Saint Peter in Doctrine

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

CutlerB

Guest
I have read the Catholic.com tracts and other documents on Peter’s residency in Rome and to me it seems obvious he was there. But I do have some points I need help with, some also on other points of doctrine concerning Peter.

In St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 16 there are expressed many greetings to people in Rome, but never is St Peter mentioned. If he was there, wouldn’t Paul greet him?

Wasn’t Peter to preach in the east? Galatians 2:1-9 and Acts 8:14 all seem to testify to this? How do we know that Rome is meant in 1 Peter 5:13 and not Babylon, though Peter was preaching there?

How does St Luke 22:24-26 fit in with the Primacy of Peter? Precisely, wouldn’t there have been no dispute, if the Apostles had known that Peter was to be first amongst them?

I look forward to your answers!
 
CutlerB said:
In St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 16 there are expressed many greetings to people in Rome, but never is St Peter mentioned. If he was there, wouldn’t Paul greet him?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. As the leader of the Church, St Peter was probably on the civil Roman authorities most wanted dead-or-alive list. Mentioning St Peter’s whereabouts in an epistle that could easily be intercepted by the Church’s enemies would not have been very wise on St Paul’s part.
 
don’t use the protestant mindset of, what if this? what if that? how come this? if this why not that?

look at what IS in scripture about Peter and you’ll see, without a doubt, his primacy.
 
[SIGN][/SIGN]
itullian said:
don’t use the protestant mindset of, what if this? what if that? how come this? if this why not that?

look at what IS in scripture about Peter and you’ll see, without a doubt, his primacy.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I find that way of mind rather “easy” to go with. I like problems answered, if something looks like one, that’s why I asked. For if something is true, it ought to be able to be proved.
 
CutlerB said:
[SIGN][/SIGN]

To be honest, I find that way of mind rather “easy” to go with. I like problems answered, if something looks like one, that’s why I asked. For if something is true, it ought to be able to be proved.
Click to expand...
I would agree with the above mentioned suggestion not to ask too much.
Look, I have a theology course (4 years) and never crossed my mind to see whether Peter was in Rome and for how long.

It is a Protestant problem not a Catholic one. Protestant are searching for the connections between Jesus and the Popes, and to see whether there is a link of Peter in Rome, between Peter and the second Pope, of the Popes during persecution and finally the role of Constantin.

In Protestant Forums I understand that that is a Protestant problem or worry or line of thought or line of investigation.

But not for us Catholics. We base our faith in the Pope in something else. So, I doubt you will get much help here.

As I said, I am pretty literate in Theology and I know nothing about the subject. I could study it and I would enjoy it for I enjoy investigation, but, as i said, that is not my priority as my faith in Papacy does not pass through the Early Church Beliefs.

God Bless You.
 
CutlerB said:
[SIGN][/SIGN]

To be honest, I find that way of mind rather “easy” to go with. I like problems answered, if something looks like one, that’s why I asked. For if something is true, it ought to be able to be proved.
Click to expand...
it is proved if read the way i said.
 
CutlerB said:
I have read the Catholic.com tracts and other documents on Peter’s residency in Rome and to me it seems obvious he was there. But I do have some points I need help with, some also on other points of doctrine concerning Peter.
Click to expand...
In St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 16 there are expressed many greetings to people in Rome, but never is St Peter mentioned. If he was there, wouldn’t Paul greet him?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily if he was on a most wanted list or if he had already moved on.
Wasn’t Peter to preach in the east? Galatians 2:1-9 and Acts 8:14 all seem to testify to this? How do we know that Rome is meant in 1 Peter 5:13 and not Babylon, though Peter was preaching there?
Click to expand...
Yes Peter preached in the East. I think we can be realitviely sure they ment Rome because if memory serves the real Babylon was no longer considered a great power at the time so that wouldn’t make sense in context of its use in other verses like in Revelation. Also, probably you can infer it from the context.

see… catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome
How does St Luke 22:24-26 fit in with the Primacy of Peter? Precisely, wouldn’t there have been no dispute, if the Apostles had known that Peter was to be first amongst them?
Click to expand...
I am not an apologist by any means but it could have still been that the Apostles were still recognizing their roles. Afterall Jesus had yet to be arrested so they all could just have assumed that Jesus would always be physically present to lead them so maybe they hadn’t thought much about their future roles in His kingdom it even though Jesus had already made his deciscion by handing the keys of the Kingdom to Peter but him (Peter) not yet fully recognizing the significance yet. Maybe at this time it is when Jesus really made expressly his wishes know because if you read a few verses further down…

28 “You are those who have stood by Me in My trials; 29 and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has **demanded permission to sift you like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” 33 But he said to Him, “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!” 34 And He said, “I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me.”

Here you have Jesus singleing out Peter and praying for him so that not for his faith not to fail but then to use his faith to strenghten his brothers. Why would Jesus single Peter out here and then command him to strengthen his brothers when he could have just prayed for all of them. Seems like he was giving a special mission to Peter. We know that the Apostles didn’t understand completely many things Jesus taught them until the Holy Spirit descended upon them. This could be one of those instances.

Just my thoughts.**
 
CutlerB said:
[SIGN][/SIGN]

To be honest, I find that way of mind rather “easy” to go with. I like problems answered, if something looks like one, that’s why I asked. For if something is true, it ought to be able to be proved.
Click to expand...
The real problem is that, if we try to determine much of anything conclusively about a 2000 year old story with scripture alone, whether historical facts or points of theology, we’ll fail. The Book simply wasn’t intended for that purpose. 🙂
 
CutlerB said:
I have read the Catholic.com tracts and other documents on Peter’s residency in Rome and to me it seems obvious he was there. But I do have some points I need help with, some also on other points of doctrine concerning Peter.

During archeological diggings done in the 50s, 60s, Peter’s tomb was discovered where it has traditionally been believed…right under the high altar of St. Peter’s basilica. This is recounted in the book…saintpetersbasilica.org/Necropolis/JW/TheBonesofStPeter-1.htm
In St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 16 there are expressed many greetings to people in Rome, but never is St Peter mentioned. If he was there, wouldn’t Paul greet him?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
CutlerB
In St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 16 there are expressed many greetings to people in Rome, but never is St Peter mentioned. If he was there, wouldn’t Paul greet him?
Click to expand...
Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).
Peter was not always in Rome.
.
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (*Church History *3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, *Church History *5:28:3)

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
How does St Luke 22:24-26 fit in with the Primacy of Peter?
Click to expand...
This shows the effects of sin, and is before the descent of the Holy Spirit after Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension.
Even before the descent of the Holy Spirit, in the Upper Room in Jerusalem, Peter had exercised his supreme authority by mandating an election to replace Judas by Matthias as the twelfth Apostle.

At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12).
 
CutlerB said:
How does St Luke 22:24-26 fit in with the Primacy of Peter? Precisely, wouldn’t there have been no dispute, if the Apostles had known that Peter was to be first amongst them?
Click to expand...
It does seem a little strange that there should be an argument as to which of the apostles was first after what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 concerning Peter. Perhaps Jesus’ later rebuke of Peter (Matthew 16:23) gave some the idea that Peter had lost his spot and the position of first apostle was now up for grabs. Or, perhaps the apostles were not arguing over Peter’s first apostle position but over the positions of second apostle, third apostle, etc. At His transfiguration on the mountain and at His agony in the garden, Jesus singled out Peter, James and John for special attention. Perhaps because of the special attention Jesus had giving them, they thought it was ok to boss the other apostles around caused the argument.
 
CutlerB said:
In St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 16 there are expressed many greetings to people in Rome, but never is St Peter mentioned. If he was there, wouldn’t Paul greet him?
Click to expand...
It could be the case that Peter went to Rome after the letter to the Romans was written. Todd’s suggestion is also valid.
CutlerB said:
Wasn’t Peter to preach in the east? Galatians 2:1-9 and Acts 8:14 all seem to testify to this? How do we know that Rome is meant in 1 Peter 5:13 and not Babylon, though Peter was preaching there?
Click to expand...
This only says that he was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised. Were there not Jews in Rome too? Also, Acts 8:14 doesn’t mention how long he stayed in Samaria. We do not know that Rome is meant in 1 Peter 5:13, but it could mean that.
CutlerB said:
How does St Luke 22:24-26 fit in with the Primacy of Peter? Precisely, wouldn’t there have been no dispute, if the Apostles had known that Peter was to be first amongst them?
Click to expand...
The question is whether they knew that Peter was to be the first among them. There were many things that Jesus said that the apostles didn’t understand until after his resurrection. It could be possible that they didn’t understand the significance of Jesus’ statement of giving Peter the keys of the kingdom. Note that the keys weren’t given to him yet. As far as I know, the Catholic church understands that Peter was given supreme authority in John 21:15-17.
 
CutlerB said:
Wasn’t Peter to preach in the east? Galatians 2:1-9 and Acts 8:14 all seem to testify to this?
Click to expand...
Galatians 2:1-9 mentions Peter being set apart to preach mainly to the Jews but there were Jews in “every nation under heaven,” not only in the east in places like “Mesopotamia” but also in the west in places like “Rome.” (Acts 2:5-11)

Acts 8:14 mentions Peter going to Samaria but that is north of Jerusalem not in the east. You may have confused Samaria (central Israel) whose inhabitants were called Samaritans with Sumer (Babylonia/Iraq) whose inhabitants were called Sumerians.

Galatians (2:11-14) also mentions Peter going to Antioch, about 500 mile north of Jerusalem.
 
Todd_Easton said:
Galatians 2:1-9 mentions Peter being set apart to preach mainly to the Jews but there were Jews in “every nation under heaven,” not only in the east in places like “Mesopotamia” but also in the west in places like “Rome.” (Acts 2:5-11)

Acts 8:14 mentions Peter going to Samaria but that is north of Jerusalem not in the east. You may have confused Samaria (central Israel) whose inhabitants were called Samaritans with Sumer (Babylonia/Iraq) whose inhabitants were called Sumerians.

Galatians (2:11-14) also mentions Peter going to Antioch, about 500 mile north of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
That and all up to here makes sense to me now. I’ll read all the links you provided, thanks for that!
 
Todd_Easton said:
Galatians 2:1-9 mentions Peter being set apart to preach mainly to the Jews but there were Jews in “every nation under heaven,” not only in the east in places like “Mesopotamia” but also in the west in places like “Rome.” (Acts 2:5-11)

Acts 8:14 mentions Peter going to Samaria but that is north of Jerusalem not in the east. You may have confused Samaria (central Israel) whose inhabitants were called Samaritans with Sumer (Babylonia/Iraq) whose inhabitants were called Sumerians.

Galatians (2:11-14) also mentions Peter going to Antioch, about 500 mile north of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
Also, 1 Peter (1:1) was written to Christians throughout “Asia” but that is a reference to a province in Asia Minor (Turkey), as also are Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia. Similarly, Revelation (1:4, 11) references the seven churches of “Asia,” which are not in the east but in Asia Minor (Turkey), north of Jerusalem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top