• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Evidence of Peter in Rome . . .

holdon

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2005
5,375
97
67
✟6,041.00
Faith
Christian

I may mention here that it was from the time of Cyprian only that Rome obtained the title of Peter's chair. Baronius indeed gives twenty-five years of Peter's holding the See of Rome, but all early authors make Linus the first bishop. Ruffinus, as we have seen, conciliates them by keeping Peter in his apostleship, and making two of them sit in the see while he was alive. The first author who makes Peter bishop is Optatus (De Schis. Don., lib. 2, 3) in the latter part of the fourth century; while Epiphanius (thinking it possible Clement was first named, but would not act till after Linus and Cletus were dead, and then was compelled) says that Peter and Paul were apostles and bishops (27, 6), then Linus. Eusebius simply says that Linus was the first bishop after Peter. He may perhaps be considered an earlier testimony that Optatus. They were nearly contemporaneous, and Optatus is the first who explicitly states it. That Peter was twenty-five years bishop of Rome is a simple absurdity; because if the tradition of his being put to death by Nero be true, this was A.D. 68 or 69. But the Lord suffered A.D. 34. More than fourteen — say fifteen — years after that (Gal. 2) Peter had not left Jerusalem, and there had been as yet no apostolic work at Rome at all. This makes A.D. 49. He is still at Jerusalem. After this he goes to Antioch; but tradition says he was seven years in the see of Antioch, before coming to Rome, and in A.D. 49 he had not yet gone to Antioch, and certainly was not fixed in the see, for Paul was labouring there and rebuked him for his conduct. How long after, we cannot tell — say it was immediately, which I do not believe, because Paul was the apostle labouring there — but I take up the tradition as it is given. He was at Antioch then, at any rate, till A.D. 56 or 57; thus he could not by any possibility have begun to have to address Rome as its pope at all till about eleven years before his death. The whole thing is a fable upon the face of it.

You may consult Baronius in the first and twenty-fifth year of Peter, and see what he says with Pagius, who notices the attempt to make two comings of Peter, one in Claudius' and another in Nero's reign, and rejects it all, taking the plain statement of Lactantius that the apostles had been preaching everywhere for twenty-five years, and then that Peter came to Rome in the time of Nero (Lac. de Mort. Pet. 2, 95). That Peter may have come to Rome for his martyrdom, or to see the Jewish saints there, is possible, though we have little proof of it; but vague and late statements that he ever held the see are mere got-up fiction; that he founded the church of Rome, we know from scripture to be totally false, let the good Irenaeus say what he will. No apostle did; of this we are sure from Paul's epistle to them. If we are to believe Dionysius of Corinth, quoted by Eusebius (2, 25), Peter and Paul both planted the church at Corinth too, a statement useful to shew what such statements and traditions of the Fathers are worth. Yet in this passage of Dionysius we get, if it be true that Peter ever was at Rome, a glimpse of the truth, namely that Peter and Paul were taken prisoners to Rome together, or at least went together there on the journey which ended in their martyrdom; but all is utterly uncertain. The only thing certain is that Peter's sitting — still more his sitting twenty-five years at Rome — is a got-up fable, and a very poor and transparent one.


I have spoken on this point here, because we are at the date in the history of Roman pontiffs at which it is first called the chair of Peter, or Peter Bishop of Rome.

 
Upvote 0

Uphill Battle

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2005
18,279
1,221
48
✟23,416.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
ah.... so because some claims are not credible... none can be. Gotcha.
For 9 years twice a month Catholic Answers sends me information and Church Fathers writings. I put them in a file on my Computer and refer to them when needed.
whatever works for you, I suppose. Y'should link, though.
 
Upvote 0

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
60
Oklahoma
✟32,229.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Well, if you read my quote, no Ireneaus doesn't deny Peter was the bishop of the episcopate in Rome, but he only speaks of Peter AND Paul establishing the church. Then, they appointed Linus as bishop before they moved on.

And, um, none of the fathers you cited predate Ireneaus . . .
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by ThomasDa
Evidence of Peter in Roam . . . Isn't roam traveling?
:o No, if you want to be technical, "roam" is wandering, lollygagging, etc . . . .
I learn something new everyday on CF
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
However, Peter and Paul did roam around and establish churches . . . .
Yes, but by the time either one of them could have possibly roamed their way to Rome the Church in Rome was already on-going.

The Church in Rome likely began shortly after Pentecost as Jewish pilgrims converted while in Jerusalem returned to Rome and began fellowshipping there.

Neither Apostle could possibly have been in Rome at the time the Church was first established there.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Right. Already a church there.

Romans 15:20-22 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand. For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you.
 
Upvote 0

jim king 443

Member
May 26, 2018
8
3
78
San Bernardino, Ca
✟22,841.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
 
Upvote 0

jim king 443

Member
May 26, 2018
8
3
78
San Bernardino, Ca
✟22,841.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.
 
Upvote 0