Peter: Thirty-Five Years as Bishop of Rome?

[bbbbbbb]

So here the strawman is built.

And here it is burnt, oddly from a source that the author would consider biased and he refers to as using unverifiable tradition.

And finally the article that is linked does not make the claim that the author is trying to refute. So all in all a lot of clouds without any rain. Why not start with a true history, leaving out the arguments from silence that any good logician or historian would laugh at? Then maybe we can have a productive discussion.

Oh no. Arguments from silence are the best. That way, we can invent truly amazing things, like pink elephants grazing on chartreuse cotton candy on Mars, and then pass it off as an "Oral Tradition".

 

[Dale]

So here the strawman is built.


And here it is burnt, oddly from a source that the author would consider biased and he refers to as using unverifiable tradition.


And finally the article that is linked does not make the claim that the author is trying to refute. So all in all a lot of clouds without any rain. Why not start with a true history, leaving out the arguments from silence that any good logician or historian would laugh at? Then maybe we can have a productive discussion.

TZ, you say that " the article that is linked does not make the claim that the author is trying to refute."

The list of popes in New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is identical to the list of popes on the Vatican's website. Both claim that Peter assumed the office of Bishop of Rome in 32 AD and held it until 67 AD. It isn't my fault if articles in NACE aren't consistent with each other.

Link to list of popes on NACE:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes

Link to list of popes on Vatican site:
A List of Popes - Vatican Articles


Perhaps I should have provided these links earlier.

I have no idea why you would accuse me of setting up a "straw man."

 

[kepha31]

The apostolic stop watch used to time Peter and Paul's coming and going was confiscated by a Roman soldier.

Seriously, folks, Peter's whereabouts has absolutely no bearing on the doctrine on the papacy. No doubt he traveled a lot. Not every second of that time period got recorded.

 

[kepha31]

Both claim that Peter assumed the office of Bishop of Rome in 32 AD and held it until 67 AD.

Check again. The Church in Rome did not exist in 32 AD, but the office of Pope did when Jesus gave Peter the keys. The Primacy of Peter has nothing to do with his location.

 

[Dale]

Check again. The Church in Rome did not exist in 32 AD, but the office of Pope did when Jesus gave Peter the keys. The Primacy of Peter has nothing to do with his location.

Does that mean that you disagree with the Vatican about Peter assuming the office of Bishop of Rome in 32 AD?

 

[prodromos]

There is little doubt that the primitive church in Rome was primarily composed of Gentile believers and not Jewish believers and thus Paul was either mistaken in his understanding of Peter's commission or he was lying about it, if, indeed, Peter was bishop of Rome.

The Church in Corinth was largely made up of Jews who had fled the persecution in Rome. There had been a quite significant population of Jews in Rome, many of whom were also converts to Christianity. To say the Church in Rome was primarily made up of Gentiles is to be ignorant of history.

 

[kepha31]

Does that mean that you disagree with the Vatican about Peter assuming the office of Bishop of Rome in 32 AD?

The Church IN Rome did not exist in 32 AD. Both sources say WHEN Peter presided, they say nothing about WHERE. It's not important to Catholics. It's important to anti-Catholics who think they can use revised history to prove Peter was not the first Pope, when all the while it makes no difference WHERE Peter was. I am not disagreeing with the Vatican web site that says WHEN Peter presided, I am disagreeing with you where you say Peter was Bishop of Rome in 32 AD when the Church in Rome was non-existent. Peter's office was determined by Jesus, not by his location.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focussed on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

read more here

 

[tz620q]

Oh no. Arguments from silence are the best. That way, we can invent truly amazing things, like pink elephants grazing on chartreuse cotton candy on Mars, and then pass it off as an "Oral Tradition".

Are you trying to defend arguments from silence by using an argumentum ad absurdum? This type of logic is usually used to discredit the subject of the argument, in this case, arguments from silence. Even then you would need to show that "Oral Tradition" has led to a belief in pink elephants grazing on cotton candy on Mars or something similar to this. You see whatever the paradigm you pick it should be measured by cohesive logic within its framework. I am simply pointing out that the solo scriptura approach to history is illogical, since this would require a proof that the Bible is an exhaustive history text and since the argument starts out by only allowing evidence from within the Bible, it would need to show that the Bible thought of itself as such a history textbook.

 

[tz620q]

TZ, you say that " the article that is linked does not make the claim that the author is trying to refute."

Perhaps I should have provided these links earlier.

Thank you. At least now we can start to see the basis for your argument. The articles linked before did not show this.

I have no idea why you would accuse me of setting up a "straw man."

The strawman is that the Vatican makes the claim that Peter went to Rome in 32 AD and started the church there. You have not shown on what you base this claim. This has nothing to do with lists of Popes. The Catholic Church does not claim that the Pope needs to be in Rome to be the Pope.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Church in Corinth was largely made up of Jews who had fled the persecution in Rome. There had been a quite significant population of Jews in Rome, many of whom were also converts to Christianity. To say the Church in Rome was primarily made up of Gentiles is to be ignorant of history.

Perhaps. However, in reading Paul's letter to the Romans it is quite evident that his audience was not Jewish, but Gentile. If the Roman church was primarily Jewish would not you think his letter might have been more along the lines of Hebrews?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Are you trying to defend arguments from silence by using an argumentum ad absurdum? This type of logic is usually used to discredit the subject of the argument, in this case, arguments from silence. Even then you would need to show that "Oral Tradition" has led to a belief in pink elephants grazing on cotton candy on Mars or something similar to this. You see whatever the paradigm you pick it should be measured by cohesive logic within its framework. I am simply pointing out that the solo scriptura approach to history is illogical, since this would require a proof that the Bible is an exhaustive history text and since the argument starts out by only allowing evidence from within the Bible, it would need to show that the Bible thought of itself as such a history textbook.

Your denomination has a large number of arguments from silence. Where do I begin? It obviously doesn't include any pink elephant dogmas, but it does include such things as papal infallibity, the entire concept of the papacy, the four Marian dogmas.

The beauty of arguments from silence is that they can be exceedingly logical and can be so because they do not depend upon any historical data. Whether you find your data in the Bible or Josephus or Pliny the Elder is not the point. The point is that arguments are developed without any reference to historical data.

 

[tz620q]

Ahh, first sarcasm, then shotgun apologetics. I am really tired of these tactics. The thing that is strange to me is that I was trying to make the very point you outlined above. This is that the preponderance of historical data shows Peter in Rome and being a leader there. The only argument that seems valid is what is the true meaning of being the Pope.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ahh, first sarcasm, then shotgun apologetics. I am really tired of these tactics. The thing that is strange to me is that I was trying to make the very point you outlined above. This is that the preponderance of historical data shows Peter in Rome and being a leader there. The only argument that seems valid is what is the true meaning of being the Pope.

Please provide the preponderance of historical data for Peter being in Rome.

 

[tz620q]

Please provide the preponderance of historical data for Peter being in Rome.

This is another tactic that I find very lazy. First a claim is made against the Catholic Church, then no evidence or little evidence is provided to support the claim. Then the Catholic is asked to provide evidence refuting the claim. Finally, the Protestant says "Aha, I do not accept any of your evidence, since it is not Scripture." Before I do a large cut and paste, please provide me with what you would consider credible history.

 

[kepha31]

The Protestant is forced to construct early church history based on Bible Alone theology, which is IMPOSSIBLE.

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
​

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is another tactic that I find very lazy. First a claim is made against the Catholic Church, then no evidence or little evidence is provided to support the claim. Then the Catholic is asked to provide evidence refuting the claim. Finally, the Protestant says "Aha, I do not accept any of your evidence, since it is not Scripture." Before I do a large cut and paste, please provide me with what you would consider credible history.

I will gladly accept any first-century historical data. This, of course, includes not only the Bible, but a vast amount of records from the Chinese empire, the Indian sub-continent, not to mention various writings from Roman Empire historians such as either Pliny the Elder or Pliny the Younger. It obviously leaves out later historians such as Herodotus.

Thank you.

 

[tz620q]

I will gladly accept any first-century historical data. This, of course, includes not only the Bible, but a vast amount of records from the Chinese empire, the Indian sub-continent, not to mention various writings from Roman Empire historians such as either Pliny the Elder or Pliny the Younger. It obviously leaves out later historians such as Herodotus.

Thank you.

Referring to Herodotus had me scratching my head. I'll mark it up as mistaken identity.

From Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Romans Chapter 4
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant."
This shows that the Bishop of Antioch in 110 A.D. believed that Peter and Paul issued commands in Rome.

From Clements First Letter to Corinth dated around 95 A.D. in Chapter 4 and 5 it lists many martyrs with this in Chapter 5,
First Clement: Clement of Rome
"Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles. Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."

Then in Chapter 6 it states
"To these men, who walked in holiness, there was gathered a great multitude of the elect, who, having suffered, through envy, many insults and tortures, became a most excellent example among us."
Since Clement is sending this from the Church in Rome, the "among us" implies among the Christians in Rome.

From Papias about Mark's Gospel (writing around 140-150 A.D.)
"This also the elder [John] said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter wrote accurately everything that he remembered of the things that were either said or done by Christ; but however not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor had been a follower of His; but afterwards, as I said, was a follower of Peter, who framed his teaching according to the needs [of his hearers], but not with the design of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses [or oracles]. Thus Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them."

Bishop Clement of Alexandria goes on to say that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, while acting as Peter's secretary.

All of these quotes are from roughly the first hundred years of Christianity. As you are aware the number of extant Christian writings from that time period are mere pages as can be expected from a persecuted sect of a proscribed religion (Judaism). Now I challenge you to find writings from that time period that say that Peter never went to Rome or that Peter was never a leader in the early church.

 

[Dale]

The Church IN Rome did not exist in 32 AD. Both sources say WHEN Peter presided, they say nothing about WHERE. It's not important to Catholics. It's important to anti-Catholics who think they can use revised history to prove Peter was not the first Pope, when all the while it makes no difference WHERE Peter was. I am not disagreeing with the Vatican web site that says WHEN Peter presided, I am disagreeing with you where you say Peter was Bishop of Rome in 32 AD when the Church in Rome was non-existent. Peter's office was determined by Jesus, not by his location.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focussed on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

read more here

Kepha in post #27:

<< I am not disagreeing with the Vatican web site that says WHEN Peter presided, I am disagreeing with you where you say Peter was Bishop of Rome in 32 AD when the Church in Rome was non-existent. Peter's office was determined by Jesus, not by his location. >>

I find the Roman Catholic position to be confusing. The RC defines the Pope as the Bishop of Rome but that apparently doesn't apply to the original pope. Was Peter the pope when Jesus was still on earth? Or did he become pope after the martyrdom of James, as someone suggested? I was thinking he could only be pope after arriving in Rome.

One objection to the title "pope"-- it means father.

Pope comes from the Latin and Greek words for Father.

Yet Jesus specifically told his disciples not to use "father" as a title of office or respect. So it makes no sense for priests to be called "Father" and no sense for the head of the church to be "Pope," which means father.

8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
--Matthew 23:8-12 NIV=

8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. 11 He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; 12 whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
--Matthew 23:8-12 RSV

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
--Matthew 23:8-12 KJV

 

[Dale]

Are you trying to defend arguments from silence by using an argumentum ad absurdum? This type of logic is usually used to discredit the subject of the argument, in this case, arguments from silence. Even then you would need to show that "Oral Tradition" has led to a belief in pink elephants grazing on cotton candy on Mars or something similar to this. You see whatever the paradigm you pick it should be measured by cohesive logic within its framework. I am simply pointing out that the solo scriptura approach to history is illogical, since this would require a proof that the Bible is an exhaustive history text and since the argument starts out by only allowing evidence from within the Bible, it would need to show that the Bible thought of itself as such a history textbook.

TZ in post #28:
<< I am simply pointing out that the solo scriptura approach to history is illogical, since this would require a proof that the Bible is an exhaustive history text and since the argument starts out by only allowing evidence from within the Bible ... >>

I have never heard the words "sola scriptura" spoken in church, although the concept that the Bible is the final authority in religious matters is certainly there.

The Bible is not a history text and it doesn't tell us everything we would like to know. The problem is that we don't always know if sources outside the Bible are accurate. I am not an extremist on this. I have cited the Apostles Creed and other early creeds as evidence of what Christians believed at that time, for instance.

 

[Dale]

Ahh, first sarcasm, then shotgun apologetics. I am really tired of these tactics. The thing that is strange to me is that I was trying to make the very point you outlined above. This is that the preponderance of historical data shows Peter in Rome and being a leader there. The only argument that seems valid is what is the true meaning of being the Pope.

TZ in post #32:
<< This is that the preponderance of historical data shows Peter in Rome and being a leader there. The only argument that seems valid is what is the true meaning of being the Pope. >>


"The distinctive Petrine material in Matthew(16:17-20, 18:21, etc.) reflects perhaps the Apostle's popularity and influence at Antioch."
--Harper's Bible Dictionary under Peter

"The Christian community of Antioch was founded by Christianized Jews who had been driven from Jerusalem by the persecution (Acts 11:19 sqq.). Peter's residence among them is proved by the episode concerning the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law even by Christianized pagans, related by St. Paul (Galatians 2:11-21). "

and

"Eusebius, Church History III.36), that Peter founded the Church of Antioch, indicates the fact that he laboured a long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end of his life and then appointed Evodrius, the first of the line of Antiochian bishops, head of the community. This latter view would best explain the tradition referring the foundation of the Church of Antioch to St. Peter. "

--New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia under Peter
Link: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles


Everyone agrees that Peter was at Antioch. He may have founded the church there, and NACE suggests that Peter was there "towards the end of his life."

So when was Peter in Rome? He died there but that doesn't prove much. It looks like Peter may have spent more time in Antioch than he spent in Rome. If so, why wouldn't Peter's position be inherited by the Bishop of Antioch instead of the next Bishop of Rome?