Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)

Ignatius Insight ^ | 2005 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[saradippity]

And I in turn appreciate your polite,civil response to my comment. I also appreciate your thoughtful,informed posts on the religious threads and just as you do not agree with my understanding of those scripture passages I cited,I do not agree with your understanding of many things you say. Nonetheless,I always look forward to reading your comments and learn from many of them.

Because of my regard for your input,I would be most interested in your thoughts on another thread that is running now,the subject is Pope Benedict's talk,given at the Italian Bishops' conference in Verona Italy. Because I lack even basic computer skills,I can't ping you to it from here;however,I will go over there and ping you to the thread.

I will understand if you are too busy to reply but am interested,I think it is what the Christian world needs as a point of focus in these times. I also think Pope Benedict XVI has a brilliant mind,an awesome holiness and true humility. Truly a follower and imitator of Christ.

[Uncle Chip]

Adiaireton8, pinging Adiaireton8 ----- no transmission came through, I repeat, no transmission came through.Are you there?????? Nothing came through.We're waiting for your Part 2. We're waiting for your part. Aidiareton8, are you Okay????? We're waiting . . . waiting . . . w a i t i n g . . . w a i t i n g . . . . . . . . w a i t i n g . . . . . . .

[Uncle Chip]

Several hundred posts ago, Adiaireton8 very clearly stated a preference to postpone any further conversation with you until you demonstrated an interest in honest and sincere dialog. Nonetheless, you’re continuing to write lengthy posts to him. Since he appears to be ignoring you, you’ll surely not mind if I receive the benefit of your thorough and exhaustive research.

Adiaireton8, is that you???????

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hello Uncle Chip

Looks like you've missed a few posts to yourself. Here's the thirty second version. Adairton8 told you he was not interested in continuing the discussion with you until you demonstrate a willingness to engage in a sincere and honest discussion. Given that you ignored what he wrote, some might go so far as to say he made a very wise choice.

In other news, you and Diego1618 have yet to produce a singe piece of evidence to support your assertion that Peter was never in Rome.

I'm still waiting for the result of your exhaustive search of Scripture about the death of St. Peter. Where does Scripture say St. Peter died?

[Uncle Chip]

Hello Uncle Chip Looks like you've missed a few posts to yourself. Here's the thirty second version. Adairton8 told you he was not interested in continuing the discussion with you until you demonstrate a willingness to engage in a sincere and honest discussion. Given that you ignored what he wrote, some might go so far as to say he made a very wise choice.

Adiaireton8, Is that you????? Adiaireton8, come on now, is that you???????

[InterestedQuestioner]

Uncle Chip,

I'll take this as your concession that you have no evidence to support your assertion that Peter was never in Rome. That is to say, you have neither Scripture nor historical evidence to support your claim.

You're argument runs contrary to all historical evidence, and it's based upon a logical fallacy.

The historical record is unanimous. The Apostle Peter was in fact in Rome, and he died there.

[Uncle Chip]

I'll take this as your concession that you have no evidence to support your assertion that Peter was never in Rome. That is to say, you have neither Scripture nor historical evidence to support your claim.

Come on, Adiaireton8, send us your Part 2. I did my part, now you need to do yours. Quit sandbagging and stalling and send us those sacred words of the Holy Fathers. We'll be careful with them. Come on, Adaire

[InterestedQuestioner]

Uncle Chip,

I think I've made my point sufficiently clear. Namely, you have no evidence from Scripture or other historical sources to support your claim that Peter was never in Rome. The historical evidence, on the other hand, is unanimous in placing St. Peter in Rome.

Would you like to retract your claim that Peter was never in Rome?

An honest admission that you have zero evidence to support you claim that St. Peter was never in Rome coupled with an honest admission that your view is unanimously contradicted by a wealth of historical evidence would help you establish that you are in fact willing to participate in sincere and honest dialog, no?

[DouglasKC]

I think I've made my point sufficiently clear. Namely, you have no evidence from Scripture or other historical sources to support your claim that Peter was never in Rome. The historical evidence, on the other hand, is unanimous in placing St. Peter in Rome.

Since the biblical Peter was never in Rome (at least scripturally) and you say there is historical evidence of Peter in Rome, the have you considered the possibilit that it may have been a Peter other than the biblical Peter?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thank you for your splendid "Thesis of Uncle Chip and Adiaireton8."

Comprehensive, conclusive and short. Most excellent work, gentlemen.

Do you have a publisher for it yet?

[InterestedQuestioner]

"you say there is historical evidence of Peter in Rome, the have you considered the possibilit that it may have been a Peter other than the biblical Peter?"

Do you have any evidence of a 1st century individual named Peter, other than the Apostle who was named Peter by Christ?

[Uncle Chip]

Need I remind you of the topic of our thesis:

THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO

Part 1] Evidence From the Holy Scriptures: There is no evidence at all.

Part 2] Evidence From the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: (coming soon from Adiaireton8 or InterestedQuestioner)

Your magisterium doesn't just claim that Peter was in Rome, they claim that he took up residence there as a bishop. Now post the evidence of such from the sacred words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers so that we can finish Part 2 and move on to the next step of our studies.

[Running On Empty]

I've just been an observer, and am not speaking for Adiareton8--only for myself. It may be that he has chosen the better part and it won't be taken away from him.

His questioners have acted more like provocateurs than ones who would say "Come, let us reason together".

He has, as IQ reminded you in a post above, told you how he wanted to participate in this "discussion".

ROE

[Uncle Chip]

I'm not sure what to do with it yet. Do you think that it is too long? Too verbose? I'm open to suggestions?

[Running On Empty]

I'm sorry--I should have said "some of his questioners" and not make it seem as if it were all.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Uncle Chip,

So you concede you have no evidence that St. Peter was never in Rome? Are you also conceding that the historical record is unanimous in placing St. Peter in Rome?

[1000 silverlings]

move on to the next step of our studies

I like to read up ahead of time, so what do you reckon this might be?

[DouglasKC]

"you say there is historical evidence of Peter in Rome, the have you considered the possibilit that it may have been a Peter other than the biblical Peter?"
Do you have any evidence of a 1st century individual named Peter, other than the Apostle who was named Peter by Christ?

I guess a more accurate question would have been, do you think that the first pope could have claimed to be Peter, or was mistakenly assumed to be the biblical Peter, but wasn't really Peter? Whether or not the biblical Peter was ever in Rome I mean.

[Uncle Chip]

Need I remind you again of the topic of our thesis for which you have failed to supply your part: THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO Part 1] Evidence From the Holy Scriptures: There is no evidence at all. Part 2] Evidence From the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: (coming soon from Adiaireton8 or InterestedQuestioner)

Post those words from the Fathers that you think put Saint Peter in Rome for any length of time. Put your sacred words on the screen for the entire congregation to judge. Maybe I will be right and maybe I will be wrong, but we won't know until you show us the evidence.

You do have evidence for that Bishopric, don't you? Or are you now backing off of that and all you really can find in the words of the Fathers is that Peter was in Rome for maybe a hamburger and no more?.

Are you now backing off of that magnificent legend in the face of a little scrutiny now?

[Uncle Chip]

Critical Analysis to determine the credibility of competing words and claims