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

[sparkle]

Milliardo:

I would probably agree with you if she was talking to people who do not know Christ; but the people she’s talking with know Him, so there’s the difference. Since they know Him, what else can she add that’s already not known? Both Catholics and Evangelicals more or less agree to who Christ is, and that He’s our Lord and Saviour. Point of the matter though is that they do not understand why she became Catholic, and what she found in the Church that she did not find in Protestantism. Now that would indeed require an explanation of what the Catholic Church is, and so it is necessary to witness not just about Christ now, but about the Church. It is unfortunate that it would not sit well with the Evangelical crowd, but that is what is witnessing is all about–to give testimony to Christ and His Church.

Yes, exactly! I agree! I shared with my Prot. pastor father. He sends me some bogus book on church history by Hurlbutt (which he has been teaching church history to his congregants for years), which in the first 2 pages says: “the pope was trying to take over the world”, and that it was not Peter whom the Church was built upon, but his “readiness”. HA! He’s a little perterbed with me I feel. And looks upon me as foolish, as does the rest of my family I’m sure. When he got the book I sent him “Four Witnesses” by Rod Bennett–he promply left me a message saying “I’d like to talk to you honey…please call”…Oh No. I feel the feathers ruffling. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? It makes me nervous but excited to share.
Sparkle

 

[vern_humphrey]

sparkle:

Yes, exactly! I agree! I shared with my Prot. pastor father. He sends me some bogus book on church history by Hurlbutt (which he has been teaching church history to his congregants for years), which in the first 2 pages says: “the pope was trying to take over the world”, and that it was not Peter whom the Church was built upon, but his “readiness”. HA! He’s a little perterbed with me I feel. And looks upon me as foolish, as does the rest of my family I’m sure. When he got the book I sent him “Four Witnesses” by Rod Bennett–he promply left me a message saying “I’d like to talk to you honey…please call”…Oh No. I feel the feathers ruffling. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? It makes me nervous but excited to share.
Sparkle

There are two points that no one can deny – phoney “history book” or not:

1. Truth is unity. The Catholic Church has taught a consistent, coherent message for 2,000 years. Protestantism in a quarter of that time has split, fragmented, quarreled, and broken apart.
2. The people most concerned with the issue of primacy are the bishops. And they all admit the primacy of the Bishop of Rome from the earliest days.

 

[Zooey]

linus:

Then you were taught a “tradition” as fact. I’m not saying he wasn’t martyred in Rome but, truth be, what we’re all taught of the Apostle’s deaths is from tradition. But the question is not if he died in Rome, but if he truly was Bishop of Rome for some 25 years before his death. What historical proof is there? You’d think Luke would have covered this most important part of Peter’s life in his Holy Spirit inspired, historical account, but alas, silence! And if Peter was Bishop of Rome, why did Paul have to instruct the Roman believers on soteriological matters? And why no contemporary writings that speak of it? Yet the whole authority and supremacy of the Roman Papacy is based on this silence. Help me out here

I don’t know how to break it to you, but tradition is history.

Granted that Luke does not discuss this particular subject; this proves what? That you know what he would have written?? That a 21st century opinion is a better historical source than the Early Church Fathers???
The purpose of Luke/Acts was to “set forth in order a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us”. As a convert of St Paul, Luke was writing Paul’s story; he includes detail from Our Lady. This is what the Holy Spirit inspired him to write.
Again, let me refer you to the perfectly wonderful library of articles on CA. There are any number on the subjects you raise. Try "Was Peter in Rome?"for a start. I have personally found it extremely well done.
God bless.

 

[allhers]

Plus, St. Luke didn’t probably feel the need to explain to the Church that he was writing to what they already knew and believed. The Bible was written for the Church, by the Church.

 

[FCEGM]

linus:

Then you were taught a “tradition” as fact. I’m not saying he wasn’t martyred in Rome but, truth be, what we’re all taught of the Apostle’s deaths is from tradition. But the question is not if he died in Rome, but if he truly was Bishop of Rome for some 25 years before his death. What historical proof is there? You’d think Luke would have covered this most important part of Peter’s life in his Holy Spirit inspired, historical account, but alas, silence! And if Peter was Bishop of Rome, why did Paul have to instruct the Roman believers on soteriological matters? And why no contemporary writings that speak of it? Yet the whole authority and supremacy of the Roman Papacy is based on this silence. Help me out here

St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans was written between A.D. 56 and A.D. 58 (Acts 20:2-3). St. Peter was almost certainly not in Rome when the Epistle was written. All of the Jewish Christian had been expelled from the capital under Claudius and, by A.D. 56 (the second year of Emperor Nero), a few of them were just beginning to return (Romans 16:3). The Christians in Rome are already aware of who Paul is and have been in contact with him for some time (Romans 1:13, 15:22, 16:3-16).

Romans is written to give instruction to the gentile Christians of Rome, not to the Jewish Christians. Paul teaches them because he is the “Apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 1:5-6, 11:13-14). Ah! But, even though it is Paul who is the Apostle to the Gentiles, these Roman Gentiles were not converted by Paul. Indeed, Paul has never even been to Rome (Romans 1:13, 15:22, etc.). What’s more, Paul directly tells these Roman Gentiles that, now that he has finished preaching in the East, he needs their help to reach, not Italy, but Spain (Romans 15:24). This very same verse (Rom 15:24) tells us that Paul merely hopes to meet the Roman Gentiles “in passing” as he sets out for Spain.

Now, think about this. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, is going to visit the most important Gentile city in the world - the capital of a world-wide (Gentile) Empire, with over 1 million inhabitants! Yet, he is not going to focus his ministry there, but merely asks for the Roman church’s help to get to Spain. Why would that be?! Well, Paul himself tells us; in Romans 15:20, he writes:

“Thus I aspire to proclaim the Gospel, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another man’s foundation.”

So, who is this “other man”? Who is Paul talking about? Again, we are talking about the most important and populous city in the world, the place where “all roads” lead. So, who is responsible for shepherding the church in this most crucial proving ground for the Gospel? If you read the rest of Paul’s writings, whenever he speaks of someone “laying a foundation,” this always refers to the work of an Apostle: Eph. 2:19-20, 1 Cor. 3:10-11, etc… So, what Apostle was associated with Rome? Only one: Simon Peter. Remember, Paul admits that he was never in Rome; nor are any of the other Apostles associated with it. Indeed, Rome is a church composed mostly of Gentiles; and, all throughout Scripture, there is only one Apostle who converted Gentiles as well as Jews. Again, this was Simon Peter.

So, if Peter was not in Rome; if he did not establish the Roman church and hold the status of its bishop (as did Paul in churches like Corinth, even when he was not physically present there - see: 1 Cor. 4:15), then what we are asked to believe is Rome - the most important and populous city in the world at the time - was passed over and ignored by all the Apostles, and entrusted to people with no Apostolic authority. Now that’s unbelievable.

 

[Mystophilus]

Zooey:

I don’t know how to break it to you, but tradition is history.

:twocents:
This is a very good point, and one that outsiders (like myself) often forget. We have an unfortunate tendency to assume that “tradition” means “oral tradition”, involving the transmission and evolution of stories across many centuries. In most cases, Catholic Church tradition starts from C2nd or 3rd writers, who present us with a much closer historical viewpoint than anything else we have.

On the one hand, this does not prove that the tradition is the historical truth.

On the other, very little of history is provable, and almost all of the things asserted as facts in our history books are really just our current working hypotheses, based on our best guesses.

Tradition is not just history. When the starting point is early enough, it is better history than reconstruction is.

 

[allhers]

FCEGM:

St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans was written between A.D. 56 and A.D. 58 (Acts 20:2-3). St. Peter was almost certainly not in Rome when the Epistle was written. All of the Jewish Christian had been expelled from the capital under Claudius and, by A.D. 56 (the second year of Emperor Nero), a few of them were just beginning to return (Romans 16:3). The Christians in Rome are already aware of who Paul is and have been in contact with him for some time (Romans 1:13, 15:22, 16:3-16).

Romans is written to give instruction to the gentile Christians of Rome, not to the Jewish Christians. Paul teaches them because he is the “Apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 1:5-6, 11:13-14). Ah! But, even though it is Paul who is the Apostle to the Gentiles, these Roman Gentiles were not converted by Paul. Indeed, Paul has never even been to Rome (Romans 1:13, 15:22, etc.). What’s more, Paul directly tells these Roman Gentiles that, now that he has finished preaching in the East, he needs their help to reach, not Italy, but Spain (Romans 15:24). This very same verse (Rom 15:24) tells us that Paul merely hopes to meet the Roman Gentiles “in passing” as he sets out for Spain.

Now, think about this. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, is going to visit the most important Gentile city in the world - the capital of a world-wide (Gentile) Empire, with over 1 million inhabitants! Yet, he is not going to focus his ministry there, but merely asks for the Roman church’s help to get to Spain. Why would that be?! Well, Paul himself tells us; in Romans 15:20, he writes:

“Thus I aspire to proclaim the Gospel, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another man’s foundation.”

So, who is this “other man”? Who is Paul talking about? Again, we are talking about the most important and populous city in the world, the place where “all roads” lead. So, who is responsible for shepherding the church in this most crucial proving ground for the Gospel? If you read the rest of Paul’s writings, whenever he speaks of someone “laying a foundation,” this always refers to the work of an Apostle: Eph. 2:19-20, 1 Cor. 3:10-11, etc… So, what Apostle was associated with Rome? Only one: Simon Peter. Remember, Paul admits that he was never in Rome; nor are any of the other Apostles associated with it. Indeed, Rome is a church composed mostly of Gentiles; and, all throughout Scripture, there is only one Apostle who converted Gentiles as well as Jews. Again, this was Simon Peter.

So, if Peter was not in Rome; if he did not establish the Roman church and hold the status of its bishop (as did Paul in churches like Corinth, even when he was not physically present there - see: 1 Cor. 4:15), then what we are asked to believe is Rome - the most important and populous city in the world at the time - was passed over and ignored by all the Apostles, and entrusted to people with no Apostolic authority. Now that’s unbelievable.

bravo! :clapping:

 

[Zooey]

FCEGM:

St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans was written between A.D. 56 and A.D. 58 (Acts 20:2-3). St. Peter was almost certainly not in Rome when the Epistle was written. All of the Jewish Christian had been expelled from the capital under Claudius and, by A.D. 56 (the second year of Emperor Nero), a few of them were just beginning to return (Romans 16:3). The Christians in Rome are already aware of who Paul is and have been in contact with him for some time (Romans 1:13, 15:22, 16:3-16).

Romans is written to give instruction to the gentile Christians of Rome, not to the Jewish Christians. Paul teaches them because he is the “Apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 1:5-6, 11:13-14). Ah! But, even though it is Paul who is the Apostle to the Gentiles, these Roman Gentiles were not converted by Paul. Indeed, Paul has never even been to Rome (Romans 1:13, 15:22, etc.). What’s more, Paul directly tells these Roman Gentiles that, now that he has finished preaching in the East, he needs their help to reach, not Italy, but Spain (Romans 15:24). This very same verse (Rom 15:24) tells us that Paul merely hopes to meet the Roman Gentiles “in passing” as he sets out for Spain.

Now, think about this. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, is going to visit the most important Gentile city in the world - the capital of a world-wide (Gentile) Empire, with over 1 million inhabitants! Yet, he is not going to focus his ministry there, but merely asks for the Roman church’s help to get to Spain. Why would that be?! Well, Paul himself tells us; in Romans 15:20, he writes:

“Thus I aspire to proclaim the Gospel, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another man’s foundation.”

So, who is this “other man”? Who is Paul talking about? Again, we are talking about the most important and populous city in the world, the place where “all roads” lead. So, who is responsible for shepherding the church in this most crucial proving ground for the Gospel? If you read the rest of Paul’s writings, whenever he speaks of someone “laying a foundation,” this always refers to the work of an Apostle: Eph. 2:19-20, 1 Cor. 3:10-11, etc… So, what Apostle was associated with Rome? Only one: Simon Peter. Remember, Paul admits that he was never in Rome; nor are any of the other Apostles associated with it. Indeed, Rome is a church composed mostly of Gentiles; and, all throughout Scripture, there is only one Apostle who converted Gentiles as well as Jews. Again, this was Simon Peter.

So, if Peter was not in Rome; if he did not establish the Roman church and hold the status of its bishop (as did Paul in churches like Corinth, even when he was not physically present there - see: 1 Cor. 4:15), then what we are asked to believe is Rome - the most important and populous city in the world at the time - was passed over and ignored by all the Apostles, and entrusted to people with no Apostolic authority. Now that’s unbelievable.

Oh, wow!! That is terrific!! I love it when the Bible opens up something like that! …It’s like, I’ve read that all my life, & all of a sudden, there is something there that confirms what I had learned, but had not seen there before!! Thank you!!!
I have gotta go:yup: re-read those verses!!!

 

[mercygate]

FCEGM:

St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans was written between A.D. 56 and A.D. 58 (Acts 20:2-3). St. Peter was almost certainly not in Rome when the Epistle was written. . . . . So, if Peter was not in Rome; if he did not establish the Roman church and hold the status of its bishop (as did Paul in churches like Corinth, even when he was not physically present there - see: 1 Cor. 4:15), then what we are asked to believe is Rome - the most important and populous city in the world at the time - was passed over and ignored by all the Apostles, and entrusted to people with no Apostolic authority. Now that’s unbelievable.

Frances, this is outstanding work. Is it your own or are you quoting somebody? Please take this question as a compliment and not as a challenge! If it is yours, may I have permission to use it? You can PM me with the information I would need to include when citing you. If it is not yours, please share with all of us so that we can reference this pithy little essay responsibly in our own teaching and apologetics work.

 

[twiztedseraph]

sparkle:

How should I respond friends, to a Prot. pastor friend who claims “Peter was not even in Rome”?..WOW…how could he even doubt? even for one minute? The evidence is just so overwhelming with Rod Bennett’s book “Four Witnesses” among many other good ones and so many witnesses to early Christianity here. Guess with Prots…if it’s “not in the Bible”…it’s not valid. If there’s no “Chapter and Verse” explicitly saying: Peter witnessed Christianity in Rome and was persecuted and killed in ______ AD, well then they dispute it, and thus dispute the entire papacy. I’m at a loss.

I’m getting so tired of this same old stuff…and don’t have the energy for it any longer. Please help me here. I’m not an apologist, don’t want to be, but these things are coming up friends right and left from my Fundamentalist Evangelical Family (Dad and 6 cousins pastors). I MUST know what to say. I need something short, and succinct. Thank you all for your replies. I think churches should have classes on apologetics, don’t you? As we live in such an anti-Catholic society. We must know how to defend our faith, I firmly believe this, or we are just used up salt to be trampled underfoot–as yesterday’s Scripture tells.

Blessings~~

Tell him to read a history book. Or better yet an archaelogical tome.

 

[linus]

FCEGM:

So, if Peter was not in Rome; if he did not establish the Roman church and hold the status of its bishop (as did Paul in churches like Corinth, even when he was not physically present there - see: 1 Cor. 4:15), then what we are asked to believe is Rome - the most important and populous city in the world at the time - was passed over and ignored by all the Apostles, and entrusted to people with no Apostolic authority. Now that’s unbelievable.

This is still all based on speculation. :yawn: Do you have ANY documentary proof of any of this? Rome was not absent of Apostolic authority. In fact, at the end of the Book of Acts it states that Paul stayed a full two years in his own rented quarters being allow to welcome ALL who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. Plus he’d already written them the most important doctrinal letter in the N.T.

Again, is there ANY hard evidence that Peter was Bishop of Rome? I find it amazing that the whole Roman Papacy is based on historical silence. :bigyikes:

Also, Paul was not stating he was “Bishop” of Corinth by saying he was their “father.” It simply means he brought them the gospel message first.

 

[mercygate]

linus:

Again, is there ANY hard evidence that Peter was Bishop of Rome? I find it amazing that the whole Roman Papacy is based on historical silence. :bigyikes:

There are more than 30 references to Peter’s presence in Rome in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. This is a tract-length discussion of the subject.
catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp
I don’t suppose the identification of Peter’s bones would weigh much with you: The Bones of St. Peter: The First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle’s Body, by John Evangelist Walsh, 1982 Doubleday

%between%

 

[Zooey]

linus:

Rome was not absent of Apostolic authority. .

Boy, it sure wasn’t!! The Apostle Peter was there as Bishop of Rome…
Check your:yup: ECFs…

Oh, that’s right…that’s where I came in!!

 

[FCEGM]

mercygate:

Frances, this is outstanding work. Is it your own or are you quoting somebody? Please take this question as a compliment and not as a challenge! If it is yours, may I have permission to use it? You can PM me with the information I would need to include when citing you. If it is not yours, please share with all of us so that we can reference this pithy little essay responsibly in our own teaching and apologetics work.

Thank you, Benedicte - and Zooey and Allhers

I happily admit to NOT being the author. This was written by a friend who is a very active apologist who comes to my aid from time to time when questions are raised concerning Scripture, history or the ECFs. More of his apologetic material can be found at:

bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm

 

[FCEGM]

Zooey:

Boy, it sure wasn’t!! The Apostle Peter was there as Bishop of Rome…
Check your:yup: ECFs…

What you said, Zooey.

 

[mercygate]

FCEGM:

Thank you, Benedicte - and Zooey and Allhers

I happily admit to NOT being the author. This was written by a friend who is a very active apologist who comes to my aid from time to time when questions are raised concerning Scripture, history or the ECFs. More of his apologetic material can be found at:

bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm

Mighta known it was PhilVaz. He’s dynamite. I have some of his other stuff bookmarked.

 

[FCEGM]

mercygate:

Mighta known it was PhilVaz. He’s dynamite. I have some of his other stuff bookmarked.

Close, but not quite, Benedicte -although Phil IS an on-line friend. Check for MJB.

 

[Milliardo]

linus:

Evangelicals do not witness about their church since they don’t believe, as Catholics do, that salvation is through the church, but through personal faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ alone. And to them the “Church” is not an ecclesiastical hierarchy headquartered in Rome, but made up of all who are now “in Christ Jesus” (born again).

First–no, the Catholic does not believe per se that salvation is through the Church, though the Catholic does believe that salvation is through Christ, and that through Christ the Church was instituted, thus the Church’s necessity. I wouldn’t go over the point of the Protestant notion of an “invisible” church, since that is another topic.

 

[linus]

mercygate:

There are more than 30 references to Peter’s presence in Rome in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. This is a tract-length discussion of the subject.
catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp
I don’t suppose the identification of Peter’s bones would weigh much with you: The Bones of St. Peter: The First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle’s Body, by John Evangelist Walsh, 1982 Doubleday

%between%

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)

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.

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

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.

 

[Milliardo]

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)

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.

I think the explanation above speaks for itself. You say that it is merely speculation; is the Trinity, to use an analogy, mere speculation to you then? After all, the idea of 1 God in 3 Divine Prsons is very hard to grasp, and for all we care it’s mere speculation, right? Or are you saying that we can’t take the early Christians’ word for it? What, then, would you believe in that case?

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.

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.