Must a Catholic believe Peter was ever in Rome?

[Truthstalker]

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!

I think Peter was in Rome. Based on the ECFs and historical data and the lack of counter-evidence, it is the most logical deduction. I thought the question was a good specific example of something I could use to inquire about how Catholics process tradition and Tradition, but instead I seem to have hit a raw nerve and somehow am coming off like a Trail of Blood Troll. But I don’t believe Peter was in Rome because Tradition says he was. I believe he was because of the historical evidence. But apparently you could then say I believe it because of Tradition, and you would get a very puzzled look from me. I am already really puzzled.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Truthstalker:

Not all history is true, but Catholics believe all Tradition is true. Since not all history is true, not all history is Tradition.

A. Not all history is true
B. Tradition is true

C. Since A than B is false

Hmmm, is C supposed to be a logical conclusion from your premises? If yeas than let me point out that it’s completely illogical.

Why?

Because (H)istory =/= (T)radition. In other words all T is part of H but not all H is part of T.

Anyways, Peter is Rome is about the same as our believe that he was crucified upside down. It’s tradition and catholics believe in it because it seems historically the most plausible answer. You know, not everything we believe is in the Bible, Catechism or Magisterium.

I think we could take the example of gravity. In a sense the law of gravity is accepted by the Church. At the same time it is not in the Catechism because it’s a scientific fact, not a religious one. We are free to believe that there is no gravity . The same goes for Peter being in Rome. It’s a historical fact accepted by Rome. It is not something that should be put into catechism and we are not forced into believing in it.

 

[Truthstalker]

The Systematic Index of Denzinger:

What is this and how much authority does it carry? And what kind of authority?

 

[LilyM]

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?

Something like that …

personally I’m tempted to skip the bolded bit and say first and foremost the Holy Spirit was conferred most fully upon Church leaders - the Apostles and their successors. And then that revelation and academic discipline together have led and continue to lead the Church into the fullness of truth.

 

[Truthstalker]

A. Not all history is true
B. Tradition is true

C. Since A than B is false

Hmmm, is C supposed to be a logical conclusion from your premises? If yeas than let me point out that it’s completely illogical.

Why?

Because (H)istory =/= (T)radition. In other words all T is part of H but not all H is part of T.

No, I’m not attacking Tradition. I am more asking how you detect it.

 

[DallasCatholic]

I think Peter was in Rome. Based on the ECFs and historical data and the lack of counter-evidence, it is the most logical deduction. I thought the question was a good specific example of something I could use to inquire about how Catholics process tradition and Tradition, but instead I seem to have hit a raw nerve and somehow am coming off like a Trail of Blood Troll. But I don’t believe Peter was in Rome because Tradition says he was. I believe he was because of the historical evidence. But apparently you could then say I believe it because of Tradition, and you would get a very puzzled look from me. I am already really puzzled.

I think the question was a good example, and some people answered you…but then you seemed to veer off to another track and that is what I think one poster in particular responded to…as I said ours is not an easy faith. No one is required to believe something just because the Church says it is true. The Church encourages everyone to examine it’s teachings for themselves and seek the truth of those teachings. The Church does ask that, if after investigation you cannot make up your mind, you trust the teaching until you can come to know it more fully.

 

[DallasCatholic]

No, I’m not attacking Tradition. I am more asking how you detect it.

Ahhhh! So that’s what you want to know! It is my understanding that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a compendium of Sacred Tradition but I do not know if that is the sole source.

 

[Truthstalker]

I think the question was a good example, and some people answered you…but then you seemed to veer off to another track and that is what I think one poster in particular responded to…as I said ours is not an easy faith. No one is required to believe something just because the Church says it is true. The Church encourages everyone to examine it’s teachings for themselves and seek the truth of those teachings. The Church does ask that, if after investigation you cannot make up your mind, you trust the teaching until you can come to know it more fully.

Good. Now I am more confused than ever. People seem to be saying different things.

 

[LilyM]

Good. Now I am more confused than ever. People seem to be saying different things.

The more you know, the more you know how little you really do know. It’s a sign of progress.

Kinda like how my house gets progressively more chaotic DURING cleaning and then suddenly the chaos resolves and order emerges

 

[Truthstalker]

Yet the Church is not yet in the fullness of truth, it is only on the journey. Not every doctrine is completed, not every thought realized, not all that God has for the church has completely unfolded. Although, as I understand it, as the church develops, twig turns to branch and the form continues without change, nonethelss, correspondiingly, there is correction: what once was acceptable to believe, because it had not yet been defined, will be no longer. Thus, there are things in error in the church, or things that perhaps are commonly accepted that are in fact false. Some of these things could have been false for a long time. Perhaps it has been commonly accepted that Peter lived in Rome, but he never actually did - visited, maybe, but did not live there.

There are, I think, things that the Church knows are true. And then there are things that Catholics think are true. And there is a big difference sometimes. And those things can become interwoven with teaching, so that true and false can lie side by side, wheat and weed, difficult to tel apart until they come to fruition.

Does this have anything to do with Tradition and tradition, with true history (what really happened) and history (facts plus interpretation/compression/opinion)?

 

[Subrosa]

Does this have anything to do with Tradition and tradition, with true history (what really happened) and history (facts plus interpretation/compression/opinion)?

If your question is, “What is the difference between Tradition and tradition?”, then your answer is this - Tradition is that which has it’s origin in Christ and His apostles, while tradition does not.

Local feast days are traditions - the Holy Liturgy is Tradition, for a few examples.

Sub

 

[Truthstalker]

I]Tradition

is that which has it’s origin in Christ and His apostles, while tradition does not.

How do you tell the difference?

 

[Truthstalker]

Maybe this will help:

There are numerous stories in church history about saints performing fantastic and unbelievable miracles and events that I don’t know that anyone believes today. I don’t want to go into particulars here, but to posit that there are such stories. Some of them go far back into church history. They are not, to my knowledge, regarded as tradition or Tradition, but why not? On what grounds do you make the judgement on whether to believe something the church tells you? Not everything they say is Tradition. You must employ some screening process.

 

[JaneFrances]

Hey TS, I’ve been reading this thread and I can not put my finger on it, but I’m concerned.

Here are some thoughts. . .not too pointed, just some things that bug me. First, why is it important to determine with absolute certainty in your mind the whereabouts of Peter as an official, dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church? As you have certainly surmized thus far in your journey and have indicated as such here in this very thread, there is a thing called development. How does the teaching that Peter was in Rome affect your understanding of the Faith? If he wasn’t, is it all a wash? If he was, as history and tradition suggest, is it a slam dunk?

Of course, I understand the line of thought which demands a listing. . .an accounting. . .a reckoning of that which is categorically Big T or little t. It is just so blastedly human and litigious for us to need that list. We can wave it in our little hands and shake it at the heavens. But sadly, even with 27 books and a 2000 year old Mother, we are still called to Faith. Too often certainty is a luxury that we put on the credit card, when we can’t cash a check on Faith.

 

[Renzo]

So now Protestants are trying to attack papacy trough invalidating the fact that Peter was in Rome? Ok, this is a new one…

The answers is YES, Peter was in Rome, how do I know it? I read about it. Is proven historical fact. Heck I was in the Vatican in 2006 for my honey moon and I saw the freaking tomb!!! Of course you can say it hasn’t REALLY been proven that it was in fact the tomb of Peter, heck but it has better supporting evidence that that TOMB OF JESUS James Cameron just pulled out of his hat , but that Peter was in Rome is beyond questioning.

But this is a completely unnecessary explanation, if Peter wasn’t the bishop of Rome but the bishop of some other city, the Pope would be now in another geographical place but will still be the Pope. Come on man, Why would early Christians like Clement, Ignatius and Tertullian “forge” the presence of Peter in Rome?

So, TS for more mindless question like this, please just google them… heck WIKI them, even a totally non catholic source open to eveyone implies it was a 1st century known fact that Peter lived and died in Rome.

PD: Oh I know you are posting here just to annoy but I give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Truthstalker]

Hey TS, I’ve been reading this thread and I can not put my finger on it, but I’m concerned.

Here are some thoughts. . .not too pointed, just some things that bug me. First, why is it important to determine with absolute certainty in your mind the whereabouts of Peter as an official, dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church? As you have certainly surmized thus far in your journey and have indicated as such here in this very thread, there is a thing called development. How does the teaching that Peter was in Rome affect your understanding of the Faith? If he wasn’t, is it all a wash? If he was, as history and tradition suggest, is it a slam dunk?

Of course, I understand the line of thought which demands a listing. . .an accounting. . .a reckoning of that which is categorically Big T or little t. It is just so blastedly human and litigious for us to need that list. We can wave it in our little hands and shake it at the heavens. But sadly, even with 27 books and a 2000 year old Mother, we are still called to Faith. Too often certainty is a luxury that we put on the credit card, when we can’t cash a check on Faith.

No.

I am not asking the question “How do we know when Mother is lying.” But I have brothers and sisters who say a lot of things about what Mom says, and they are not always reliable. There are different levels of authority in Catholicism, such as revelation, dogma, doctrine, discipline. I encounter this statement: Peter was in Rome. It is not in the Bible. It is not in the Catechism. But the Church believes it (so do I, actually). It is in something, some body of knowledge accepted by the Church. Some would call that Tradition.

There are also things going on in the Catholic Church that some seem to say are Tradition but are at best tradition and at worst pagan or superstition, such as the burying of a St.Joseph statue upside down in order to sell a house. Some of these things the Church tolerates but does not endorse, some it does not tolerate.
A fully formed Catholic conscience would, I think, understand what is in what category. By osmosis you learn a lot of things about Catholicism, some of which is in each category. My filter is set on Protestant, which means I reject a lot of things in all three categories without much differentation. Some of the things are good, some some Catholics would reject, some all Catholics would (I hope) reject. “That’s bunk,” you say to some things, and you know why.

So if it’s not in the Bible and it is not in the Catechism and the Church still believes it, and there is no exhaustive list of what the Church believes, and bishops and priests and teachers do not necessarily teach Catholicism, and so are unreliable, how do you determine what the Church believes about something?

 

[JaneFrances]

how do you determine what the Church believes about something?

Oh, well that’s an easy one! Prayer, study and contextual support.

I know that you aren’t asking how to tell if Mother is lying.

Your type don’t generally come with filters that are easily replaced. I understand. However, when a brother or sister says, “Mom says thus and such,” one has to wonder if she really would. To know this, one would have to have a relationship with Mom. One would need to know under what circumstances Mom may be vigilant about a sassy mouth or during which times Mom is may be more permissive about daily baths or tolerant about eating in the den. You are perceptive to sense the instinct involved here. Our family is large. And if knowing Mom wasn’t enough, you must also consider your brother or sister.

I really can’t think. . .maybe you could???. . .of an issue I wouldn’t be able to determine Mom’s opinion about, teaching on, or rule concerning. Whether it be in the Catechism or the Sacred Scritpures or deep within the Code of Canon Law or the information of a trusted big brother or even a sum of deduction, I trust that the answers can be found. And perhaps it’s my Catholic filter here, but I don’t expect Mom to hand me an exhaustive list of everything I could ever imagine. I also must consider that Mom, while certainly organized, is an organism.

 

[Truthstalker]

Best answer yet. Sometimes it takes a while to develop the question.

There is a rhythm and a harmony to Truth: in a sense it is more like music than propositions laid out on a page, becoming more complex with time even as it is always the same thought. Some notes are out of tune; some do not belong, and these get picked up on and eventually discarded by those who have that task.

Peter was in Rome. Well, duh. Sorry about the obsession but here it comes again, and that is the epistimological question: how is that known. People have trotted out the historical data, the ECFs, Church statements, logic, reason and indigination as methods to persuade me of something I already consider valid. But my position is weaker than yours, as I maintain it is the most reasonable deduction, while you maintain it as part of Faith, or at least some do. To impeach this fact to some is to undermine Catholicism. Amazing. I can ask myself, “what if all the evidence is misleading?” I think you can ask the same question, and are encouraged to as Catholics, because you are not supposed to just swallow teaching passively but are supposed to wrestle with it, work it through, nail it down and understand it. Jacob wrestled with God and prevailed (Gen 32:22-32). I see him as a type of the Christian dealing with theology, as well as other things.

Does the Church have the fullness of truth, or is it being led into the fullness of Truth? Let me guess your answer: both/and.

 

[JaneFrances]

Does the Church have the fullness of truth, or is it being led into the fullness of Truth? Let me guess your answer: both/and.

It’s the mustard seed thing, I think. It’s the smallest of seeds, yet it contains all it needs to become what it is meant to be. . .sort of. Of course, it needs water, sunlight, air (I’m no biologist, so forgive me if I’ve left anything out). This, as Christ tells us, is like the Kingdom of God. He has given us, the Church, even in our infancy everything we need to be the Body he means for us to be. And by his grace, this tree will continue to grow so that all the birds of the air–and some doing donuts in the parking lot–will come and perch in its branches.

 

[Renzo]

It’s the mustard seed thing, I think. It’s the smallest of seeds, yet it contains all it needs to become what it is meant to be. . .sort of. Of course, it needs water, sunlight, air (I’m no biologist, so forgive me if I’ve left anything out). This, as Christ tells us, is like the Kingdom of God. He has given us, the Church, even in our infancy everything we need to be the Body he means for us to be. And by his grace, this tree will continue to grow so that all the birds of the air–and some doing donuts in the parking lot–will come and perch in its branches.

Actually I would use the true meaning of the word FULLNESS which means not the TOTALITY but the MOST COMPLETE OF ALL. That means we don’t know everything; otherwise there wouldn’t be mysteries, right? But we know that we have the most complete version of the truth we can have in this world. Can this knowledge be increased in the future? I can’t say. But the NT teaches us that God didn’t reveal himself totally in the OT, and even after Jesus ascension the original apostles still where discovering the ramifications of Jesus teachings. Most probably there will be no more “scripture” to develop or be added, since all we really need for salvation we already have it, but that is just my personal opinion.

Basically we are humble by accepting we don’t have EVERYTHING of the TRUTH, that there is some truth on others believes, but we are firm in our believes that our ways are the best at hands.