Peter

  • Thread starter Thread starter CMatt25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CMatt25

Guest
I asked this on “Ask an Apologist” last wk but it hasn’t been answered and I saw not all questions are answered there. So posting here if that’s ok.

I’m not sure it says in Scripture if Peter went to Rome or not. So far from what I can find the earliest Church father to write about Peter’s whereabouts was Clement of Rome sometime between yr 70 (which as I understand would have been only a few yrs after Peter’s death) to as late as yr 96. Other ECFs wrote about this even later.

My question about this is if the ECFs wrote about Peter’s whereabouts so many yrs later, how do we know they were correct if it’s not in Scripture?

Also was Peter the Bishop of Antioch? If so why was the Bishop of Antioch not considered his successor?

And in Acts 15 after a long debate we are told Peter gets up to speak. He did that a lot in the early Acts. But James ends the debate. (Acts 15:13-20) Why then does that not suggest the 2 were co-chairs at this council?

Finally, if all the disciples were given the power to bind and loose in Matt 18 after Peter was given the power in Matt 16, why is it not thought that all shared equal powers? I know Peter was given keys but the function of keys are to bind and loose. So why could not keys and the power all the disciples were given have been the same?

I don’t really want to simply get down to the different interpretations about whether Peter was the rock or Peter’s statement of faith was the rock. I know the different interpretations Christians have about that. I’m trying to dig deeper beyond that one verse.

Thanks for your help and I think I may just sit back and listen to the various ideas.
 
I’ll answer your first question. Catholic and Orthodox agree completely on it.

We know Peter went to Rome because Holy Tradition says he did. Remember that you’re not dealing with a society like ours, much was still conveyed orally, and many could not read. In this case we can trust these oral traditions because there are no contradictions, such stories tend to take on changes over time, but if you find a constant in a bunch of stories around a single person, you can bet it is correct. In this case Peter going to Rome.
Additionally several Apocrypha (and I mean actual Apocrypha, not those books Protestants call apocrypha) note that he was in Rome. While they may not be considered on the same level spiritually, they can still provide context.

I’m actually curious to hear the responses you get to the second question regarding Antioch, since Orthodox believe the Primacy of Rome is based on it being the Imperial City, and that all Bishops are equally successors of St. Peter.
 
Peter wrote his letters from “Babylon.” That was always understood to mean Rome.

Rome is special for more than one reason. Peter and Paul were both there, and both killed there. That dual martyrdom is one reason for its position. As pointed out, it was also the capital of the greatest empire seen in the West (if we consider the west as Europe and the areas surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, and the east as India, China, etc). To Catholics, Antioch was seen as sort of a transitional place for Peter, one that he founded before moving on to Rome.

Now, all Bishops trace their Apostolic Succession to Peter. That does not mean that Peter’s Chair is the same as any other.

To throw the question back, since there are no more Empires, why do the Orthodox not now allow allow the great cities of Modern Time to have primacy? Why not allow any secular leader to call a Council, as the Emperor was then?
 
ralphinal said:
Rome is special for more than one reason. Peter and Paul were both there, and both killed there. That dual martyrdom is one reason for its position. As pointed out, it was also the capital of the greatest empire seen in the West (if we consider the west as Europe and the areas surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, and the east as India, China, etc). To Catholics, Antioch was seen as sort of a transitional place for Peter, one that he founded before moving on to Rome.

Now, all Bishops trace their Apostolic Succession to Peter. That does not mean that Peter’s Chair is the same as any other.

To throw the question back, since there are no more Empires, why do the Orthodox not now allow allow the great cities of Modern Time to have primacy? Why not allow any secular leader to call a Council, as the Emperor was then?
Click to expand...
Ralph, just wanted to ask if Rome’s place is partly due to it having been such a powerful capital, why hasn’t the Church moved since to another western capital or why didn’t it set up base in an eastern capital?
 
CMatt25 said:
Ralph, just wanted to ask if Rome’s place is partly due to it having been such a powerful capital, why hasn’t the Church moved since to another western capital or why didn’t it set up base in an eastern capital?
Click to expand...
That was kind of my question, too. I do know that some tried to move it to Constantinople, but Rome held fast.

Why not move it to Washington, D.C.? Or Mexico City? It is really the Orthodox that hold that Rome was only Rome because it was Rome. The Catholic Church always cites the fact that Peter founded the Church there and both he and Paul died for it.
 
ralphinal said:
That was kind of my question, too. I do know that some tried to move it to Constantinople, but Rome held fast.

Why not move it to Washington, D.C.? Or Mexico City? It is really the Orthodox that hold that Rome was only Rome because it was Rome. The Catholic Church always cites the fact that Peter founded the Church there and both he and Paul died for it.
Click to expand...
Right, Ralph. Even with the Avignon popes, their See remained Rome because it is the See of Peter.
 
ralphinal said:
That was kind of my question, too. I do know that some tried to move it to Constantinople, but Rome held fast.

Why not move it to Washington, D.C.? Or Mexico City? It is really the Orthodox that hold that Rome was only Rome because it was Rome. The Catholic Church always cites the fact that Peter founded the Church there and both he and Paul died for it.
Click to expand...
Ok so we basically say Peter founded the Church there during his lifetime since the ECFs spoke of him being in Rome and the dual martyrs? So did the Bishop of Rome after Peter think of himself as the Pope? What about all the talk I see about Rome not being declared the Papacy till much later?
 
Nine_Two said:
Additionally several Apocrypha (and I mean actual Apocrypha, not those books Protestants call apocrypha) note that he was in Rome. While they may not be considered on the same level spiritually, they can still provide context.
.
Click to expand...
What are some examples of this? I’d be very interested as I was not aware that there were other texts that mention Peter being in Rome. When do they date to?
 
ralphinal said:
To throw the question back, since there are no more Empires, why do the Orthodox not now allow allow the great cities of Modern Time to have primacy? Why not allow any secular leader to call a Council, as the Emperor was then?
Click to expand...
Because we’re traditionalists and we don’t change for the sake of change. We would consider Rome to have primacy if it were still in communion with us, since it isn’t primacy is held by the second city. Despite the official order of honour, it is Moscow, the third Imperial City, which holds the second place.

As for why not Washington D.C. - we have a See based in Washington, however as we all know the Orthodox are a minority in North America, so while the city may be important the See does not share that importance.
 
TheosisM said:
What are some examples of this? I’d be very interested as I was not aware that there were other texts that mention Peter being in Rome. When do they date to?
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head I know the Acts of Peter mention it (It took place in Rome). I know there are others but I don’t know off the top of my head and I don’t have my book of apocrypha handy. I also am not sure of the dating because those particular ones aren’t ones that have interested me all that much. It’s quite possible they are later texts which took the information from Holy Tradition.
 
Nine_Two said:
We would consider Rome to have primacy if it were still in communion with us, since it isn’t primacy is held by the second city.
Click to expand...
9_2, elementary here but you’re not in communion because you ea excommunicated ea other in 1054, correct? I know there was more to the schism. But did the Orthodox consider Rome the primacy earlier?
 
CMatt25 said:
Ok so we basically say Peter founded the Church there during his lifetime since the ECFs spoke of him being in Rome and the dual martyrs? So did the Bishop of Rome after Peter think of himself as the Pope? What about all the talk I see about Rome not being declared the Papacy till much later?
Click to expand...
This series of articles on the “Monarchial Episcopate” by Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore addresses some of the questions you raise:

catholicdestination.com/articles.php?authors_id=32
 
Nine_Two said:
Because we’re traditionalists and we don’t change for the sake of change. We would consider Rome to have primacy if it were still in communion with us, since it isn’t primacy is held by the second city. Despite the official order of honour, it is Moscow, the third Imperial City, which holds the second place.

As for why not Washington D.C. - we have a See based in Washington, however as we all know the Orthodox are a minority in North America, so while the city may be important the See does not share that importance.
Click to expand...
Orthodox are a minority in Turkey, too. Why keep Constantinople?
 
CMatt25 said:
9_2, elementary here but you’re not in communion because you ea excommunicated ea other in 1054, correct? I know there was more to the schism. But did the Orthodox consider Rome the primacy earlier?
Click to expand...
Yes; read the Sermons of St. John Chrysostom, who was most definitely an Eastern Bishop - he’s actually the main source from which Vatican I explained the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope.
 
CMatt25 said:
9_2, elementary here but you’re not in communion because you ea excommunicated ea other in 1054, correct? I know there was more to the schism. But did the Orthodox consider Rome the primacy earlier?
Click to expand...
Yes, we considered Rome to hold the primacy, and should reunion happen we would happily grant them that privilage again. The sticking point is how the two sides define that primacy.
 
ralphinal said:
Orthodox are a minority in Turkey, too. Why keep Constantinople?
Click to expand...
Because if we abandon Constantinople we abandon a good deal of the churches property, including Holy Relics, to a heathen nation, however the time is coming when we may not have a choice.
There is precedent for moving a See (Antioch in every single tradition for example, Rome in the past as well).

As for why it is still considered the primary see… as I said, we don’t like to change things.
 
Nine_Two said:
Because if we abandon Constantinople we abandon a good deal of the churches property, including Holy Relics, to a heathen nation, however the time is coming when we may not have a choice.
There is precedent for moving a See (Antioch in every single tradition for example, Rome in the past as well).

As for why it is still considered the primary see… as I said, we don’t like to change things.
Click to expand...
I know that you don’t like to change things. That is both good and bad. And it would be a shame if Constantinople is lost totally. It pains me that the Hagia Sophia is a mosque now.

This ties into one of the things that I have trouble with in Orthodoxy. There is a major resistance to anything new. However, everything about the faith was new at one time. For example, do you think that the Apostles would have liked the idea of an emperor calling Church Councils?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top