kepha31
Regular Member
None of this proves Peter STAYED in Antioch.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
The NACE makes no such suggestion.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."
It proves he was there.So when was Peter in Rome? He died there but that doesn't prove much.
Because the Bishop of Antioch did not succeed the Chair of Peter. In order to be Pope, that bishop must follow the line of succession starting with Peter. But he is still a regular bishop in the diocese of Rome, so he has a two-fold function.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?
Different titles for the office of "Pope" were given at different times in history. Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God, First Among Equals etc.
These titles were not given yesterday. Each one has it's own history, and Bishop of Rome comes from the early church fathers.
“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).
“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).
‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.”
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).
“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.”
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)
You cannot construct early church history with the Bible Alone. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
Upvote
0