What is the evidence of Peter in Rome

[LittleLambofJesus]

On another thread there was a poll on Peter being in Rome.
What I would like is all the evidence to be brought forth on this thread that proves Peter was in Rome. Guess that is it....Thanks

Hmm, I had trouble finding the poll thread I referenced in the OP.....

I finally found it in on the Denomination-specific Theology board where is was moved to ehehe

Denomination-specific Theology - Christian Forums
Denomination-specific Theology

http://www.christianforums.com/t2760314/#post51109018http://www.christianforums.com/t2760314/
Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

 

[boswd]

it seems you start more threads and ressurect more threads about Peter than the Catholics do

Are you sure you want to have a separate sub forum for Peter? You would be bored here in GT

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

it seems you start more threads and ressurect more threads about Peter than the Catholics do

Are you sure you want to have a separate sub forum for Peter? You would be bored here in GT

Nah...that would just give more time to devote to the Sabbath threads here on GT.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7397304/
How and why did Sunday replace the seventh-day sabbath?

Perhaps we need a board for "Sabbathology"

 

[boswd]

Nah...that would just give more time to devote to the Sabbath threads here on GT.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7397304/
How and why did Sunday replace the seventh-day sabbath?

Perhaps we need a board for "Sabbathology"

and don't forget the upcoming Easter controversy as well. Easter is when they all come out of the wordwork. It's worse than Halloween with all the pagens this pagens that.

Oh well

 

[Standing Up]

Hmm, I had trouble finding the poll thread I referenced in the OP.....

I finally found it in on the Denomination-specific Theology board where is was moved to ehehe

Denomination-specific Theology - Christian Forums
Denomination-specific Theology

http://www.christianforums.com/t2760314/#post51109018
Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

I've begun to think this question of whether Peter was in Rome or not is akin to the question of angels on a pinhead.

We know Peter was in Antioch. Tradition says for 7 years. But like Rome's list of successors, Antioch's conflicts too with either of the first two thereafter, Ignatius or Euodios. In any event, it is enough that Chrysostom c350 in Antioch will say, yes we used to follow the way of Peter et al.

So, regardless of whether Peter was in Rome or not, we know that Peter did things re Easter celebration like John, Paul, and the others.

Hope that's all not too obscure a comment

 

[Standing Up]

and don't forget the upcoming Easter controversy as well. Easter is when they all come out of the wordwork. It's worse than Halloween with all the pagens this pagens that.

Oh well

Funny you should mention that. See post above---

 

[Albion]

I've begun to think this question of whether Peter was in Rome or not is akin to the question of angels on a pinhead.

We know Peter was in Antioch. Tradition says for 7 years. But like Rome's list of successors, Antioch's conflicts too with either of the first two thereafter, Ignatius or Euodios. In any event, it is enough that Chrysostom c350 in Antioch will say, yes we used to follow the way of Peter et al.

So, regardless of whether Peter was in Rome or not, we know that Peter did things re Easter celebration like John, Paul, and the others.

Hope that's all not too obscure a comment

The question of Peter in Rome is a strange one in a way. The only controversy is over succession. It doesn't matter to anything else if Peter went ot Rome or not. Jesus didn't command his church to be headquartered in the capitol city and attached no doctrinal significance to the city.

If Peter did live there until his death as is customarily thought to have happened, he didn't provide for any successors and had no special powers to pass onto them.

 

[Anglian]

If Peter did live there until his death as is customarily thought to have happened, he didn't provide for any successors and had no special powers to pass onto them.

St. Irenaeus thought the succession to St. Peter so well accepted by people in his day that he cited Rome as the best example of Apostolic succession. Still, as he was not an eye witness and there is no independent verification written at the time we can discount that - and possibly much of the rest of the faith once received, if we make that our standard?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

St. Irenaeus thought the succession to St. Peter so well accepted by people in his day that he cited Rome as the best example of Apostolic succession. Still, as he was not an eye witness and there is no independent verification written at the time we can discount that - and possibly much of the rest of the faith once received, if we make that our standard?

peace,

Anglian

Oh my no. Irenaeus mentions Polycarp. Same with Tertullian.

Both Rome and Antioch have contradictions in their very first successors.

God works in mysterious ways

 

[Albion]

St. Irenaeus thought the succession to St. Peter so well accepted by people in his day that he cited Rome as the best example of Apostolic succession. Still, as he was not an eye witness and there is no independent verification written at the time we can discount that

And the Roman Catholic Church itself admits to the historic facts--that upon Peter's death there was no bishop in Rome. But after some time, the townspeople petitioned Linus, who was living in another city, asking him to come to Rome and take charge of the congregation there in as much as he had been a favorite of Peter.

In some sense, we might say that the one "succeeded" the other, but as the term "Apostolic Succession" is normally used and understood, there is none there.

 

[boswd]

And the Roman Catholic Church itself admits to the historic facts--that upon Peter's death there was no bishop in Rome. But after some time, the townspeople petitioned Linus, who was living in another city, asking him to come to Rome and take charge of the congregation there in as much as he had been a favorite of Peter.

In some sense, we might say that the one "succeeded" the other, but as the term "Apostolic Succession" is normally used and understood, there is none there.

Wasn't Linus ordained under Paul? so wouldn't his Apostolic Succession be valid through him?

 

[Albion]

Wasn't Linus ordained under Paul? so wouldn't his Apostolic Succession be valid through him?

No one claims Apostolic Succession through Paul to my knowledge; but of course Linus would have to have been a bishop.

 

[boswd]

No one claims Apostolic Succession through Paul to my knowledge; but of course Linus would have to have been a bishop.

Isn't the position of the Bishop of Rome claims through Peter but Apostolic Succesion could be from any of the Aposltes.

So Linus being ordained by Paul would have kept Apostolic Succesion valid and then moved to Rome to keep Peter's seat in Apostolic Succesion hands.
That's what it seems to me.

 

[Albion]

Isn't the position of the Bishop of Rome claims through Peter but Apostolic Succesion could be from any of the Aposltes.

Generally speaking, the churches that believe in Apostolic Succession believe that a line coming from any one of the Apostles is valid, yes. With most of the Apostles, no one knows the history.

So Linus being ordained by Paul would have kept Apostolic Succesion valid and then moved to Rome to keep Peter's seat in Apostolic Succesion hands.
That's what it seems to me.

Not unless Linus were a bishop.

Apostolic Succession is the idea of a lineage of bishops, not priests.

The priests can be said to be valid if their bishop is in AS, but only bishops can make new bishops, so that's where the lineage rests. There is no known "consecration" (that's what you call it when it's a bishop, as opposed to a priest in which case it's called "ordination") of Linus as a bishop by Peter or anyone else.

 

[Standing Up]

Generally speaking, the churches that believe in Apostolic Succession believe that a line coming from any one of the Apostles is valid, yes. With most of the Apostles, no one knows the history.


Not unless Linus were a bishop.

Apostolic Succession is the idea of a lineage of bishops, not priests.

The priests can be said to be valid if their bishop is in AS, but only bishops can make new bishops, so that's where the lineage rests. There is no known "consecration" (that's what you call it when it's a bishop, as opposed to a priest in which case it's called "ordination") of Linus as a bishop by Peter or anyone else.

So is that true for all the groups? Tertullian does say Clement succeded Peter. But he's not saying how folks came (acorn2oak) understand that?

 

[Albion]

So is that true for all the groups?

Yeh. All those that claim Apostolic Succession do it essentially the same way and see the principle in about the same way.

Tertullian does say Clement succeded Peter.

Well, that's an additional complication. There is that claim that Clement was the successor, but the RCC and some historians claim that Linus came after Peter and before Clement.

But he's not saying how folks came (acorn2oak) understand that?

Ah, now we are getting to the heart of the matter. The idea of Apostolic Succession arose in the last part of the first century. It was not a belief of the church prior to that--in the time of Linus, for instance. He would still have to meet the church's definition of Apostolic Succession, or there is none IMO, but in fact the whole issue was unknown to people in Peter's and Linus' day.

Had there been such a theory, Peter might have made sure that his successor was in place, just as the Roman Emperors had begun to do a few decades before this. Apostolic Succession, in short, was an idea that came later than the earliest Christian churches had been established and did so not because anyone was concerned to follow some plan laid out by Christ but simply as a way of insuring that one's pastor had credentials. IOW, if he could show that he had been tutored by one of the Apostles, he had the equivalent of today's Doctor of Theology degree from a great university, whereas itinerent preachers who could not claim that background for themselves were seen as less likely to be doctrinally sound. Then, in later centuries, it evolved into a matter of validity.

 

[Trento]

Generally speaking, the churches that believe in Apostolic Succession believe that a line coming from any one of the Apostles is valid, yes. With most of the Apostles, no one knows the history.


Not unless Linus were a bishop.

Apostolic Succession is the idea of a lineage of bishops, not priests.

The priests can be said to be valid if their bishop is in AS, but only bishops can make new bishops, so that's where the lineage rests. There is no known "consecration" (that's what you call it when it's a bishop, as opposed to a priest in which case it's called "ordination") of Linus as a bishop by Peter or anyone else.

The earliest witness is Irenaeus, who in about the year 180 wrote:"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.


Eusebius History ofthe Christian church "Linus the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter.

John Chrysostom" Linus was the second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter",


Liberian Catalogue presents Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his successor in the same office.

 

[Albion]

The earliest witness is Irenaeus, who in about the year 180 wrote:"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.

Several problems with that, Trento.
1. Irenaeus was not a "witness," coming, as he did, over 100 years after the events in question.
2. If he is indeed the earliest one to make the claim, that shows us that the idea is not Apostolic.
3. "Committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate" doesn't mean that he was a bishop already. It strongly reads as though the meaning is that he was chosen to be the pastor at Rome, a senior elder, the Apostolic Succession system not then being in existence.
4. The Church of Rome itself says that Linus wasn't a bishop in Rome at the time of Peter's death.

Eusebius History ofthe Christian church "Linus the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter.

So Linus was made a bishop at some time after Peter's death--a very important point that means he was not a bishop previously, which itself means that Peter had not consecrated him, which means in turn that there was no Apostolic Succession coming from Peter.

John Chrysostom" Linus was the second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter",

Liberian Catalogue presents Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his successor in the same office.

That's the legend, all right, so long as you don't go with the other legend which makes Clement the second bishop in Rome. We were speaking of what really happened and didn't happen, however, all the legends not withstanding.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Shameless bump

 

[MrPolo]

Shameless bump

You mean the issue is not settled?