Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

Albion said:

Does it matter one way or the other if Peter was in Rome or not?

Click to expand...

No, it doesnt really. But, the early church fathers wrote about him being there.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

James (Yaakov) was replaced by Simeon (Shimon). James was head of the Jerusalem Church. All of our Bishops were Jews until 135 AD.

Click to expand...

You would think the NT writers would consider that "important" if it was...

Albion said:

Does it matter one way or the other if Peter was in Rome or not?

Click to expand...

he had to have been there at least at some point when he wrote about "she who is in Babylon" 1 Pet 5:13 because for sure - he never went to literal Babylon

I believe he was in Rome, but if he was not--as some people insist--then the question still is "What difference would that make?" to any of the doctrines, methodologies, and so on that we have been discussing lately.

Albion said:

I believe he was in Rome, but if he was not--as some people insist--then the question still is "What difference would that make?" to any of the doctrines, methodologies, and so on that we have been discussing lately.

Click to expand...

Not much I suppose

BobRyan said:

You would think the NT writers would consider that "important" if it was...

Click to expand...

Not everything is in the NT. Each bishopric kept its own records. Remember, this was just before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Not everything is in the NT. Each bishopric kept its own records. Remember, this was just before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

Click to expand...

And John was writing long after that...odd that he did not consider the "detail" of apostolic succession worth mentioning if indeed it happened.

What is more - James was killed at the time of Acts 12 long before 70 AD. no mention of succession for James in Acts 12 where his death is recorded, no mention of it when Paul is commissioned in Acts 13, no mention of it at the Acts 15 council , no mention of it in the Acts 21 meeting of the council with Paul about other Christian Jews in Jerusalem.

If apostolic succession was even "a thing" that happened (other than for Judas of course) -- it was apparently "not worth mentioning" by those recording the NT church actions.

And that brings up the question... "how so?"

Lost4words said:

There are but you refute them as pointing to purgatory.

Click to expand...

Then by all means post them out for us to see.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Papist revisionism. The ONLY reason the RCC is in those other regions is because they BROKE Council rulings that they themselves signed and went into other Patriarchal territories! The reason was because the RCC separated itself from The Church through schism and heresy. The first Bishopric was Orthodox in Jerusalem, not in Rome.

Click to expand...

The first Bishopric did not belong to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. If we had to place it within a religion that it identified with, we would say that it was Jewish or maybe members of a Christian sect of Judaism. Saying that it was Orthodox is using revisionist history, taking a concept that did not exist at that moment but only really clarified it's scope after 1054. But you are not really addressing any of the key points in my post. First you are conflating the term Bishop and Apostle with the term Patriarch. Do you believe these are the same functional job? And if there is a functional description of what a Patriarch is, then does Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and even Constantinople (Istanbul) merit that functional title anymore? Furthermore, when did this list of Patriarchs calcify into an unchanging list?

Lost4words said:

Some 'evidence' that Peter was in Rome. Google is your friend!

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Protestants admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.”

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning [Nero reigned from 54–68], Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

Click to expand...

The Bible does not mention Peter as ever going to Rome, and there is no early Christian record of this being the case. Even at the end of the first century, the author of 1 Clement appears unaware that St. Peter ever came to Rome. Written from Rome, 1 Clement mentions Peter's 'many labours' and makes a general comment about Peter's death, without mentioning Rome: "There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory." Rex Wyler, in The Jesus Sayings, page 252, says the legend that Peter visited Rome appears in the non-canonical Acts of Peter, composed in about 185 CE. Eusebius embellishes this report two centuries later by adding that both Peter and Paul were executed in Rome during Nero's persecutions, but he cites no source and gives an erroneous date, casting doubt on his research.

John W. O’Malley, S.J. says, in A History of the Popes, page 8, that no one piece of evidence states in straightforward and unambiguous language either that Peter either went to Rome or that he died there, although O’Malley finds the circumstantial evidence is persuasive. Part of the evidence O'Malley relies on is in 1 Peter, which he acknowledges might not have been written by Peter himself, but claims it was at least written under his inspiration.

Francis A. Sullivan S.J. says, in From Apostles to Bishops, page 15, that there is a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that the church of Rome was most probably led by a college of presbyters until well into the second century. He says there is no evidence of a ruling bishop in the first century. Now, it seems inconceivable that Peter would lead the church in Rome, as its first bishop, and appoint a successor as bishop, only for the Christian community of Rome to ignore this precedent for up to a century after the death of Linus.
What evidence is there that Peter was a bishop in Rome?

BobRyan said:

well.. there is "one" example. Judas had a successor

But where was the "rush" to go find a new apostle when James was killed?

Things that make you go "hmmm"

Click to expand...

That is a good point. However, Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas) with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority.

BNR32FAN said:

They may have had to flee the area for a while until diplomatic arrangements could be made but they never lost their acknowledgment as patriarchs as a result. Antioch simply relocated to Syria during the Ottoman invasion. At no time was there an absence of any of the 5 pentiarchs. One thing that does still puzzle me is the claims concerning the authority given by the Emperor of Rome to both Rome and Constantinople. I really don’t see what authority the emperor had in church matters. Roman emperors have always been, how should I say, “less than Christian” for the most part. So I hardly think they were in a position to determine who the head of the church is. But in any case all 5 patriarchs of the pentarchy remained intact to this day.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Emperor and the Church, both in the west and in the east, had a checkered history. At the time of the Schism, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, had ambitions on being Emperor. This finally lead to his being removed and exiled by the Emperor in 1058. Here is a link to a brief history of this man. As far as the pentarchy, the EOC has broken that claim themselves by elevating Moscow to having a Patriarch. They, rightly, see the need for a center of Christianity in Moscow; but fail to acknowledge that the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem no longer have any meaningful need.

BobRyan said:

And John was writing long after that...odd that he did not consider the "detail" of apostolic succession worth mentioning if indeed it happened.

What is more - James was killed at the time of Acts 12 long before 70 AD. no mention of succession for James in Acts 12 where his death is recorded, no mention of it when Paul is commissioned in Acts 13, no mention of it at the Acts 15 council , no mention of it in the Acts 21 meeting of the council with Paul about other Christian Jews in Jerusalem.

If apostolic succession was even "a thing" that happened (other than for Judas of course) -- it was apparently "not worth mentioning" by those recording the NT church actions.

And that brings up the question... "how so?"

Click to expand...

Ah, I understand your confusion now. Shimon was not elected an "APOSTLE" when Yaakov was killed. He was elected Bishop of Jerusalem. These are succession of Bishops. It is through the laying on of hands that this occurs. See Acts 6.

tz620q said:

The first Bishopric did not belong to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. If we had to place it within a religion that it identified with, we would say that it was Jewish or maybe members of a Christian sect of Judaism. Saying that it was Orthodox is using revisionist history, taking a concept that did not exist at that moment but only really clarified it's scope after 1054. But you are not really addressing any of the key points in my post. First you are conflating the term Bishop and Apostle with the term Patriarch. Do you believe these are the same functional job? And if there is a functional description of what a Patriarch is, then does Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and even Constantinople (Istanbul) merit that functional title anymore? Furthermore, when did this list of Patriarchs calcify into an unchanging list?

Click to expand...

I already said that. The first Bishops of Jerusalem were all Jews up until 135 AD, where thereafter they were Greek. Nothing to do with Rome. You are ignoring what I wrote regarding your church breaking council rulings. Many terms are used...Patriarch, Metropolitan, Bishop, etc depending on the use and time period. I have never conflated anything with Apostle...there were 12.

Albion said:

Does it matter one way or the other if Peter was in Rome or not?

Click to expand...

Probably not. However it does speak to the inconsistency of the RCC dogma.

On would think that if he was the first Pope of Rome, he would actually have been in Rome is the point I think.

It is kind of like saying that Popes and clergy in the RCC can not be married...….
But Peter was a married man.

Those inconsistences speak of a lack of absolutes and the ability to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Lets say we are playing football and it takes 10 yards to gain a 1st down. But when the home time gets the ball, they change that rule and say it only takes 1 yard to gain a 1st down.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

I already said that. The first Bishops of Jerusalem were all Jews up until 135 AD, where thereafter they were Greek. Nothing to do with Rome. You are ignoring what I wrote regarding your church breaking council rulings. Many terms are used...Patriarch, Metropolitan, Bishop, etc depending on the use and time period. I have never conflated anything with Apostle...there were 12.

Click to expand...

LOL...…….I just say this post. Now read post #196!!

They broke council rules!!! Imagine that!

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

I already said that. The first Bishops of Jerusalem were all Jews up until 135 AD, where thereafter they were Greek. Nothing to do with Rome. You are ignoring what I wrote regarding your church breaking council rulings. Many terms are used...Patriarch, Metropolitan, Bishop, etc depending on the use and time period. I have never conflated anything with Apostle...there were 12.

Click to expand...

Actually you said, "The first Bishopric was Orthodox in Jerusalem, not in Rome." We both agree upon the location; but I could have just as easily said that it was a Catholic Bishop, since he belonged to the universal (catholic) church irregardless of how orthodox he was. Do you see what I am trying to get at? The words catholic and orthodox were used differently before the schism. They were descriptive adjectives, not proper nouns. After the initial line of Jewish Bishops, up to the Bar Kokhba revolt, Jerusalem was in ruins and rebuilt by the Romans as Aelia Capitolina. That was when the Greek line of Bishops started, while the city was under Roman rule and Jews and Jewish Christians were prohibited in the town except for one day a year. Does that sound to you like the likely seat for a Patriarch? This continued until Constantine and then it was changed to only allow Christians (not Jews) into the city. In the early 600's it was conquered and reconquered by the Muslims until in 637, the Patriarch Sophronius surrendered the city to Caliph Umar. It would remain in Muslim hands until 1099 when the Crusaders recaptured it and made it part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. After being lost again in the 1200's, it's history is a patchwork of Arab, Persian, Seljuk Turk, Mongol, Jewish, Ottoman Turk, and Palestinian rule (under colonial powers). The religious life of the town flowed back and forth nearly as much as the political power. There has not been Byzantine or Greek rule in the city since 637. So what possible logic can be used to say that this is an Orthodox Patriarchy when it has not been under their control for nearly 1700 years. If we take Justinian as the one who proposed the pentarchy in the 500's and the Quinisext Council as ratifying this concept. We end up with a very suspicious history, where an Emperor exerts his power to control the structure of the church and a council that was completely Eastern and not Ecumenical is used to further that claim. Is it that hard to see why Rome felt that the eastern church was too closely tied to the Emperor?

Major1 said:

The Bible does not mention Peter as ever going to Rome, and there is no early Christian record of this being the case. Even at the end of the first century, the author of 1 Clement appears unaware that St. Peter ever came to Rome. Written from Rome, 1 Clement mentions Peter's 'many labours' and makes a general comment about Peter's death, without mentioning Rome: "There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory." Rex Wyler, in The Jesus Sayings, page 252, says the legend that Peter visited Rome appears in the non-canonical Acts of Peter, composed in about 185 CE. Eusebius embellishes this report two centuries later by adding that both Peter and Paul were executed in Rome during Nero's persecutions, but he cites no source and gives an erroneous date, casting doubt on his research.

John W. O’Malley, S.J. says, in A History of the Popes, page 8, that no one piece of evidence states in straightforward and unambiguous language either that Peter either went to Rome or that he died there, although O’Malley finds the circumstantial evidence is persuasive. Part of the evidence O'Malley relies on is in 1 Peter, which he acknowledges might not have been written by Peter himself, but claims it was at least written under his inspiration.

Francis A. Sullivan S.J. says, in From Apostles to Bishops, page 15, that there is a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that the church of Rome was most probably led by a college of presbyters until well into the second century. He says there is no evidence of a ruling bishop in the first century. Now, it seems inconceivable that Peter would lead the church in Rome, as its first bishop, and appoint a successor as bishop, only for the Christian community of Rome to ignore this precedent for up to a century after the death of Linus.
What evidence is there that Peter was a bishop in Rome?

Click to expand...

I posted evidence but as expected, you dismissed it.

tz620q said:

You still don't seem to want to address that there is a difference between a Bishopric and a Patriarchate. As far as an Orthodox Patriarch seated in these Patriarchates, there were large swathes of time in this history where the supposed Patriarchs for these cities rarely entered the city of which they were the Patriarch. My contention is that a supposed Patriarch with no power in his region is a figurehead often appointed by Constantinople and with no real independence. If that is your definition of a Patriarch, then I think the Catholic Church can raise all of our Archbishops to the title of Patriarch.

Click to expand...

To be technical in certain periods, a Patriarchate is over a large area of Bishoprics. Again, what Rome does or does not do has no bearing...

tz620q said:

Thank you for the explanation, though in truth today, there is a Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, a Coptic Pope there, and an EOC Patriarch. Can you guess which one has the most Christians under his care? The Patriarch was originally an administrative position to help run a region and control the various bishops within that region. At what point does this become a figurehead position propagated by history alone. I think we passed that point over a 1000 years ago and the concept is purely symbolic now, used only by EOC apologists to try to prove some sort of dominance in thought at the time of the Schism, which is really purely revisionist history.

Click to expand...

I think there will always be a need for the patriarchs to govern their bishops even in this day and age. Sure doctrines and practices have already been established and defined by now but should issues arise then there should be someone in position to address them.