What is the first explicit reference to Rome's primacy coming from St. Peter?

[Isa_Almisry]

No, not Matthew 16:18-9. What ever it means, it doesn’t mention Rome.

St. Clement’s epistle mentions St. Peter, but it also mentions others, and he makes no claim to special authority through St. Peter, whatever his claims of authority in the Epistle mean.

The Fathers of Chalcedon saying “Peter has spoken through Leo” would be a reference: it doesn’t mean what the Vatican says, but I can see how their argument is made.

So, what is the first explicit reference to the Primacy of Rome being from St. Peter, and not, say, capital of the Empire?

 

[MyMotherMary]

No, not Matthew 16:18-9. What ever it means, it doesn’t mention Rome.

St. Clement’s epistle mentions St. Peter, but it also mentions others, and he makes no claim to special authority through St. Peter, whatever his claims of authority in the Epistle mean.

The Fathers of Chalcedon saying “Peter has spoken through Leo” would be a reference: it doesn’t mean what the Vatican says, but I can see how their argument is made.

So, what is the first explicit reference to the Primacy of Rome being from St. Peter, and not, say, capital of the Empire?

Good Morning!
Could you clarify your question a little? Is it Peter’s authority that is in question? Or the location of the seat of Peter being in Rome that is in question? Or am I totally missing it?
M

 

[Steadfast]

The question in the thread title is pretty clear:

What is the first reference to Rome having primacy (according to the Catholic conception of ecclesial submission) due to that city’s connection with the Apostle Peter?

 

[churchcamefirst]

Peter wrote: “The church which is at Babylon (Rome), chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark”. 1Pet 5:13

 

[Peter_J]

No, not Matthew 16:18-9. What ever it means, it doesn’t mention Rome.

I doesn’t mention Rome specifically, but it does tell us that whoever holds the Primacy later in Church history (and wherever he may reside), he will be the successor of St. Peter.

 

[MarcoPolo]

While there are allusions in Clement and other early writers like Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, and even, more importantly, the authority of Rome in action during that time, one of the most explicit early references I can think of is Cyprian, ca AD250 referring to “the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne”. He said this in his epistle to Antonius.

 

[churchcamefirst]

This topic needs more clarification

 

[bpbasilphx]

Even the Assyrians (who separated after the Second Council) admit the Petrine Primacy through Rome (or Roman Primacy through Peter, as you are asking), though they disagree about what it means.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Peter wrote: “The church which is at Babylon (Rome), chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark”. 1Pet 5:13

This establishes that St. Peter was in Rome, but neither that Rome has a primacy nor that this primacy is derived from St. Peter.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I doesn’t mention Rome specifically, but it does tell us that whoever holds the Primacy later in Church history (and wherever he may reside), he will be the successor of St. Peter.

Doesn’t mention a successor. And why not Antioch: the NT places St. Peter there too?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Even the Assyrians (who separated after the Second Council) admit the Petrine Primacy through Rome (or Roman Primacy through Peter, as you are asking), though they disagree about what it means.

Yes, I am asking about Rome claiming primacy through St. Peter.

I don’t recall seeing anything from the Assyrians on Rome’s primacy that do not predate the Crusades. They do have earlier stuff on the primacy of St. Peter, but it’s not clear (or, I haven’t seen anything that clarifies it) if this is at Rome as opposed to Antioch (which they share with the Syriac Orthodox).

I’m not specifically interested in what it means (as we are going to disupte that) but what is the first text we have to dispute about Rome asserting primacy on the basis of St. Peter.

 

[ralphinal]

Doesn’t mention a successor. And why not Antioch: the NT places St. Peter there too?

Part of Rome’s primacy is due to the fact that both Peter AND Paul died there. Yes, Peter was in Antioch, but that was not the place where he was killed. The early Church (go ahead and say Western if you want) saw the fact that two of the biggest big boys were martyred in Rome as a sign that God had a special place for it. Off the top of my head, I am not sure if two Apostles were martyred in any city, unless it was Jerusalem.

 

[JRKH]

Peter is recorded as the First Bishop of Rome by Eusebius ca 320 AD (?)

For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, (A.D. 41 to 54) the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life.
(History of the Church Bk 2 ch 14 no. 6

In “the Chronicle” Eusebius records that Peter was the Bishop in Rome for 25 years.

Thus, since Peter is recorded as the Bishop of Rome, any successor to that post would autormatically be recorded as Peter’s successor.

Peace
James

 

[churchcamefirst]

I was in Rome not to long ago, I stood in the prison of Peter and Paul and I cried. It was very emotional for me. Even the etchings on the wall that I touched were surreal. It is like a small dungeon. Very dark and dingy.
Holy Scripture tells us that the Roman Emperor Claudius (41-54) ordered all Jews to leave Rome (Acts 18:2). Peter was a Jew, but the church was an underground church in hiding at the time.
Eusebius wrote in “The Chronicle” (Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the church in Antioch, **went to Rome where he remained bishop of Rome for 25 years. **We know from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D. That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius. Again, this charge can be dismissed for the same reasons given already, that the church was forced to practice the faith in an underground situation in order to avoid persecution.
The Romans had a policy of hunting down all of the Apostle’s. If Peter had said he had been writing from Rome (hence the code name for Rome was Babylon), then no doubt, the Romans would have begun an intensive search for him.

 

[MarcoPolo]

what is the first text we have to dispute about Rome asserting primacy on the basis of St. Peter.

That sounds like a slightly different question than your OP. So to add to my earlier post, I would throw in also:*If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you… (Tertullian, On Modesty, 21, ca AD 200)*Tertullian, arguing against Roman primacy, reveals the likeliness that the rest of the Church had argued in favor of what he denies. Because, as I said, Roman primacy was quite visible in action prior to this writing of Tertullian, and continued afterward with Cyprian, Firmillian, etc…etc…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Peter is recorded as the First Bishop of Rome by Eusebius ca 320 AD (?)

In “the Chronicle” Eusebius records that Peter was the Bishop in Rome for 25 years.

Thus, since Peter is recorded as the Bishop of Rome, any successor to that post would autormatically be recorded as Peter’s successor.

Peace
James

This however doesn’t distinguish Rome from Antioch.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Part of Rome’s primacy is due to the fact that both Peter AND Paul died there. Yes, Peter was in Antioch, but that was not the place where he was killed. The early Church (go ahead and say Western if you want) saw the fact that two of the biggest big boys were martyred in Rome as a sign that God had a special place for it. Off the top of my head, I am not sure if two Apostles were martyred in any city, unless it was Jerusalem.

Agreed, although the tradition that St. Peter ordained St. Lineus while St. Paul ordained St. Cletus as bishop of Rome again brings up the Pauline issue.

 

[JRKH]

This however doesn’t distinguish Rome from Antioch.

I’m sorry but both Quotes I provided do in fact specify Rome.

For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, (A.D. 41 to 54) the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, **led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome **against this great corrupter of life. (History of the Church Bk 2 ch 14 no. 6)

“second year of the two hundred and fifth olympiad: the Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he** remains as bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years.” **(Eusebius Pamphilus, The Chonicle, As An. Dom. 42, in FEF 1:291, no. 651aa)
(The above is Quoted from the Book “Four Wintesses by Rod Bennett”.

Thus, in both places Eusebius places Peter in Rome and in the Chronicle specifies that he is bishop of Rome for 25 years.

Peace
James

 

[ralphinal]

Agreed, although the tradition that St. Peter ordained St. Lineus while St. Paul ordained St. Cletus as bishop of Rome again brings up the Pauline issue.

There is some truth to that, though I would say, based on my understanding of Paul, that he would not have thought of usurping power from Peter.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m sorry but both Quotes I provided do in fact specify Rome.

Thus, in both places Eusebius places Peter in Rome and in the Chronicle specifies that he is bishop of Rome for 25 years.

Peace
James

I was refering to the successor of St. Peter part. The patriarch of Antioch is also the successor of St. Peter, and your quotes don’t distinguish that.