How Should I Respond to Prot. Pastor Friend Who Claims "Peter was Not Even in Rome"

[Lynn-D]

Peter died and was buried in Rome. But that is not the point in my opinion. Peter was appointed by Jesus to take His place in His stead and it made no difference where Peter laid his head or where he died.
Your protestant friend seems to need to tear down the Catholic Church and how better than to tear down the Papacy.
I do wonder how that makes him or anyone a better Christian by demeaning the established authority of Peter. I would ask him to name one protestant that has the right to wear the mantle or stand in Peter’s stead who might be accepted by Jesus as a substitute. None, nada, zilch, zero!!!
Lynn-D

 

[mark_a]

linus:

And I still contend that if Peter was vicar of Christ on earth then both Luke and the Holy Spirit were following around the wrong guy.

Even if you were 1000% correct, disrespecting Peter is will get you no respect from anyone.

Disrespecting the Holy Spirit is just plain self destructive.

 

[Zooey]

linus:

Based on the article you sent me to:

Tertullian (A.D. 200)
Ignatius (A.D. 110 - he makes reference to both Peter and Paul)
Ireneaus (A.D. 190)
Clement of Aleandria (third century)
Lactanius (A.D. 318)

Sounds pretty convincing to me…For sure, all of them a lot closer to the events that your ‘friend’ is.

I’m still asking for any concrete evidence (eyewitness, written accounts) that Peter was officially installed as Bishop of Rome and Head of the entire Church.

Ummm …let’s see…Nope, all those people are dead now.

As for dead bones, they can neither identify themselves or speak.

Sorry, this is too much like asking: “Who is buried in Grant’s Tomb?” We have a grave. It has bones. The grave is Peter’s grave…We can be cetain sure that it’s not Amelia Earhardt, no???

And I still contend that if Peter was vicar of Christ on earth then both Luke and the Holy Spirit were following around the wrong guy. The Book of Acts should have been predominately about Peter and his eventual work in Rome. But, alas, “dead” silence.

You do know that dissing the Holy Spirit is a serious sin, right??? If you don’t know, it is; if you do know, might be a good idea to stop before you get in :nope:something you can’t get out of…

God bless.

 

[antiaphrodite]

sparkle:

Friends: What do you think of this? I have a life-long family friend whose husband is a non-denom anti-Catholic pastor, and so is she. When she found out I converted, she e-mailed me some very anti-Catholic absurd articles, telling me I was into a “false religion”, “those Catholics are not saved”, etc., etc., Stuff she’s spreading throughout their whole “church”. Whoa! I responded very kindly by sending her a couple short phamplets along with Patrick Madrid’s book Surprised by Truth, which someone recommended on here, telling her how thrilled and excited I am to be a Catholic, and I wanted to share this stuff with her. A month goes by, and today I get the stuff back in the mail saying she’s not going to read it. Another Whoa! I feel-- well at least if we share in love, we share period. Who knows if she really didn’t look at any of it–or if she or her husband did------
I’d really like some comments from y’all. She said I wasted my time and money by sending it. Isn’t it better to share our faith than just sit back and not “witness”? I’m kinda discouraged about it. If someone hadn’t shared with me, I wouldn’t have discovered my Catholic Faith.
Thx~~

you both have my sympathies and prayers. she just showed what her attitude to witnessing and evangelizing meant. how sad. but don’t let yourself be discouraged!

and of course…you have other friends… ahem

we’re praying for you!!!

 

[antiaphrodite]

linus:

And I still contend that if Peter was vicar of Christ on earth then both Luke and the Holy Spirit were following around the wrong guy.

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: surely you don’t mean that!!!

 

[linus]

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: surely you don’t mean that!!!

It’s called “tongue in cheek” my friend The point being, Luke’s Holy Spirit inspired writings follow the Apostle Paul to Rome, not Peter. Yet according to Catholic doctrine Peter is the preeminent Apostle, Bishop of the Roman church, which is the church Christ founded, and Vicar of Christ on earth along with his “successors.” So strange it is indeed then that the Holy Spirit, through Luke, records Paul’s journey to Rome and ends His historical account with Paul teaching the Romans for a full two years, not Peter.

 

[FCEGM]

linus:

Yet according to Catholic doctrine Peter is the preeminent Apostle, Bishop of the Roman church, which is the church Christ founded, and Vicar of Christ on earth along with his “successors.” So strange it is indeed then that the Holy Spirit, through Luke, records Paul’s journey to Rome and ends His historical account with Paul teaching the Romans for a full two years, not Peter.

And the Lord chose Judas Iscariot, go figure.

It seems you are employing the same approach as those who deny that the Lord Jesus actually existed since there’s no account of Him in the doubters’ approved recorders of history - and I guess in this case the Fathers of the Church need not apply.

 

[Sirach14]

Sherlock:

Sparkle,

I’m sorry that you’ve encountered the kind of attitude that seems impervious to arguments.

I’m sure that some others here might have some specific references to offer, though there’s always the likelihood they won’t be accepted by your pastor friend. You mention that you’re getting tired of this “same old stuff”—I understand! Maybe, then, it would be less tiring if you were to give him the information (article, book, etc) in response and have him read it before arguing with you any further. Or, ask him to read what you have and write out his objections to them—be honest, and tell him that you’re just plain tired, but that you can take his objections here to the forum and see how they’re answered.

I agree, let him read Steve Ray’s book.

For a book, give him “Upon This Rock” by Stephen Ray.

Catholic.com has two short articles on the subject, and here are the links. The first features quotes from the Church Fathers.

catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

 

[sparkle]

Sirach14:
Hi Friend. Thx for your reply. I did give him the book by Peter Ray “Upon this Rock” and inquired recently as to how he liked it. His wife told me “he has not picked it up yet to read it”. OK…typical of Prots. Well–I’m thinkin----- well there’s nothing else I can do but share. If they turn up their nose at me, so be it. I will simply pray that the Spirit will lead him to pick it up to read it sometime. And leave it to the HS for further dealings. It’s all in His hands now anyway. I shake the dust off my feet…but I give it one try at least in every town, where I am not welcome, I move on…PTL
Thx all for your wisdom and insight. Luv ya all~~
In Christ and His Church,
Sparkle

 

[linus]

Zooey:

Sounds pretty convincing to me…For sure, all of them a lot closer to the events that your ‘friend’ is.

“Close” being the key word. NONE living at the time to eyewitness and document the alleged Roman Bishopric of Peter.

Ummm …let’s see…Nope, all those people are dead now.

Yes, and none lived at the time of Peter’s alleged Bishopric, hence none could leave behind an eyewitness, written document like John and Peter did regarding their personal, eyewitness experience with the Lord (see 1 Jo. 1:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16).

You see, Zooey, what makes true Christianity superior to all other “religions” (for lack of a better term) is that it’s not simply based on “spiritual” writings, but on actual, historical facts, eyewitnessed and documented by real people. In fact, such was the commissioned job of the Apostles (see Acts 1:8; cf. 1:22-23).

True Christianity is not based on hearsay, traditions not grounded in historical facts, or flowery doctrines of men - but on the Word of God and men who, “from the beginning,” “heard,” “saw with their own eyes,” “handled with their own hands,” and then proclaimed to us the truth preserved in Holy Spirit, God-breathed (theopneustos), writings.

 

[linus]

Millarido:

Luke was secretary to Paul, thus he follows him around. If Peter took Luke up for the task, then I am sure he would’ve followed him around; instead Paul chose him.

From where did you get the idea Paul recruited, or employed Luke (see Luke 1:1-3)?

I think you failed to understand my point. If the primacy of Peter was unquestionably signified by what Jesus said to him in Matt. 16:18, then why wouldn’t Luke, by the Holy Spirit, have documented Peter’s journey to Rome, rather than Paul’s? Certainly the Holy Spirit would have understood what Jesus allegedly said concerning Peter’s primacy, right? Why then would the Holy Spirit focus on Paul’s journeys in His inspired writings and fail to even mention anything of Peter’s alleged 25 years in Rome operating there as “Vicar of Christ” and head of the entire Church? I’m asking you to think of the implications based on this Holy Spirit inspired silence.

 

[Orionthehunter]

linus:

From where did you get the idea Paul recruited, or employed Luke (see Luke 1:1-3)?

I think you failed to understand my point. If the primacy of Peter was unquestionably signified by what Jesus said to him in Matt. 16:18, then why wouldn’t Luke, by the Holy Spirit, have documented Peter’s journey to Rome, rather than Paul’s? Certainly the Holy Spirit would have understood what Jesus allegedly said concerning Peter’s primacy, right? Why then would the Holy Spirit focus on Paul’s journeys in His inspired writings and fail to even mention anything of Peter’s alleged 25 years in Rome operating there as “Vicar of Christ” and head of the entire Church? I’m asking you to think of the implications based on this Holy Spirit inspired silence.

I think every thing has to be looked at in its context. There are numerous good historical books that reconcile “historical” accounts with the Biblical accounts regarding the primacy of Rome. Wile the individual letters of Paul and other Epistle writers began to be written within years after Pentecost, the Gospel of St. John was written 60+ years after Pentecost and the Bible not compiled and books chosen/rejected until a couple of hundred years after Christ’s death, Mass was celebrated right after Christ’s death and prior to the compilation of the Bible there were numerous “heresies” that were addressed and the historical evidence is clear that Peter and his successors were the final arbiters of the matters. Additionally a read of the rationale that the Church (via the Magisterium and organized hierarchy under the authority of the Bishop of Rome) compiled the Bible was to edify Christians about the Truth and True Teaching of Christ. There was no reason for them to be concerned about Authority as it was universally accepted for the hundreds of years prior to the compilation of the Bible.

However, for the “sola scriptura” adherents these are inconvenient Facts that are given virtually no credibility so it is imperative that to properly evangelize and teach to those who reject Sacred Tradition (these inconvenient historical facts) to look to the Bible. I consier it a woman at the well moment where Christ talked to her not at a high level but addressed her at her level.

The Bible is inerrantly clear on these matters, especially in the Gospels which are books that most specifically quote Christ while he lived. There are the teachings that he gave to general public where he used parables and sermons to teach morals and how to live Christ-like lives. There are teachings that he gave to the Apostles and his closest disciples that teach doctrines and dogmas as in the Bread of Life Discourse of the Gospel of St. John.

But all the teachings of Authority were given to the Apostles direct and in private in which he specifically told them that they had a special Stewardship and Responsibility as in the Last Supper and the creation of the ordained priesthood. And finally, his repeated teachings direct to Peter and singling him out was a clear indication that Peter was the greatest among equals. If one were to count the specific times that Jesus talked to Peter, I believe it is over 70 times while his specific talks to the other Apostles are approximately a dozen times with none to any specific Apostle more than a handful.

The mental/intellectual/historical gyrations one must go to deny the primacy of Peter deny any real intellectual vigor and logic. But the Biblical gyrations are immense and should cause anyone who articulates a faith by “sola scriptura” grave concern. I heard it said once that if we think there is a contradiction between a Gospel and an Epistle, we will find the Truth by reconciling the Epistle to the Gospel and not vice versa.

 

[Orionthehunter]

linus:

From where did you get the idea Paul recruited, or employed Luke (see Luke 1:1-3)?

I think you failed to understand my point. If the primacy of Peter was unquestionably signified by what Jesus said to him in Matt. 16:18, then why wouldn’t Luke, by the Holy Spirit, have documented Peter’s journey to Rome, rather than Paul’s? Certainly the Holy Spirit would have understood what Jesus allegedly said concerning Peter’s primacy, right? Why then would the Holy Spirit focus on Paul’s journeys in His inspired writings and fail to even mention anything of Peter’s alleged 25 years in Rome operating there as “Vicar of Christ” and head of the entire Church? I’m asking you to think of the implications based on this Holy Spirit inspired silence.

P.S. to my previous post, this is irrelevant. Paul was clearly the greatest Preacher of the early Church but that doesn’t automatically give him special authority (an authority he clearly never claimed). St. Francis de Sales was the greatest Preacher of his time and was invited to Preach throughout France and Italy but he never became more than a Bishop of a rural French diocese and he also never claimed any teaching authority beyond his small diocese just as Paul never claimed any authority beyond the areas he had been sent to establish churches.

Note in Galatians where Paul to qualify his authority mentions he went to Jerusalem to confer with Peter for 15 days and this is the only Apostle he has met with except for a minor meeting with James. Sure looks alot like one who went to talk to his boss before he went to his next assignment.

 

[mercygate]

Anybody else here catching the irony that Linus’ user name is the name of Peter’s first sucessor as the Bishop of Rome, and that Linus, who was martyred around 76 A.D., was thus the second Pope?

 

[Orionthehunter]

mercygate:

Anybody else here catching the irony that Linus’ user name is the name of Peter’s first sucessor as the Bishop of Rome, and that Linus, who was martyred around 76 A.D., was thus the second Pope?

Mercy, you never cease to amaze me. So in an effort to keep up with you , I think it might also be ironic to point out that Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 4:21: Try to get here before winter. Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.

While I can’t find any source to tell me who Eubulus is, Pudens is a person who is reputed to have given refuge/santuary to Peter in Rome. Another irony in addition to the fact that Paul feels a need to let people know that Linus and his mother Claudia send greetings so they must be people with whom the readers are familiar and respect. Kinda like when our Bishop returned from his regular meeting with the Pope and communicated greetings from the Holy Father?

 

[FCEGM]

Orionthehunter:

Another irony in addition to the fact that Paul feels a need to let people know that Linus and his mother Claudia send greetings so they must be people with whom the readers are familiar and respect. Kinda like when our Bishop returned from his regular meeting with the Pope and communicated greetings from the Holy Father?

Like St. Peter sending greetings from Babylon.

And isn’t it interesting that we see in Colossians 4:10 that Mark was with St. Paul in Rome, and we also have St. Peter writing in 1 Pet. 5:13 that Mark is with him “in Babylon”: “The chosen one * at Babylon sends you greetings, as does Mark, my son.”

Now, where is “Babylon”? Well, we know that this isn’t the actual Babylon, since it was in ruins in the 1st century. So, which city is Peter calling by this code name?

Most anti-Catholics have no problem with John’s use of the word “Babylon” to represent the city of Rome, yet go through all sorts of contortion to deny St. Peter’s presence there. (conf. Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2 & 10, and 18:21.)

So, “Babylon” was the code name for Rome; and we know that early Christians used code names for certain cities (e.g., Rev. 11:8).Therefore, where is Peter in 1 Peter 5:13? From where does he write to the churches of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”? From where does he pen such a catholic letter?

And as for Peter’s activities in Rome, we do have historical evidence for this, and from people who knew the Apostles. For example, in A.D. 110, St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was the disciple of the Apostle John, writes to the Roman church, saying: “Not as Peter and Paul did do I command you. They were Apostles, and I am merely a convict.” (Epistle to the Romans, 4:3).

Similarly, a generation later, we have bishop Dionysius of Corinth writing to Soter, bishop of Rome, saying:

“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was first made by Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time.” (Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome, in a from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:8).

Well, I guess both the Romans and the Corinthians deceived. *

 

[ChristianWAB]

I wouldn’t worry about it, frankly. Peter was a follower of Christ. The Bible never says that Peter was a Pope, so Catholics shouldn’t concern themselves so much with that. That’s what kills a Catholic’s credibility, frankly. Believing in things that have no Biblical backing.

I recently heard something about a belief that Mary led a sinless life like Jesus, but we know that can’t be true. After all, Mary wouldn’t have needed a Savior if she was sinless, right? Plus, that one baseless belief contradicts scripture (see Romans 3:10).

Anyway, we know that Jesus forgave Peter for thrice denying him and Peter went on to spread the truth of the Gospel. Peter believed that Jesus is the Son of God and that was most important.

Believe on the Lord Jesus for your salvation. Trust Him COMPLETELY. Don’t rely on Peter, Mary or anybody else to save you, because we all know they can’t. Next time a Protestant Pastor brings up a Catholic doctrine that runs contrary to the Word of God, just assure him that your faith is in Jesus.

 

[mercygate]

ChristianWAB:

I wouldn’t worry about it, frankly. Peter was a follower of Christ. The Bible never says that Peter was a Pope, so Catholics shouldn’t concern themselves so much with that. That’s what kills a Catholic’s credibility, frankly. Believing in things that have no Biblical backing. But this thread need not exclude extrabiblical evidence that Peter was in Rome, although there is plentiful biblical support in addition to early documentary evidence Peter was in Rome and died there. This is a point of historical fact, not a point of soteriology. Although I am always concerned about my credibility when in dialogue with Protestants, and always attempt to explain the Catholic position on Scriptural grounds alone, that is merely a concession to Protestant prejudice. The evidence that Peter was in Rome ought not to ignore historical documents or archaeology.

I recently heard something about a belief that Mary led a sinless life like Jesus, but we know that can’t be true. After all, Mary wouldn’t have needed a Savior if she was sinless, right? Plus, that one baseless belief contradicts scripture (see Romans 3:10). These tired assertions belong on another thread. And if the superficial contradictions of Scripture to which you direct our attention were true, the Catholic Church would neither belive nor teach them.

 

[mark_a]

linus:

If the primacy of Peter was unquestionably signified by what Jesus said to him in Matt. 16:18, then why wouldn’t Luke, by the Holy Spirit, have documented Peter’s journey to Rome, rather than Paul’s?

It was the Church led by the Holy Spirit that decided which writings to include in the new testament, and it was well after the primacy of Peter was established.

 

[Zooey]

“Close” being the key word. NONE living at the time to eyewitness and document the alleged Roman Bishopric of Peter.Yes, and none lived at the time of Peter’s alleged Bishopric, hence none could leave behind an eyewitness, written document like John and Peter did regarding their personal, eyewitness experience with the Lord (see 1 Jo. 1:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16).

And you know this, because?? How can I say this nicely???You reject all the documentation you are given, because it does not suit your preconceived notions.
Again, you know of somebody who will say***–on the same evidentiary grounds as you demand***-- that Peter was not in Rome, that he was not bishop, that there were no eyewitnesses…Oh, yeah, that’s right… your “witnesses” (so-called) are dead too. And they left NOTHING!!!
Whereas, the ECF’s were either witnesses or disciples of witnesses. They had writings & artifacts we have long since lost.
Funny, how all these people were willing to die–usually by slow torture–rather than abandon their witness.

You see, Zooey, what makes true Christianity superior to all other “religions” (for lack of a better term) is that it’s not simply based on “spiritual” writings, but on actual, historical facts, eyewitnessed and documented by real people. In fact, such was the commissioned job of the Apostles (see Acts 1:8; cf. 1:22-23).

Well, but you have rejected the testimony of all these witnesses. Anybody who disagrees with you is not a witness. Anybody who lends the slightest credence to your ideas, is automatically accepted–even if they know diddlysquat about Rome, about Peter, about the ECF’s.
Ever hear of the Salem witch trials?? They hanged a whole lot of innocent people based on your kind of “facts”.
You aren’t being forced to agree–free country, remember? But you do have to make your evidence rise to the same level as that you require of others. Spectres screeching from the rafters may have worked on Jonathan Corwin & co.; they aren’t gonna fly here.

True Christianity is not based on hearsay, traditions not grounded in historical facts, or flowery doctrines of men - but on the Word of God and men who, “from the beginning,” “heard,” “saw with their own eyes,” “handled with their own hands,” and then proclaimed to us the truth preserved in Holy Spirit, God-breathed (theopneustos), writings.

Yup!! Like the ECF’s, who–to a man–say that Peter was bishop of Rome.
I know you don’t like that, but there it is. Those who were there, from the beginning, those who saw & touched & heard, they are all standing in witness against you & your friend.
Sorry, Charley. Only the best tuna get to be starkist, and the ECF’s trump your (500 year old at best) opinions.
Ummm…the ECF’s, being, of course,* the guys who preserved the truth in that:yup: Bible you keep on a thumpin*’
Tradition is *not *hearsay, Linus; tradition, as I keep on saying, is history. The history of the church & the history of the Bible.