Hi Church Militant,
).
Duffy also cites the letters of Ignatius which never address a bishop of Rome, and the fact that Clement, supposed to be one of the early popes, makes no claim to the title of bishop in the epistles which are attributed to him but speak in the plural, reflecting a plurality of elders in Rome. The list of Irenaeus is discussed as being highly suspect and reflecting more symbolism than factual truth. All this coupled with the complete lack of Biblical evidence for a “Pope Peter” does not bode well for the origins. As far as Matthew 16 is concerned, Duffy writes that the first known claim of that scripture to be used as a basis for authoritative and jurisdictional power by the bishop of Rome is by “Pope” Stephen in 257.
Hi Church Militant,
You seem to have posted most of the Peter in Rome legends in one post. Lets take a look.
LittleLes:
We’ve been over this again and again, I know you don’t like Ignatius and Clement-fine that is your decision-though when read objectively they seem to prove nothing other than that Peter and Paul both were in Rome/Died in Rome…then there’s “Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that ‘It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.’” But I know that violates your magical 100 year rule…I’m just wondering by me making the Statement:I’m afraid that nothing in Acts tells where Paul or Peter were martyred. One of the earliest Church Fathers, Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthians, tells us that Paul was martyred under the Prefects in the West, but he does not make that same claim about Peter (who presumably was in the East). After about one hundred years these “witness statments” become a bit unhistorical and are replaced with legend. (Do you want to hear my Civil War true “history” only written about 100 years after the fact
“Francis Scott Key, in his Star Spangled Banner, makes mention ‘that our flag was still there,’ in this Mr. Key is referring to a flag flying above Fort McHenry during the British Attack.”
Is that statement suspect to be somehow unhistorical or replaced with legend? The idea that all of the early Church Father don’t point to Peter being in Rome indicates that you are reading them hoping to find any way to disprove Peter’s well documented trek to Rome–which raises other questions of why you have no problem being a “roman catholic” but refuse to acknowledge that the Church’s head was in Rome. Though again, the entire premise of this thread is false because ultimately though Peter’s Roman Residency can be proven it has absolutely no bearing on him functioning as the Pope.
LittleLes:
Sarcasm and cynicism are not terribly charitable.And the old “implied” doctrine claim can cover just about anything you want it to. Since the Church doesn’t know where St Joseph is buried, perhaps an “implied doctrine” tells us that since the good will not see corruption Joseph must have been assumed too.
LittleLes:
At some point you are just going to have to come to terms with the overwhelming historical evidence that points to your argument being false. I see it as very dubious to speak of historical realities and then reject a major chunk of history.At some point one has to put aside 'lets pretend" and deal with historic realities. Of course, some Catholic apologists will tell you differently.
I’ll deal with some of the other claims later.
God Bless,
Welcome arcturus, I see that you just registered today and that this is your first post. You might want to familirize yourself with the forum by going here though if you’ve been around for a while then I’m sure you’re already familiar…I’ll chat later.If one truly wants to know the truth about a matter, that person will check into all sources, not just those that favor a point of view he prefers.
I applaud Greg00 for a search for proof, that is what I would do as well if I were a Roman Catholic wanting a solid factual basis to support a belief as foundational as the papacy. So I would urge a search of objective, church historians on the origins of the papacy.
The trouble is, one will not find any proof or evidence that Peter was the first bishop of Rome in spite of zealous (and biased) defenders of the papacy such as Stephen Ray.
Respected historian Eamon Duffy, who is Roman Catholic, and was actually invited by the Vatican to investigate the Inquistion, in his history of the papacy, “Saints and Sinners” writesuffy also cites the letters of Ignatius which never address a bishop of Rome, and the fact that Clement, supposed to be one of the early popes, makes no claim to the title of bishop in the epistles which are attributed to him but speak in the plural, reflecting a plurality of elders in Rome. The list of Irenaeus is discussed as being highly suspect and reflecting more symbolism than factual truth. All this coupled with the complete lack of Biblical evidence for a “Pope Peter” does not bode well for the origins. As far as Matthew 16 is concerned, Duffy writes that the first known claim of that scripture to be used as a basis for authoritative and jurisdictional power by the bishop of Rome is by “Pope” Stephen in 257.
Regarding the bones of Peter, are they really his bones? How can one know for sure? Even if it was able to be proved (and it can’t) it would only prove his bones are in Rome. From that one could conclude that: A) he was either in Rome, or B) that his bones were moved there, which is possible, given the covetous desire for relics (whether verifiably authentic or not) that has pervaded church history. In any case the existence of bones does not prove at all that Rome had a pope in the first century and Peter was it.
Hi Lisa,
See how easy it is to make unsupported assertions!Exactly
Then why do you not stop hopping about and stick with one argument at a time that is usually how it works,to do otherwise is a manipulation of the issue to take the emphasis of the origional argument or assertion and try to sway the posters by connecting several unrelated arguments to create the illusion of a superior argument.Hi Lisa,
I’m afraid yours is an assertion without evidence. Unless you have some evidence to present.
Merely claiming that some book “proves” something is an assertion without evidence, and, as a practical matter should be disregareded.
Did you hear about my book titled “Why Upon This Rock is Nonsense?”
LittleLes
http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage15/13.gifActually, if you read the accounts of the Confession of Peter in both Mark (from whom Matthew copied) and Luke, Jesus says nothing about founding a church or Peterine primacy.
Once I’ve presented sufficient evidence to prove my point I move on to the next argument.Then why do you not stop hopping about and stick with one argument at a time that is usually how it works,to do otherwise is a manipulation of the issue to take the emphasis of the origional argument or assertion and try to sway the posters by connecting several unrelated arguments to create the illusion of a superior argument.
…” or things like that.
Who says Matthew copied from Mark or that Mark was written first? What proof of this do you have? Tradition holds that Matthew was the first Gospel and that is in fact why the Gospels are listed in the order that they are, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Moderen claims that Mark was written first are as flimsy as are the claims of the non-existent “Q”. They are mere speculation, nothing more. If you base your argument on this faulty premise don’t be surprised if more than a few dismiss it outright as I do.Actually, if you read the accounts of the Confession of Peter in both Mark (from whom Matthew copied) and Luke, Jesus says nothing about founding a church or Peterine primacy.
Matthew is alone in these claims. Do you suppose the founding of a church addition and Peterine primacy addition was an embellishment? Or could it have been an addition by a later copyist? When is the first time it was referred to by a “successor of Peter” or an early Church Father?
LittleLes
And some a-C non-Catholics posing as Catholics on this site will say anything to disparage the church If you’re a Catholic then I’m a brain surgeon…Hi Church Militant,
You seem to have posted most of the Peter in Rome legends in one post. Lets take a look.
At some point one has to put aside 'lets pretend" and deal with historic realities. Of course, some Catholic apologists will tell you differently.
- I’m afraid that nothing in Acts tells where Paul or Peter were martyred. One of the earliest Church Fathers, Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthians, tells us that Paul was martyred under the Prefects in the West, but he does not make that same claim about Peter (who presumably was in the East). After about one hundred years these “witness statments” become a bit unhistorical and are replaced with legend. (Do you want to hear my Civil War true “history” only written about 100 years after the fact
- I believe that I’ve already cited James Curran of Dublin University’s article “Bones of St. Peter” which points out that the bones in Rome aren’t his.You might also find interesting on the web “Peter’s Jerusalem Grave” which claims that the bones of St. Peter were found in a first century Christian cemetery currently maintained by the Franciscans in Jerusalem.
- And the old “implied” doctrine claim can cover just about anything you want it to. Since the Church doesn’t know where St Joseph is buried, perhaps an “implied doctrine” tells us that since the good will not see corruption Joseph must have been assumed too.
LittleLes
Just because a position was slow to develope does not mean that the position did not exist defacto…so you make a weak case. the fact that Peter was the final say in Acts 15…and that fact that he was named 1st in EVERY list of apostles which was a significant way of pointing to the hierarchies of that era is enough for me if nothing else.If one truly wants to know the truth about a matter, that person will check into all sources, not just those that favor a point of view he prefers.
I applaud Greg00 for a search for proof, that is what I would do as well if I were a Roman Catholic wanting a solid factual basis to support a belief as foundational as the papacy. So I would urge a search of objective, church historians on the origins of the papacy.
The trouble is, one will not find any proof or evidence that Peter was the first bishop of Rome in spite of zealous (and biased) defenders of the papacy such as Stephen Ray.
Respected historian Eamon Duffy, who is Roman Catholic, and was actually invited by the Vatican to investigate the Inquistion, in his history of the papacy, “Saints and Sinners” writes
Regarding the bones of Peter, are they really his bones? How can one know for sure? Even if it was able to be proved (and it can’t) it would only prove his bones are in Rome. From that one could conclude that: A) he was either in Rome, or B) that his bones were moved there, which is possible, given the covetous desire for relics (whether verifiably authentic or not) that has pervaded church history. In any case the existence of bones does not prove at all that Rome had a pope in the first century and Peter was it.
Correct, CM. I have noticed this supposed Catholic on other threads denying the infallibility of the Church in matters of Faith and morals and denying the perpetual virginity. On the thread about James, where he argues that the “brethren of the Lord” are brothers-german to Jesus, I have in charity informed him that if he indeed is Catholic that he had excommunicated himself latae sententiae for his obsitnate heresy, although I suspect he is a non-catholic here to stir up trouble. I have asked him to modify his profile to reflect his actual status, but he refuses to respond. It seems clear from his action that his intent is to deceive Catholics in an attempt to prostyletize them.
If we look at the NT with a fresh eye, and what we would expect to see if the papacy is indeed true, we would see clear references to Peter’s authoirty. Why didn’t Jesus say to the apostles, “Stop arguing, for Peter is in charge of you all when I am gone.” ?
The earliest extant writing which addresses a list of episcopal successors for the Church in Rome is by St. Irenaeus, *Against Heresies, *ca. AD 189.
The Protestant church historian, JND Kelly, lists all the popes from St. Peter to John Paul II, in his book The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes.