Paul excludes greeting to Peter, proving he was not in Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spectre49
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
continuing. . .
B. “Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow laborers.” (Philemon 1:23,24). Here we see again that Mark was mentioned even before Luke the evangelist, working with St. Paul in establishing the church of Rome.
Click to expand...
First, at this point in time, neither Paul nor Luke were “working to establish the church of Rome.” Paul is very clear: He is still under arrest and awaiting trial. Luke, who was a physician, was caring for Paul in his captivity (see Col 4:14, 2 Tim 4:11). Second, Philemon was written at the very same time, and to part of the very same audience, as Colossians (see Col 4:9-11). So, the author is not providing an additional example, but the same one. Mark is being sent to Colossae from Rome on his way back to Antioch, where he would report to Peter.
C. “Only Luke is with me, get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry.” (II Timothy 4:11).
Click to expand...
And where is Mark at this time?? He is with Peter in Antioch, or somewhere in that district. In other words, Timothy (who was in Ephesus) is being told to make sure that he brings Peter’s chief representative with him, for it was Peter who was the bishop of the Roman church, and Mark could speak for Peter and act as his witness for the activities of the Roman church. This is why Mark was “useful” to Paul, even though he was on the other side of the known world at the time.
Here, Luke was not enough to serve in Rome, so St. Paul called on Mark specifically to serve with him, and stayed there till Paul was martyred then he returned to Alexandria once more.
Click to expand...
This interpretation of the passage is a naive one. Paul had countless associates in Rome itself (see Romans 16) who he could have called on to help in ministry. He also had men like Linus, Ebulus, and Prudens with him (see 2 Tim 4:21). Again, Rome was a city with over 1 million people. Paul is not just asking Timothy to bring Mark so that they will have another “warm body.” Rather, Mark is important because he is Peter’s representative - his “Papal legate,” if you will.

What’s more, according to Apostolic Tradition, Mark was not sent to Alexandria until Peter was established in Rome itself. For example, Pope Damasus, defending the rights of the Alexandrian church (when Constantinople tried to replace it as the primate in the East), recounts the Tradition as followers:

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name “Christians” was first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

Likewise, as already presented, Clement of Alexandria (speaking for the native Coptic tradition) asserts what Mark was still in Rome up to the writing of the Gospel of Mark, being sent to Alexandria only after this time:

“The circumstances which occasioned the writing of Mark (the Gospel) were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who knew his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.” (Sketches, in a fragment of Eusebius, History of the Church, 6,14:1).

Therefore, Mark become bishop of Alexandria - that is, Peter’s permanent representative in Alexandria - only once Peter was established in Rome. This is made clear from 1 Peter 5:13 as well.

continued. . .
 
40.png
spectre49:
A Protestant friend argues that if Peter were really in Rome as Catholics believe, …

What say anyone here about this quirky issue?
Click to expand...
It’s not an issue, quirky or otherwise

tell you friend that it doesn’t matter where Peter was

he’s Pope not because he was in Rome but because he was Peter
 
Thus, St. Mark and others played a role along with St. Paul who established the church of Rome, not St. Peter.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, this is not the Coptic tradition; one who presents it is being unfaithful to one’s own heritage. If Rome is not the See of Peter, then Alexandria is not the See of Mark, for it is from Petrine Rome that Alexandria gets its authority (through Mark). Again and again, it was Petrine Rome that defended the rights of Alexandria’s primacy in the East (against the Byzantines who repeatedly tried to usurp it); and this, again, was because of the ties of discipleship between Petrine Rome and Marcan Alexandria. For example, Pope Julius restores St. Athanasius to the throne of Alexandria, writing to the Arians at Constantinople and saying:

“It behooved you to write to us that thus what is just might be decreed for all. For they who suffered were bishops, and the churches that suffered no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in person. And why were we (the Pope) not written to concerning the Church, especially Alexandria? Or are they (the Arians) ignorant that this has been the custom first to write to us, and thus what is just be decreed from this place (Rome)? If therefore, any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there (Alexandria), it was benefiting to write to this church (Rome).” (Julius, Ep. n. 6,21.)

So, why was it the custom for Rome to judge the orthodoxy of Alexandria if Peter never founded the church of Rome?

Indeed, Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea itself recognizes the authority of Alexandria over Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis (the Gaza strip) because Alexandria’s authority in these places in acknowledged by the Bishop of Rome. It reads:

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these, since that is the custom of the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise, in Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their priveledges.” (Nicaea, Canon 6).

Also, just after Pope Julius’ restoration of St. Athanasius to his see of Alexandria, the Council of Sardica, which was presided over by Orsinus of Cordoba (the same bishop who chaired the Council of Nicaea) as well as by St. Athanasius himself!, makes the ancient Apostolic custom not merely a matter of Tradition, but a matter of established canonical (and so imperial) law. For, Canon 3 of Sardica reads as follows:

“If any bishop looses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew …let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province.” (Council of Sardica, Canon 3, A.D. 342).

Why would the great St. Athanasius ascribe to such a canon if Peter was never the bishop of Rome - that is, if Peter had never governed the universal Church from Rome??? Indeed, for that matter, why would St, Athanasius speak of Rome as “the Apostolic throne” (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35) if Peter had never presided there and if Rome did not possess primacy because of Peter??
 
40.png
spectre49:
A Protestant friend argues that if Peter were really in Rome as Catholics believe, then why did Paul not include him in the list of 26 people he greets by name? (Rom 16:1-16)

Was this an oversight? Was the letter written only to Paul’s converts only so that even if Peter were there he would not need to be addressed in this particular letter? Is it possible that the letter to the Romans was written before Peter went to Rome?

What say anyone here about this quirky issue?
Click to expand...

Romans seems to have been written about 57/58 - if Peter and Paul died in the aftermath of the great fire of 64 (say, in the first half of 65), this would leave plenty of time for a visit to Rome by Peter. He may not have been in Rome long.​

Problems arise if one insists on treating his reputed twenty-five year episcopate at Rome as historical: which seems to be why Eusebius of Caesarea dates it from 42 to 67, because of a tradition that Peter came to Rome in the reign of Claudius (41-54)

Matters are complicated by the fact that there is an alternative tradition, according to which he came to Rome in 30, for twenty-five years.

As Peter was the “Apostle to the circumcision (= to the Jews)”, and as Paul travelled in his capacity of “Apostle to the Gentiles”, it seems likely that Peter would have travelled as well; there was a large number of Jews at Rome, and as they were expelled in 49, he may have been among them - if so, this might account for the lack of any reference to him some years later.

He could perfectly well have been at Rome with St. Paul for long enough to be remembered in Roman tradition with him as one of the Roman Church’s principal martyrs - this would not of itself require twenty-five years; still less would it require Peter to be a bishop as such. Theologically, the claim of the Roman Church to have them as its founders would be unaffected. ##
 
Of course St. Peter was in Rome.!!

But even if he wasn’t,what possible difference does that make! :confused:

President George Washington served both terms of office in cities OTHER then Washington D.C.,does that mean he was never our First President??? OF COURSE HE WAS!!!

That tired old claim that St. Peter was never in Rome so he can’t be our First Pope is soooooo lame and totally lacks in any creativity.
 
I have been under the impression for years that a negative is not proof for anything. Unless someone could provide positive evidence that Peter was somewhere else all this time there is no way a lack of knowledge can prove his absence from Rome. The positive evidencew for his being there is overwhelming. Tell your friend to go out and bark at the moon. It is a better use for his talents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top