E
El_camino
Guest
But how could Peter could have ever been the bishop of Rome if he was never was in Rome?
I think that is the punch line of the matter.
E.C.
- Status
I think that is the punch line of the matter.
E.C.
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
The symbolism of choosing Rome for cult HQ was very important. It is saying that “this is the new God of the Empire”. However had Peter elected to remain in Jerusalem, nothing essential would have been lost. Similarly, though the only people who try to make out that St Peter was never in Rome are mischievous Protestants manipulating very strong evidence to the contrary, should they be proved right the Papacy would still be valid and intact.
S
Subrosa
Guest
A person who would deny that Peter was in Rome would be hard pressed to explain how the church there began.
The earliest church documents state it is so, as well as every person who wrote about the subject since, with the exception of those who deny it. They of course do not supply a founder of thier own choice.
Believe it because it is true and for no other reason, catechism or not.
Subrosa
T
Truthstalker
Guest
A house divided against itself will not stand.
How do you know whether something is in Sacred Tradition? It seems you do not know, because it seems there are so many conflicting opinions on something so simple.
Whether Peter was ever in Rome is not the point here. Whether the papacy is or was, or will be, is not either. Let me rephrase the OP:
On what grounds does a Catholic accept something as part of Sacred Tradition? Specifically, on what grounds is a Catholic required to believe Peter ever was in Rome, as it is not in the Bible. If Catholics are bound to Scripture plus Tradition, then it must be in Tradition. If it is in Tradition, how do you know it is there? What authority tells you it is in Tradition? What tells you that something happened that is not necessarily relevant to faith and morals? Maybe it makes no difference if Peter never actually set foot in Rome. Maybe he was killed on his first approach to the Imperial City. I don’t know, and this is something I do not understand.
Catholics have many traditions. Not all the traditions are Traditions. Is Peter being in Rome a tradition or part of Tradition, and how do you tell the difference?
S
Subrosa
Guest
Everything published by the church in 2000 years of history. Not all of it fits in the catechism.
Maybe you can find something to show us that says otherwise?
It doesn’t have to be in the catechism. It is not a church dogma, it is fact.
You don’t have to believe anything the church teaches. Ask any protestant and they’ll tell you the same thing.
BTW - What reason would you have to deny it?
Sub
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I deny nothing here: that Peter was in Rome, that he was the bishop, or anything else. The question is, how do you know?
S
Subrosa
Guest
Truthstalker -
The catechism is a compendium of Catholic teachings. It could not fit all of the teachings without being so large that it would fit into a library.
The catechism certainly aludes to Peter’s Roman presence every time it names the Pope as Peter’s successor. It really has no reason to state whether or not Peter was in Rome. It is not anything that is required for adherence to the faith.
However, to deny it is to say that every Bishop of Rome since the very beginning had no foundation. If the Roman church has no foundation, how do you explain that it exists? How did it begin?
Subrosa
The catechism is a compendium of Catholic teachings. It could not fit all of the teachings without being so large that it would fit into a library.
The catechism certainly aludes to Peter’s Roman presence every time it names the Pope as Peter’s successor. It really has no reason to state whether or not Peter was in Rome. It is not anything that is required for adherence to the faith.
However, to deny it is to say that every Bishop of Rome since the very beginning had no foundation. If the Roman church has no foundation, how do you explain that it exists? How did it begin?
Subrosa
L
LilyM
Guest
It’s not a matter of ‘magisterium’ and ‘not magisterium’. The word simply means teaching authority.
And there are varying levels, of course, and degrees of this teaching authority. It’s like saying your high school physics teacher is an authority on physics, the head of the Physics department at the local university is a higher authority, and Professor Stephen Hawking is a higher authority still. The Pope himself is the highest authority, then Church Councils in as far as their members are in union with him, then bishops and priests again in as far as their teaching is in union with him.
And yes there are grey areas. Mainly because some points aren’t clarified until and unless they’re disputed. And this is one of them - after all there is a good deal of historical evidence to suggest Peter WAS at some point in Rome and frankly little to nothing suggesting otherwise. No reason to dispute that he was, so no reason for the Church to make a statement in the Catechism binding us to this belief.
It really is a matter of secular historical evidence (like the historical evidence of Christ’s own existence, for example) rather than definitive Church teaching.
S
Subrosa
Guest
By Holy Tradition. It is written down by people who were there. These people are called the Church Fathers.
Here are some quote form very early letters -
] as recorded by Eusebius).
Irenaeus
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (*Against Marcion *4:5:1 [inter **A.D. 207-212]).
Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 A.D. 303]).
When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (*Ecclesiastical History *6:14:1 A.D. 325]).
Peter of Alexandria
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (*Canonical Letter, *canon 9 A.D. 306]).
Beside these early writing there are more which say the same thing and NO EARLY WRITINGS that claim otherwise.
Sub
C
clmowry
Guest
I wouldn’t waste much time providing evidence for what is believed or why.
It is pretty obvious the OP could care less.
The games people are allowed to play on this site really puzzle me at times.
Why not just make your point instead of trying to play gotcha games?
Chuck
It is pretty obvious the OP could care less.
The games people are allowed to play on this site really puzzle me at times.
Why not just make your point instead of trying to play gotcha games?
Chuck
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
I don’t think Catholics MUST believe that Peter was in Rome but based on the historical evidence, there is probably no reason for not believing so. However, ultimately I don’t think it really matters. Peter and the Popes are not in Rome because it’s the Holy See but rather it’s the Holy See because they are in Rome.
Here is a good article on Peter: newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV
Here is a good article on Peter: newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV
T
Truthstalker
Guest
It is most probable and reasonable that Peter was in Rome. It’s what the historical evidence indicates. However, there seems to be a puzzling blend of historical evidence and Tradition. Where does one end and the other begin? Not all history is true, but Catholics believe all Tradition is true. Since not all history is true, not all history is Tradition. There is also history that is true that is not Tradition, such as Caeser’s expedition to Britain. As a Catholic you believe something not on the basis of secular history but on Tradition.
Again, how do you know something is part of Tradition and not something else? I think Lily is saying sometimes you can’t tell the difference, which contradicts Aquinas’ delineation between philosophical science and that based on revelation.
So I am puzzled.
Again, how do you know something is part of Tradition and not something else? I think Lily is saying sometimes you can’t tell the difference, which contradicts Aquinas’ delineation between philosophical science and that based on revelation.
So I am puzzled.
D
DallasCatholic
Guest
With all due respect that is a pretty facile statemement. This is a public forum, there are varying degrees of knowledege exhibited here. No one that I’ve seen is a canon lawyer, Doctor of the Church, Bishop…etc. so different opinions can be expected and should not be surprising.
As I stated in an earlier post the Church does not have an infallible teaching on whether Peter was in Rome. As a Catholic you can believe what you wish in that regard. Now that is aside from the historical and archeological evidence that Peter was in Rome which is what many here have responded to.
The Catechism explains the teachings of the Church it is not a manifesto or a rule book. We know something is a Sacred Tradition through the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Popes…to name a few. There is no simple easy way to find ALL of the things that the Church teaches…which is why some people are in error (myself included sometimes) when they post responses on this and other sites. Sometimes we post what we believe to be true only to find out that we didn’t know as much as we thought.
To answer your original question: Just because something is in the Catechism does not mean that all Catholics must be in lock step agreement on it. There are, I believe, six doctrines that the Church demands agreement on…beyond that there is room for discussion. You can find those doctrines in the Catechism. Likewise there are some things that are not listed in the Catechism that are accepted by all Catholics…ours is not an easy faith. Have you read this article from Mark Shea?
mark-shea.com/tradition.html
B
Beyrak
Guest
/snicker
If you don’t believe Peter was ever in Rome, then why would you be Catholic? Join one of those other Churches other than the Catholic Church that was around for the first 1500 years after Christ was crucified. Oh yea, there wasn’t any.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Just did. Thanks for posting it, but it didn’t answer the question of how you know Peter was in Rome. You say because it is part of Tradition. So how do you know it is part of Tradition?
L
LilyM
Guest
Who says not all history is true? It’s true and historical fact that Ancient Greeks believed in their multiple deities. It’s just not theological or philosophical fact that those deities actually existed then or exist now. You’re muddling up different types of knowledge and fact.
Says who? It’s secular historical fact that Jesus Christ really existed, lived taught and died in Palestine in the first century AD, and would be of necessity required belief for Catholics even if it had never been explicitly stated in any Church document.
Well there are areas of overlap between the two types of science or knowledge that Aquinas discusses. They’re not entirely distinct.
Hence, for example, the kerfuffle over the recent discovery by James Cameron and a bunch of secular historians of what some thought was a family tomb (complete with remains) of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Mary Magdalene.
Of course the discovery and analysis of this tomb is a matter of secular historical fact and evidence. But it has implications on what we believe as ‘revealed’ knowledge too - namely that Christ rose from the dead rather than remaining dead
So much so that if it could somehow be proven that these were in fact the bones of Jesus and Nazareth it would basically destroy Christianity as we know it.
So there’s a degree of interaction between the philosophical science and the revelation of Aquinas in that the one can be used to confirm - or supplement - the other.
And in the end one must accept that 2+2=4, that Caesar was in Britain, that Jesus Christ was a real person or that Peter was in Rome at some point regardless of whether Tradition speaks to the matter or is silent on it.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
If it’s in the Catechism, a Catholic must believe it.?
Yes
The Catechism is a non-exhustive summary of Catholic teaching.
If it is not in the Catechism, a Catholic need not believe it?
No, there are things thay may not be explicitly found in the Catechism that require belief.
There are several statements in the Systematic Index of Denzinger:
That Peter has successors.
That succession is found in the Bishop of Rome.
That there are three seats of St. Peter.
That Peter founded the church in Rome.
That Peter and Paul were both killed there.
Those teachings must be believed by Catholics.
D
DallasCatholic
Guest
No, I did not say it was part of Tradition. I said it was part of tradition, as in historical and archeological tradition not Sacred Tradition. Someone else also posted some of the writings of the ECF regarding Peter’s martyrdom in Rome. You also stated in your previous post that whether or not Peter was in Rome was not important…so is it important or not?
It is very hard to hit a moving target!
D
DallasCatholic
Guest
Not everything in Denzinger is doctrine or dogma although it is a very formidable source. While your first two I would agree with I have not found anything that supports that the last three statements are doctrine or dogma…and so not all Catholics must believe. Please feel free to correct me. Certainly we are taught (tradition with a little “t” for truthseeker
)the statements you use are true however if they are not doctrine or dogma then we are free to make our own choice.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Why?
Because they are true.
Why?
Because the Church says they are true.
Why?
Because the Church has looked into it more deeply and more intelligently and more cleverly and more informedly than any one individual could possibly look into it by himself, and that is the answer the Church came up with.
Why?
Because God sent the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. And some have had time and brains and knowledge to think through and piece these things together, guided by His Holy Spirit. And He gave some teaching authority, to teach others what He means.
Why?
Because He loves us and wants to rescue us.
Why?
Because that is how He is.
Oh.
Is this what Catholics believe?
- Status