scholar worth his salt claims that there is any evidence that Peter was ever in modern day Iraq.

I have to ask, Why do you not want it to be true that Peter was in Rome? It seems to me that you desparately don't want to acknowledge that Peter was in Rome. That you just made up the notion that Luke claimed Peter was imprisoned by Herod in 44 AD, apparently in order to attempt to refute Jerome, is telling. Why do you kick against the goads?

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

Then explain how Peter could be the Bishop of Rome from 42 to 67 AD and still appear before Herod in 44 AD according to those Acts of the Apostles that Jerome had in his hands at the time. Did he not trust Luke? Who did he consider more trustworthy: Luke or Eusebius or his own imagination?

This is an example of being an uncharitable interpreter. Luke does not use the term "44 AD". Nor does Luke say anything that requires us to think that Peter appeared before Herod in 44 AD. Peter's imprisonment under Herod (and release by the angel) is thought to have occurred in 42 AD.

Thought by whom? --- Jerome. Historians put the reign of Herod Agrippa at 39 to 44 AD. The narrative in Acts 12 would put Peter's imprisonment and release closer to Herod's death in 44 AD.

But let's go forward to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 where Peter was a major player. When was that? 49 AD? 50 AD? some put it 51 or 52. How could Peter be at the Council of Jerusalem and serving as Bishop of Rome at the same time? Bishops did not travel. They resided in one place with their flock. So what was Peter at that point: an Apostle or a Bishop? He couldn't be both. One or the other.

And was Peter in two places at one time? or did he have a clone?

Or was Peter simply in Jerusalem as Luke records traveling between Jerusalem and Asia Minor and Parthian Babylon, and not in Rome as Eusebius and Jerome erroneously pontificate.

You trust Jerome all you like. I trust Luke and his fellow writers.

[Uncle Chip]

Isn't Scripture amazing ---- and never failing

[Diego1618]

Slander is a sin. You should be real sure you're right when you slander a billion +

Yeah....I'm sure!

[Uncle Chip]

The whole of Christian tradition and the fathers take Peter's use of the term 'Babylon' as a reference to Rome. No Bible scholar worth his salt claims that there is any evidence that Peter was ever in modern day Iraq.

You wouldn't be siding with the theologians of your "separated brethren" on this, would you? Oh how I have heard the protests from Rome about being called "Babylon"!!!! And now you are insisting that we call Rome "Babylon?

All kidding aside, though, even the churches of the Reformation and later have their "patriarchs" and "traditional interpretations", but when confronted with the facts of Scripture, those things should give way. Unfortunately, they often do not.

The basic rule of hermeneutical interpretation is that the plain meaning of Scripture is to rule over the imaginative meaning. If it is possible and probable that "Babylon" means "Babylon" then without further consternation, it means "Babylon". Why would this be the only place in the New Testament when a writer had to hide the fact of where he is? Peter was not deceptive. He was just straight-forward. Rome was Rome. Babylon was Babylon, and every Jew knew what Babylon was and where it was.

If Rome was known as Babylon, then why didn't all the "Fathers" refer to the Church of Babylon instead of the Church of Rome? What Peter meant by "Babylon" and what John meant by the term, might be different, as the latter was writing figuratively.

[adiaireton8]

The narrative in Acts 12 would put Peter's imprisonment and release closer to Herod's death in 44 AD.

That's unjustified speculation on your part. You are using another argument from silence to claim that events that occurred in 42 AD must have occurred in 44 AD, since the two narratives don't say that two years elapsed between them.

How could Peter be at the Council of Jerusalem and serving as Bishop of Rome at the same time? Bishops did not travel.

Where did you get the notion that "bishops did not travel"? How would they ever get to ecumenical councils if they did not travel??

You trust Jerome all you like. I trust Luke and his fellow writers.

The very notion that one has to choose between Jerome and Luke is a construct of your own making.

Here'e a timeline of Peter's life, from Stephen Ray's Upon This Rock:

c. 30   Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus; Pentecost

30-37   Peter head of the Church in Jerusalem

38-39   Peter's missionary journeys in Samaria and on the coast of Palestine

40-41   Peter in Antioch

42      Imprisonment in Jerusalem, escape, and departure to "another place".

42-49   First sojourn in Rome

49      Expulsion from Rome by the edict of Claudius against its Jews

49-50   In Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council

50-54   In Antioch, Bithynia, Pontus, Asia, and Cappadocia (or some of them)

54-57   Second sojourn in Rome; Gospel of Mark written under Peter's direction

57-62   In Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia (or some of them); Mark in Alexandria, Egypt

62-67   Third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome

67      Martyrdom in Rome and burial near the Necropolis at the Vatican.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

If Rome was known as Babylon, then why didn't all the "Fathers" refer to the Church of Babylon instead of the Church of Rome?

Again, another argument from silence. You seem to have a thought pattern that makes frequent use of and gives great weight to arguments from silence. A review of the basic informal fallacies might be helpful to you.

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

So Ray says that Peter was in Rome for 7 years, then away from Rome for 13 years, then back in Rome for 5 years. Well then he too disagrees with Jerome. So Is Ray right or Jerome? Jerome's 25 years versus Ray's 7 and maybe 5 more if they wanted Peter back after a 13 year hiatus?

Surely you are not going to tell us that Peter had a 13 year long distance Bishopric with his flock in Rome? And if he had been away that long, surely he would have written letters to them during those 13 years. Where are those? Where are any? Nowhere because it never happened.

Apostles travelled and established churches. Bishops resided with their churches and shepherded their flock, and they did not take 13 year sabbaticals away from their flocks without resigning their bishoprics.

The Church at Rome was not established by Peter in 42 or any time by Peter. It was established by Paul after he wrote his Epistle to the Romans which was circa 56 AD.

In Ch 1:11 of Romans Paul writes: "For I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift to the end that ye may be ESTABLISHED". As late as 56 AD there were believers there in Rome but without a spiritual gift and therefore not established in the apostolic way. And Paul did that when he was taken to Rome.

[adiaireton8]

All believers with The Indwelling Spirit have sufficient authority to test the spirits and discern as well as they are able BY HOLY SPIRIT'S AUTHORITY WITHIN THEM.

One problem with gnosticism is that it lacks any objective way of determining who has "The Indwelling Spirit", and thus who has authority. If two people each claim to have "The Indwelling Spirit", and they disagree with each other, there is no way of determining who is right. Each thinks that he is right and that the other is wrong. And so they must each go their separate ways, adding to the 20,000+ number of already existing sects. In short, the position is a concession to skepticism about the possibility of objective theological knowledge.

-A8

(PS: Please stop using all caps.)

[Uncle Chip]

Again, another argument from silence.

You still have shown us no other "Father" of the early Church to attest to Peter's 25 year bishopric? They are all so silent. You said that there were so many. Where are they? They too must be arguing from silence. Right???

[adiaireton8]

So Ray says that Peter was in Rome for 7 years, then away from Rome for 13 years

No, Ray does not say that Peter was away from Rome for 13 years. I have no idea where you are getting that.

Is Ray right or Jerome?

Once again, the very notion that one has to choose between Jerome and Ray is a construct of your own making. Do you notice a pattern here? You are revealing your rush to find contradictions where there are none, and thus revealing your cynical/skeptical approach to the Fathers and to Catholicism, not a genuine truth-seeking approach.

Given that you have just started to read the fathers, it is amazing to me that you have the audacity to make such hand-waving dismissals of long-established traditions and claims of the Fathers.

The commandment to honor and mother and father does not merely apply to our biological parents, but also to our mothers and fathers in the faith. And that includes the Church Fathers.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

You said that there were so many. Where are they? They too must be arguing from silence. Right???

That is a non sequitur.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

You said that there were so many.

No I didn't, but it is becoming quite clear that you are not interested in truth, especially when you attribute to me things I never said.

-A8

[wagglebee]

Apostles travelled and established churches. Bishops resided with their churches and shepherded their flock, and they did not take 13 year sabbaticals away from their flocks without resigning their bishoprics.

Since you are such an adherent to sola scriptura, please cite your source of this.

[Diego1618]

Babylon had been in ruins for 200 years at that point. It was a minor caravan stop, nothing more.

This is simply untrue! Josephus speaks of Israelites, beyond numbers, not subject to the Romans living in "Babylon" during the first century. You will find this in "Antiquities" Book XI, Chapter V, paragraph 2.

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 numbers.

Matthew 10:5-6 directs Peter and the other Eleven to evangelize these "Lost Sheep" and not to go among the Gentiles. In 1 Peter 1:1-2 you will find Peter doing just that....evangelizing "Those with the foreknowledge of God". In fact Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles....and Rome, was told to stay away from there [Acts 16:7].

You will find that Babylon was a little more than a caravan stop during the first century. You may not like the idea of Peter being there but both history and scripture verify it. They do not do the same for him being in Rome.....at any time.

[Diego1618]

WHAT POSSIBLE REASON WOULD THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS HAVE HAD TO LIE ABOUT WHAT PETER WAS DOING? wagglebee

Good question and it should be pursued. There is very little in the writings of the early church fathers regarding Peter being in Rome. Uncle Chip

In Acts 8 we read of another "Simon"....Simon Magus who was a counterfeit.....perverted the gospel....was a descendant of Babylonians [II Kings 17:24].....spent most of his latter years in Rome known as Father Simon or Simon Pater.

I think there is probably some historical confusion about Simon Magus and Simon Peter.

[ladyinred]

If Rome was known as Babylon, then why didn't all the "Fathers" refer to the Church of Babylon instead of the Church of Rome?

Again, another argument from silence. You seem to have a thought pattern that makes frequent use of and gives great weight to arguments from silence. A review of the basic informal fallacies might be helpful to you.

Was that your answer to the question?