Must a Catholic believe Peter was ever in Rome?

[Truthstalker]

I searched the Catechism for the statement that Peter was in Rome. Nowhere does it say that he was there. Or did I miss it?

If it’s in the Catechism, a Catholic must believe it.
If it is not in the Catechism, a Catholic need not believe it.

Right? Or wrong?

 

[1ke]

I searched the Catechism for the statement that Peter was in Rome. Nowhere does it say that he was there. Or did I miss it?

CCC 880-882 discusses that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. That means, successor to his bishopric-- Rome. Ergo, Peter was in Rome as the Bishop of Rome.

If it’s in the Catechism, a Catholic must believe it.

Correct.

If it is not in the Catechism, a Catholic need not believe it.

Not correct.

 

[TAS2000]

The Catechism also doesn’t say that pilgrims ever landed at Plymouth Rock. So we are not bound as Catholics to believe it.

You seem to be confusing the Catechism with the Book of All Knowledge and Wisdom.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I searched the Catechism for the statement that Peter was in Rome. Nowhere does it say that he was there. Or did I miss it?

If it’s in the Catechism, a Catholic must believe it.
If it is not in the Catechism, a Catholic need not believe it.

Right? Or wrong?

That is a good general rule.

It must be believed that Christ gave Peter the position of leading the whole Church. That the successors of Peter receive that same authority and responsibility as it states in #936

 

[Truthstalker]

CCC 880-882 discusses that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. That means, successor to his bishopric-- Rome. Ergo, Peter was in Rome as the Bishop of Rome. .

The conclusion is an inference but not necessarily true.

For example, perhaps Peter appointed his successor to be bishop of Rome without ever setting foot there.

It is not explicitly stated in the Catechism that Peter was ever in Rome.

 

[1ke]

The conclusion is an inference but not necessarily true.

For example, perhaps Peter appointed his successor to be bishop of Rome without ever setting foot there.

This interpretation is **not **consistent with the writings of the Church Fathers and the constant teaching of the Church.

The Church teaches that Peter was the **real **bishop of Rome, not what you propose above.

It is not explicitly stated in the Catechism that Peter was ever in Rome.

That does not mean the Church does not teach it, nor does it mean that it is not true, nor does it mean that we don’t have to believe it.

 

[1ke]

See:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930127en.html

 

[Truthstalker]

This interpretation is **not **consistent with the writings of the Church Fathers and the constant teaching of the Church. .

I thought the constant teaching of the Church is all in the Catechism. No? What else contains the constant teaching of the Church?

The Church teaches that Peter was the **real **bishop of Rome, not what you propose above.

Where does it say this authoritatively? What does it mean to be the “real” bishop? Why couldn’t he have been bishop of Rome but not ever set foot there because the Romans would have killed him the moment they knew where he was?

That does not mean the Church does not teach it, nor does it mean that it is not true, nor does it mean that we don’t have to believe it.

Where does the Church teach he was in Rome?
Why do you have to believe it if it is not in the Catechism?

By the way: whether or not he was in Rome has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Truthstalker]

See:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930127en.html

Thanks for posting this but I am still stupid. What kind of authority does this document have? Is it infallible? Is a good Catholic just supposed to believe it, or work through it?

 

[1ke]

Thanks for posting this but I am still stupid. What kind of authority does this document have? Is it infallible? Is a good Catholic just supposed to believe it, or work through it?

The constant teaching of the church on a subject is called the Oridnary Magesterium. Yes, the Ordinary Magesterium does have the charism of infallibility.

The Church has always taught through the Magesterium that Peter was the real Bishop of Rome.

This individual document is not a product of the extraordinary magesterium (ex cathedra pronouncement). Rather, it is part of the ordinary Magesterium, reiterating the constant teaching of the Church.

Therefore, yes, you do need to assent to the teaching.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Thanks for posting this but I am still stupid. What kind of authority does this document have? Is it infallible? Is a good Catholic just supposed to believe it, or work through it?

The Church, to my knowledge, does not teach infallibly on this topic. It is traditionally believed that Peter was in Rome, was martyred in Rome and finally was buried in Rome. You can choose to believe tradition and the evidence that backs up that tradition or you can choose not to believe that tradition. I seriously doubt that you will ever hear the Pope speak Ex Cathedra on this issue. The ordinary Magisterium does NOT have the charism of infallibility.

 

[Truthstalker]

The constant teaching of the church on a subject is called the Oridnary Magesterium. Yes, the Ordinary Magesterium does have the charism of infallibility.

The Church has always taught through the Magesterium that Peter was the real Bishop of Rome.

This individual document is not a product of the extraordinary magesterium (ex cathedra pronouncement). Rather, it is part of the ordinary Magesterium, reiterating the constant teaching of the Church.

Therefore, yes, you do need to assent to the teaching.

What is the basis of authority for these statements?

 

[1ke]

What is the basis of authority for these statements?

CCC 892

 

[Truthstalker]

CCC 892

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

I don’t see whether Peter was in Rome being something that would lead “to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals”. This is more of a historical fact at issue than a doctrine.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

People, you seem to be forgetting that Catholicism is not ‘Bible alone’. The two (two, count-em, two) ‘vessels’ of Catholic teaching are Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition says Peter was martyred in Rome (which would have been a tad difficult if he was never there). Sacred Tradition never contradicts Scripture, likewise Scripture never contradicts Sacred Tradition.

Sounds like one is being ‘tempted’ to the sort of leaning that “well, if Peter was never really in Rome, then maybe Catholicism is built on lies and the Orthodox are really the ‘one true church’, or else the protestants are right and there is no ‘authority’ and the ‘rock’ is just an individual profession of faith etc.”

Well, don’t let the barque of faith flounder on “Was Peter in Rome” when good old Sacred Tradition is quite firm on the matter. He was.

God bless.

 

[DallasCatholic]

People, you seem to be forgetting that Catholicism is not ‘Bible alone’. The two (two, count-em, two) ‘vessels’ of Catholic teaching are Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition says Peter was martyred in Rome (which would have been a tad difficult if he was never there). Sacred Tradition never contradicts Scripture, likewise Scripture never contradicts Sacred Tradition.

Sounds like one is being ‘tempted’ to the sort of leaning that “well, if Peter was never really in Rome, then maybe Catholicism is built on lies and the Orthodox are really the ‘one true church’, or else the protestants are right and there is no ‘authority’ and the ‘rock’ is just an individual profession of faith etc.”

Well, don’t let the barque of faith flounder on “Was Peter in Rome” when good old Sacred Tradition is quite firm on the matter. He was.

God bless.

Whether or not Peter was physically present in Rome is a matter of tradition not Sacred Tradition…there is a difference. Catholics are NOT REQUIRED to believe that Peter was physically in Rome. You are right to not let the barque of faith founder on this one small point.

 

[JimG]

Many archeologists would say that Peter’s presence in Rome is amply demonstrated by “monumental” evidence alone, even disregarding the evidence of his presence there from history and tradition. (“Monumental” evidence is evidence from the physical monuments and artifacts of a place.)

 

[LilyM]

You seem to be confusing the Catechism with the Book of All Knowledge and Wisdom.

You mean it isn’t?

Put it this way - Peter was bishop of a lot of places. That comes of the early church being spread over a wide geographical area with a rather small (numerically) leadership.

It’s possible that he didn’t spend much time in Rome, however it’s highly unlikely that he never set foot there at all. For one, consider Paul’s epistle to the Romans. There was clearly already quite a thriving little church in Rome - before Paul’s arrival. It makes sense that Peter was there first!

 

[El_camino]

If it is not in the Catechism, a Catholic need not believe it.

It is not explicitly stated in the Catechism that Peter was ever in Rome.

Something important… CATHOLICS DO NOT FOLLOW SOLA SCRIPTURA, much less SOLA CATECHISM.

Many regards,

E.C.

 

[jimmy]

I searched the Catechism for the statement that Peter was in Rome. Nowhere does it say that he was there. Or did I miss it?

If it’s in the Catechism, a Catholic must believe it.
If it is not in the Catechism, a Catholic need not believe it.

Right? Or wrong?

Peter going to Rome is really irrelevant to the matter of the papacy. The pope does not recieve the authority of Peter because Peter went to Rome. But I would say it would be good history to accept it. It is attested to from the very beginning of Christianity.