Proof that Peter was Pope?

[LittleLes]

mercygate:

Peter signs is first epistle “from the church here in Babylon” – Babylon was “code” for Rome during a time when using the name “Rome” could earn you a trip to the colisseum as lion bait. Even DEEP Protestants acknowledge that.
Indeed, a skeleton, first thought to be that of Peter proved upon analysis to be that of a woman. Subsequent work recovered a second skeleton that had been placed in storage with other remains and artifacts by a non-archaeologist to protect it from desecration. It has been identified as the bones of Peter. It has no head, and the hands are missing. The missing head corresponds with the fact that the Church of St. John Lateran has always claimed to have the head (which is fragmentary). Grafitti asking for the prayers of the Apostle were also found at the site.

How do you know that Peter died in 64 A.D.?

I don’t know that Peter died in 64 A.D. But he is suppose to have died during Nero’s persecution which lasted from 64 to 67 A.D. Tradition (not history) tells us he died the same day as St. Paul who is said to have died in 64 A.D, but I don’t know the reason for claiming that particular year.

LittleLes

NB. Both Jerome and Eusebius claim that Peter spent the last 25 years of his life in Rome, but that is hard to square with the account given in Acts of the Apostles.

 

[mercygate]

LittleLes:

Hi Mercygate,

There is no reference in Acts of the Apostles (which covers the period from Jesus Ascension to about Paul’s death in 64 A.D). that Peter was in Rome.

None of Paul’s Epistles makes any reference to Peter being in Rome.

No writing produced withing 100 years of Peter’s death clearly states that Peter was in Rome.

Peter signs is first epistle “from the church here in Babylon” – Babylon was “code” for Rome during a time when using the name “Rome” could earn you a trip to the colisseum as lion bait. Even DEEP Protestants acknowledge that.

And if you research further, you will find that those previously believed to be “bones” of St. Peter are from a 70 year old woman, two fifty year old men, and a number of animals.

Indeed, a skeleton, first thought to be that of Peter proved upon analysis to be that of a woman. Subsequent work recovered a second skeleton that had been placed in storage with other remains and artifacts by a non-archaeologist to protect it from desecration. It has been identified as the bones of Peter. It has no head, and the hands are missing. The missing head corresponds with the fact that the Church of St. John Lateran has always claimed to have the head (which is fragmentary). Grafitti asking for the prayers of the Apostle were also found at the site.

 

[LittleLes]

Sanctus:

Continued from St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles

it wouldn’t matter if he was or wasn’t…being the Bishop of a Diocese does not actually require residence in that diocese (most auxilliary Bishops are Bishops of towns/areas in Africa)

I think that the quotations you are using (one of which seems questionable) were all written more than 100 years after the the death of Peter, more than enough time for a legend to have started.

Incidently, we know from Acts that Peter was in Antioch long before he went to Rome and appointed his successor bishop there, Evodius, not Linus.

LittleLes

Little Les

 

[mercygate]

LittleLes:

I don’t know that Peter died in 64 A.D. But he is suppose to have died during Nero’s persecution which lasted from 64 to 67 A.D. Tradition (not history) tells us he died the same day as St. Paul who is said to have died in 64 A.D, but I don’t know the reason for claiming that particular year.

LittleLes

I asked because you stated the date in your earlier post while saying that Peter was never in Rome.

NB. Both Jerome and Eusebius claim that Peter spent the last 25 years of his life in Rome, but that is hard to square with the account given in Acts of the Apostles.

Peter just disappears from the Acts of the Apostles as Luke follows Paul. I don’t see this as an obstacle to accepting the well-documented tradition (beginning with Clement of Rome [d. ca 100] and Justin Martyr) that Peter was in Rome.

 

[Faustina]

LittleLes:

(2) The “code word” Babylon meaning Rome first appears in Revelation written about 95 A.D. See the problem?

URL’s are always a problem for me, but under your “search” function, type in “Crash Course in Jewish History Part 43 - The Jews in Babylon.”

LittleLes

So are you saying that Revelation was written before 1 Peter?
If that is true, then who wrote 1Peter, you have stated that the author is not clearly Peter, and when did they write it?

I am questioning because I really do not know.

Another question, from the evidence you stated, how do you know the use of Babylon (Code for Rome) was not well into practice before it actually appears in Revelation? This is what may be stated by some scholars, however, I would like to read the actual documents, because more can be revealed if reading the actual writing, the wording and phrasing.

 

[LSK]

Faustina:

So are you saying that Revelation was written before 1 Peter?
If that is true, then who wrote 1Peter, you have stated that the author is not clearly Peter, and when did they write it?

---

I have always understood that the Acts of the Apostles, the letters from Peter and Paul, even the Gospels were written by people that could be other than those to whom the writings are attributed. This is a result of the oral traditions past down for generations as well as the gathering of documents and writings done by the early Church Fathers in order to cannonize the Bible. Am I incorrect in this?

---

Another question, from the evidence you stated, how do you know the use of Babylon (Code for Rome) was not well into practice before it actually appears in Revelation? This is what may be stated by some scholars, however, I would like to read the actual documents, because more can be revealed if reading the actual writing, the wording and phrasing.

I think, Faustina, that Babylon, as a code word for Rome, was found in writings other than Christian writings and has been verified through work on the Dead Sea Scroll project. Are there any antiquities scholars out there who can help us on this question?

 

[Sanctus]

LittleLes:

I think that the quotations you are using (one of which seems questionable) were all written more than 100 years after the the death of Peter, more than enough time for a legend to have started.

Incidently, we know from Acts that Peter was in Antioch long before he went to Rome and appointed his successor bishop there, Evodius, not Linus.

LittleLes

Little Les

Actually…evaluating the quotations with dates…

the ones from:

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch Clement of Rome were written either immedieatly following his death or closley thereafter…the one from Bishop Dionysius of Corinth falls almost exactly on the “magic” one hundred year mark…and the others fall just after that. Though this is still all overlooking 2 points…

1. Through my study and work with both Priests and academics it is incontravertable that Peter went to Rome and died there.
2. The fact that Peter was actually in Rome is irrelevant to him being Pope. John Paul II didn’t cease to be Pope when he went on his journeys. The important factor is the lineage and succession not where a Pope happens to be at a specific place or time.

 

[Sanctus]

LittleLes:

I think that the quotations you are using (one of which seems questionable) were all written more than 100 years after the the death of Peter, more than enough time for a legend to have started.

Incidently, we know from Acts that Peter was in Antioch long before he went to Rome and appointed his successor bishop there, Evodius, not Linus.

LittleLes

Little Les

Actually…evaluating the quotations with dates…

the ones from:

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch Clement of Rome were written either immedieatly following his death or closley thereafter…the one from Bishop Dionysius of Corinth falls almost exactly on the “magic” one hundred year mark…and the others fall just after that. Though this is still all overlooking 2 points…

1. Through my study and work with both Priests and Protestant academics it is incontravertable and nearly uncontested that Peter went to Rome and died there.
2. The fact that Peter was actually in Rome is irrelevant to him being Pope. John Paul II didn’t cease to be Pope when he went on his journeys. The important factor is that he is the legitimate successor of Peter and the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Sanctus]

LittleLes:

Incidently, we know from Acts that Peter was in Antioch long before he went to Rome and appointed his successor bishop there, Evodius, not Linus.

LittleLes

Little Les

You are both right and wrong…St. Peter established the Church in Antioch and in his function as the Prince of the Apostles he appoints and ordains Evodius as his sucessor in Antioch, therby making Evodius the first recognized Bishop of Antioch. Peter continued on to Rome founding and heading the Church for around 25-33 years leaving his Linus as the Bishop of Rome and the successor to the Chair of Peter.

Bishop Evodius
Pope St. Linus
Succession of Popes

 

[LittleLes]

Sanctus:

Actually…evaluating the quotations with dates…

the ones from:

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch Clement of Rome were written either immedieatly following his death or closley thereafter…the one from Bishop Dionysius of Corinth falls almost exactly on the “magic” one hundred year mark…and the others fall just after that. Though this is still all overlooking 2 points…

1. Through my study and work with both Priests and Protestant academics it is incontravertable and nearly uncontested that Peter went to Rome and died there.
2. The fact that Peter was actually in Rome is irrelevant to him being Pope. John Paul II didn’t cease to be Pope when he went on his journeys. The important factor is that he is the legitimate successor of Peter and the Bishop of Rome.

Hi Sanctus,

Lets take a look at the earliest source you cited, the First Epistle of Clement to the Corintinans, chapter 5.

5:4 There was Peter who by reason of unrightous jealousy endoured not one but many labors and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.

5.5 By reason of jealousy and strife, Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached IN THE EAST AND WEST, he won nobel renoun which was the reward of his faith,

5.6 having taught rightousness unto the whole world and having REACHED THE FARTHEST BOUNDS OF THE WEST and SUFFERED MARTYRDOM UNDER THE PREFECTS.

(There are a number of translations, but this one seems the clearest).

Please observe that only Paul is said to have:
(1) Preached in the East and West.
(2) Reached the farthest bounds of the west
(3) Suffered martyrdom under the prefects (Roman rulers).

Peter is not said by Clement to have done any of these things! Clement does not report him being in the WEST at all! From Clement, one may infer that Peter died at Jerusalem or Antioch or even in the Jewish colony at Babylon.

So, the claim that Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians proves that Peter was in Rome is nonsense. It strongly suggests that Peter was not in the west. Paul only is said to have been there.

Perhaps you would like to quote the portion of Ignatius of Antioch which you claim proves Peter was in Rome.

LittleLes

 

[Sanctus]

Ignatious seems rather self explaintory to me…The letter was written while he was being brought to Rome for martyrdom, he is addressing the Roman Christians and says “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive.” (AD. Rom., IV) From this we can see that Ignatious is not going to issue commands to the Roman people…like Peter and Paul did…here’s the quote and explination again incase you happened to miss it:

In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Ad. Rom., iv). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.

Clement deals with Peter and Paul’s martyrdom…

More on Peter’s Roman Residency

He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us” (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chap. IV). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.

The detail it goes in is irrelevant, he is a Roman and is writing of what he’s known. But again, ultimatly Peter’s burial place is irrelevant. However the proof of Peter’s Roman residancy is overwhelming…Couple that with Tradition, and the utter lack of serious substantiated claims of him being burried elsewhere is rather telling…

“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” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession 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 succession 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. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the 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” (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

“It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’” (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).

“But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (ibid., 32:2).

“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 [A.D. 210]).

 

[LittleLes]

Sanctus:

Ignatious seems rather self explaintory to me…The letter was written while he was being brought to Rome for martyrdom, he is addressing the Roman Christians and says “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive.” (AD. Rom., IV) From this we can see that Ignatious is not going to issue commands to the Roman people…like Peter and Paul did…here’s the quote and explination again incase you happened to miss it:

Clement deals with Peter and Paul’s martyrdom…

More on Peter’s Roman Residency

The detail it goes in is irrelevant, he is a Roman and is writing of what he’s known. But again, ultimatly Peter’s burial place is irrelevant. However the proof of Peter’s Roman residancy is overwhelming…Couple that with Tradition, and the utter lack of serious substantiated claims of him being burried elsewhere is rather telling…

Hi Sanctus,

I’m afraid that Ignatius’s statement that “I issue you no commands like Peter and Paul…” in no way proves that Peter and Paul were in Rome. Their commands were to the church in general and were issued in Jerusalem, Antioch, etc. It’s an invalid inference to read into Ignatius’ statement that Peter and Paul’s commands were specifically to the Romans.

And I think I’ve already covered Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians in another post. In that Epistle he reports the death of Peter but does not claim that he died in the west as he does Paul. He differentiates Peter’s death from Paul who he said preached in the east and west, reached the extreme limits of the west, and died under the prefects. No so Peter.

We can review the later statments if you wish, but, being written over 100 years after Peter’s death are of questionable historical value. Still, it can be pointed out as in the above two cases, that Peter’s preence at Rome is not established even by these.

LittleLes

 

[Franze]

Where are Christmas in the Bible? and protestants celebrate this, it´s tradition!, and where are trinity, there are three persons and One God, it isn´t in the Bible either.

 

[Sanctus]

LittleLes:

Hi Sanctus,

I’m afraid that Ignatius’s statement that “I issue you no commands like Peter and Paul…” in no way proves that Peter and Paul were in Rome. Their commands were to the church in general and were issued in Jerusalem, Antioch, etc. It’s an invalid inference to read into Ignatius’ statement that Peter and Paul’s commands were specifically to the Romans.

Read in context it most certianly does. We know from Tradition/Scripture Refrences previously mentioned that Peter and Paul are responsible for the episcopacy in Rome. We know the Ignatious was being transported to Rome and instructed the Romans to not look to him for Commands as he is a captive as opposed to the Apostles who came to teach them (Romans) the faith and establish the Church. If we really want to split hairs, Ignatious says “I issue you no commands like Peter and Paul”…if the commands of Peter and Paul were Church wide, like you claim then he could have issued that statement from Antioch but it was because he was traveling through Rome he had to make the distinction between himself and the two Apostles that were his predecessors

LittleLes:

And I think I’ve already covered Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians in another post. In that Epistle he reports the death of Peter but does not claim that he died in the west as he does Paul. He differentiates Peter’s death from Paul who he said preached in the east and west, reached the extreme limits of the west, and died under the prefects. No so Peter.

We can beat a dead horse if you like, but I’d rather read this in context along with the other overwhelming evidence that Peter and Paul were both in Rome. But, Clement mentions Peter and Paul’s death twice, once individually and once refrenced collectivley with marytars amoung them (Romans). Note he is also writing to the Romans.

LittleLes:

We can review the later statments if you wish, but, being written over 100 years after Peter’s death are of questionable historical value. Still, it can be pointed out as in the above two cases, that Peter’s preence at Rome is not established even by these.

We can and certianly should review all the history related to our first Pope. Just because a statement post-dates an event by more than your “hundred year rule” it dosen’t immedieatly become suspect. There are statements throughout history that are made before, during, and after an event that are blatently false–this is called propeganda…then there are statements that are made hundreds of years, even thousands of years after and event which are compleatly free from suspect.

I noted your religious affiliation is “roman catholic”

Well, as Catholics we hold a faith which teaches Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Assumption etc. Though Tradition/and writings about these subjects go back even to the apostolic era are the Decree’s of the Church suspect because they were written hundreds of years later? No, of course not! The importance is in finding reputable sources and interpeting them in the light that they were written…therefore we should give obvious deference to Peter working and dying in Rome when the Holy Catholic Church traces it’s roots to Peter and Rome, there are hundreds of Priests/Bishops/Theologians throughout time that agree with this statement, and many outside sources also accept and affirm the truth that Peter was in Rome.

God Bless,

 

[Church_Militant]

The proof that Peter and Paul were in Rome is incontrovertible since Peter’s remains are there as was stated in the early church and Paul was martyred there according the Acts and the beliefs of the ECF as well.

Little Les, if that is not Peter’s footless body there in the Vatican where the early church wrote that it was buried, then just where is it? You don’t know…

Peter told his executioner’s that he was unworthy to die as his master did and that is why he was crucified upside down. His body was unceremoniously removed by simply hacking off his feet. He was indeed buried under the Vatican hill and that is precisely where the body was located when found during work during WWII. That news was withheld until after the war because the nazis occupied Italy at the time. Even an A & E documentary says so and they’re about as unbiased as it’s gonna get. The remark about Peter’s remains not being authentic is bunk and makes me question Les’s statement that he is Catholic since that would have to have come from a a-C source and he offers no verifiable source notes to that effect. (Probably Lorraine Boettner or Jack Chick)

As for those who say that “pope” is not in the Bible: So? since incarnation, trinity, and virgin birth are not and yet we believe them because they are implied doctrines…just like this and purgatory. the Pope concept is the same as St. Paul telling his disciples that they have not many fathers in the faith…spiritual fathers.

Christianity is filled with implied doctrines that those who choose to deny refuse to consider. shame on you guys for that…

The writings of Clement are fine and they certainly don’t help Little Les’s case since they don’t disqualify Peter from being in Rome and other sources confirm that he was.

I see no verifiable case against the church’s teachings on this…I do see suspect statements and neglected source citations.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[LoneRanger]

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0222.html

for those that believe no explanation is necessary…

 

[LittleLes]

I noted your religious affiliation is “roman catholic”

Well, as Catholics we hold a faith which teaches Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Assumption etc. Though Tradition/and writings about these subjects go back even to the apostolic era are the Decree’s of the Church suspect because they were written hundreds of years later? No, of course not!

************************Les replies,

Whoa! You are dumping a bit of nonsense on us here. There is nothing in scripture about the Assumption. Nor does it appear anywhere before the fourth or fifth century in a apocryphal writing attributed to St. John.

But if you want to argue tradition and since the Church has lost track of the body of St. Joesph as well as that of Mary, lets pretend that Joseph was assumed too and call it a “tradition” too.

LittleLes

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

I would suggest Littleless,that you buy" upon this Rock" by Stephen K.Ray which dismantles your argument from A to Z.Also St.Peter is buried below the main alter at the Vatican,this has been confirmed by people who have no reason to make it up:nope: The book I mentioned has documentation for every claim there are as many footnotes as writing.I wanted to use the book to respond but you are flying from one alleged proof to another:nope:

 

[mercygate]

ost reply

 

[LittleLes]

Ignatius:

Incorrect here Les. Peter writes from the “Great Babylon”. A common term at the time referencing Rome. Since the actual city of Babylon had been destroyed hundreds of years earlier, that could not have been where he was.

Don’t know where you heard that falsehood, but it’s way off. The bones were in the tomb marked “here lies PETRVS” were definitively determined to be those of a large man. You should also not that, at the time. “PETRVS” was not a proper name, so no one else back in the day had that name. The sources of the actual research documents are available in archives of the University of Rome and other major universities. Could you tell me where I can find credible sources for the information you mentioned?

God Bless

**************Les replies,

Hi Ignatius,

If you care to check reliable historical references, you will find that although the city of Bablynon was captured and sacked, it was hardly destroyed - contrary to the claims of some Catholic apologists. I believe I gave a reference. Keep in mind following the Jewish Bablyonian Captiviety, only about 5% of the Jews returned to Jerusalem. The remainder stayed in Bablyon which largely replaced Jerusalem as the center of Judaism when Jerusalem was sacked in 70 and in 130 A.D. Check it out at the library and don’t just believe what apologetics web sites tell you.

And regarding Peter in Rome, see “The Bones of St. Peter,” John Curran of Queens College University of Dublin.

ucd.ie/classics/96/Curran96.html

There are other references as well.

Perhap you would be good enough to list yours.

LittleLes