Peter and Rome

[vooke]

• Tweet

1. Did Peter ever visit Rome?
2. Did he found the church in Rome?
3. Was he at any point regarded as a bishop of Rome?
4. What role would a Bishop play in the first century?
5. Was Peter martyred in Rome?

As with any Christian historical inquest, we have both internal( from scriptures) and external (other sources)

[Bella]

vooke, just go ahead and respond to what I'v written already, here, no problem. Use the quoting function, please.

[vooke]

Hi kadame,
Allow me to pause kidogo....got caught up. I will post when am more free so I can give proper response. Hope you don't mind.

Asante

[vooke]

Hi kadame,
I know as a Catholic, EVERYTHING you stand for or believe in has to be as close as possible to the official Catholic position. And I know where to get the Catholic position on anything; the Catholic encyclopaedia . So I tried to run through what RCC believes ant teaches on Peter and these statements jumped out.

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded.

It seems to me RCC concedes that they can only comfortably place Peter in Rome towards the end of his life. The entry reckons his death to be between 64-68AD.

Although the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn.

In as many words, besides knowing Peter was in Rome, all else is speculation. That's a good point.

The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

This is interesting statement. It is Peter's supposed death in Rome that establishes the claims of his primacy. I don't agree with this statement because in my opinion, bishoprick is a matter of leadership not place of death

I think we should concern ourselves with whether there existed a church long before 'towards the end of his life' in Rome, whether we can identify leaders of this church and of course what Peter possibly did to warrant the title first Pope of Rome.

That said, from scriptures especially Acts, I never see Peter acting any way as of higher authority than other apostles. That's a claim from the article I would readily dispute.
 

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

vooke,

The man has to have visited Rome at some point if he was killed there.  The more interesting question, in my opinion, would be whether he was infallible?

[Omollo]

What are the chances of the Leader of Al Qaeda visiting Washington? Let us not be so easily anachronistic. Christianity was a dangerous sect that undermined the position of the Roman Empire. The followers did not recognize The Roman Emperor as god. It was forbidden and hunted. Not just by the Romans. In fact The Jewish leaders had long declared them heretics and had sent bounty hunters like Saul after them.

Nero simply represented the height of the clamp down when it became gruesome and grotesque with Stadia animal vs Christian shows!

So in that atmosphere, Paul and Peter triumphantly started a Church in Rome and Peter even had a "throne" made where he sat as the "Bishop of Rome"????

I can see Osama bin Laden as the Imam of Washington!

vooke,

The man has to have visited Rome at some point if he was killed there.  The more interesting question, in my opinion, would be whether he was infallible?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

What are the chances of the Leader of Al Qaeda visiting Washington? Let us not be so easily anachronistic. Christianity was a dangerous sect that undermined the position of the Roman Empire. The followers did not recognize The Roman Emperor as god. It was forbidden and hunted. Not just by the Romans. In fact The Jewish leaders had long declared them heretics and had sent bounty hunters like Saul after them.

Nero simply represented the height of the clamp down when it became gruesome and grotesque with Stadia animal vs Christian shows!

So in that atmosphere, Paul and Peter triumphantly started a Church in Rome and Peter even had a "throne" made where he sat as the "Bishop of Rome"????

I can see Osama bin Laden as the Imam of Washington!

vooke,

The man has to have visited Rome at some point if he was killed there.  The more interesting question, in my opinion, would be whether he was infallible?

Omollo,

I always thought he was in Rome at some point and was in fact crucified upside down by the Romans.  Whether he is killed as part of the clampdown is not readily apparent.  I have never known it to be controversial prior to you bringing it up.

[vooke]

vooke,

The man has to have visited Rome at some point if he was killed there.  The more interesting question, in my opinion, would be whether he was infallible?

Termie,
The primary job of the apostles was to give witness to the Resurrected Christ and to teach what he taught. To me infallibility is simply ability to communicate EXACTLY what Jesus taught them

[vooke]

What are the chances of the Leader of Al Qaeda visiting Washington? Let us not be so easily anachronistic. Christianity was a dangerous sect that undermined the position of the Roman Empire. The followers did not recognize The Roman Emperor as god. It was forbidden and hunted. Not just by the Romans. In fact The Jewish leaders had long declared them heretics and had sent bounty hunters like Saul after them.

Nero simply represented the height of the clamp down when it became gruesome and grotesque with Stadia animal vs Christian shows!

So in that atmosphere, Paul and Peter triumphantly started a Church in Rome and Peter even had a "throne" made where he sat as the "Bishop of Rome"????

I can see Osama bin Laden as the Imam of Washington!

Omorlo, we have talked about thinking too much.
Christian persecution started in Jerusalem. If you notice, much as Rome was a pagan empire, Jews sort of thrived despite their monotheism. That's why I don't buy the line that Rome was TOO hostile for a Christian center. This is not to discount persecution there, just saying it was not enough to decimate Christianity any more than Judaism. If any, it pushed them underground.

Where I believe Catholicism fabricates history is when they claim Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and that he was the first 'pope'. And ofcourse 'apostolic succession'. How we move from 12 apostles to a chief of apostles who then appoints/anoints his successor when a good number of other apostles are still alive,and on to Francis. These things are at the center of Catholicism

[Bella]

Hi kadame,
I know as a Catholic, EVERYTHING you stand for or believe in has to be as close as possible to the official Catholic position. And I know where to get the Catholic position on anything; the Catholic encyclopaedia . So I tried to run through what RCC believes ant teaches on Peter and these statements jumped out.

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded.

It seems to me RCC concedes that they can only comfortably place Peter in Rome towards the end of his life. The entry reckons his death to be between 64-68AD.

Although the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn.

In as many words, besides knowing Peter was in Rome, all else is speculation. That's a good point.

The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

This is interesting statement. It is Peter's supposed death in Rome that establishes the claims of his primacy. I don't agree with this statement because in my opinion, bishoprick is a matter of leadership not place of death

vooke, two things:

a) The encyclopedia is a very reliable source, extremely professional, well-sourced and referenced and with academic integrity. It is, however, not really synonymous with official catholic teaching, though it is known to report it accurately. That's just a by the way, not really part of this discussion. 

b) I don't think you understood what the encyclopedia says there. Peter's death in Rome is NOT the basis of HIS own primacy. In Catholicism, that primacy is based on the words of Jesus to Peter in the New Testament and the beliefs of the early church about Peter. The primacy that the encyclopedia refers to is not Peter's, but that of the Bishops of Rome, Sts Linus, Clement etc...that is, it is answering a question debated among apostolic churches...which Bishop succeeded to Peter's primacy? If Roman Bishops...why them? Why not Jerusalem's Bishops, or Antioch's Bishops, or Alexandria's bishops, for example? The three: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, were considered in the early centuries to be all Petrine sees...sees of st Peter and all three claimed him as their founder (For Alexandria...or what we call today the Coptic Church, they claimed Peter because they were founded by St. Mark who was Peter's disciple and they considered him to have been acting on Peter's instruction and not his own activity). Just wanted to clarify the meaning of the encyclopedia there.

I think we should concern ourselves with whether there existed a church long before 'towards the end of his life' in Rome, whether we can identify leaders of this church and of course what Peter possibly did to warrant the title first Pope of Rome.

There existed a church. There is no question about that. Who introduced Christianity to Rome is of little consequence, most likely it was not an apostle but a regular Christian travelling back to Rome from Jerusalem. But we know it was the apostles who appointed Bishops. And what we know is that the early church, without any contradiction, believed that BOTH Peter and Paul had appointed the first Bishops of Rome. That very much settles the issue for me. If Peter was in Rome, he was the leader there when he was there. Unless we want to envision a scenario where a "regular Christian", with Peter around, can act like an apostle is under his own leadership, I don't think there can be a question of his being bishop there, unless he was simply never in Rome.

That said, from scriptures especially Acts, I never see Peter acting any way as of higher authority than other apostles. That's a claim from the article I would readily dispute.

Well, I respectfully disagree. For me there simply is no question that Jesus elevated Peter above the others, nor that Peter was the leader of the church after Jesus' death, until he fled persecution in Jerusalem and ran to Antioch. I guess people can look at the same scriptures and see different things, though.

[vooke]

There was a church long before Peter landed in Rome. That's it. This church had a leader, it was not rudderless. An epistle to this church clearly omits Peter among its prominent 28.

[Bella]

There was a church long before Peter landed in Rome. That's it. This church had a leader, it was not rudderless. An epistle to this church clearly omits Peter among its prominent 28.

Which is not in dispute, as far as I can see, but ok. In Gusii shags, my momma's side, we have very well organized Catholic communities led by local catechists with no more authority than me, just saying.

[vooke]

There was a church long before Peter landed in Rome. That's it. This church had a leader, it was not rudderless. An epistle to this church clearly omits Peter among its prominent 28.

Which is not in dispute, as far as I can see, but ok. In Gusii shags, my momma's side, we have very well organized Catholic communities led by local catechists with no more authority than me, just saying.

The idea of bishops in the first century was unheard of. Churches were led by presbytery of elders at most

[Bella]

So in that atmosphere, Paul and Peter triumphantly started a Church in Rome and Peter even had a "throne" made where he sat as the "Bishop of Rome"????

I can see Osama bin Laden as the Imam of Washington!

vooke,

The man has to have visited Rome at some point if he was killed there.  The more interesting question, in my opinion, would be whether he was infallible?

Omollo, no one believes in a physical "throne" upon which Peter sat! That is a reference to Primacy/leadership/authority, a bit like "keys", it certainly is not literal.

[Bella]

There was a church long before Peter landed in Rome. That's it. This church had a leader, it was not rudderless. An epistle to this church clearly omits Peter among its prominent 28.

Which is not in dispute, as far as I can see, but ok. In Gusii shags, my momma's side, we have very well organized Catholic communities led by local catechists with no more authority than me, just saying.

The idea of bishops in the first century was unheard of. Churches were led by presbytery of elders at most

Really? Well, that's funny considering they are mentioned in the New Testament, but ok. I won't answer this using my own or other Catholics' arguments, but I will cite historically-aware protestants: http://www.kencollins.com/explanations/why-12.htm

[vooke]

If ever there was a pope of any sort, I'd put my money on James, the Lord's brother.
Acts 15:19-21 (ESV)
 19 Therefore my judgment
In the Jerusalem Council he spoke LAST and his decision was final

And in Galatians, to Paul it SEEMED James was among the leadership together with Peter
Galatians 2:9 (ESV)
9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

James decrees that Gentiles should not be harassed with Mosaic Law and his decision carries the day. Peter himself OBEYS this instruction in Antioch until some Jews sent from James/Jerusalem visits and he chickens out

Galatia s 2:11-13 (ESV)
 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy

[vooke]

Really? Well, that's funny considering they are mentioned in the New Testament, but ok. I won't answer this using my own or other Catholics' arguments, but I will cite historically-aware protestants: http://www.kencollins.com/explanations/why-12.htm

What was the bishop's role?
If a bishop was a local congregation leader, then as you readily admit, Rome had some leadership long before Peter went there. If this leadership is the deli ion of a bishop, Rome had a bishop long before Peter, unless we insist they remained rudderless till Peter went there. Which is defeatist because it shows a church operating against the norms of the day

[Bella]

If ever there was a pope of any sort, I'd put my money on James, the Lord's brother.
Acts 15:19-21 (ESV)
 19 Therefore my judgment
In the Jerusalem Council he spoke LAST and his decision was final

And in Galatians, to Paul it SEEMED James was among the leadership together with Peter
Galatians 2:9 (ESV)
9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

Lol! That is an interesting reading of Acts 15, left interesting bits out, in my view. At the time of that council, James was head of the Jerusalem church, Peter had long fled Jerusalem after the prison-break. Peter was a visitor there as much as Paul but still, he stands after listening to what we are told is a hot, hot debate and when they see peter speak, the room not only turns hush hush and obedient but the dispute is pretty much finished after Peter declares his doctrine, call it opinion. My money is on JESUS' opinion since I don't recall James being renamed Cephas, told the church would be built on him and getting handed the keys of the Kingdom of God by Christ himself, or even getting the job of feeding the flock of Christ, both lambs and sheep, but ok. Where was James when Peter decided a new apostle was needed, spoke for Christians in Jerusalem after Christ had left? Besides, like I said, James was basing his "Judgment" on Peter's declaration, but again, ok.

[Bella]

What was the bishop's role?
If a bishop was a local congregation leader, then as you readily admit, Rome had some leadership long before Peter went there. If this leadership is the deli ion of a bishop, Rome had a bishop long before Peter, unless we insist they remained rudderless till Peter went there. Which is defeatist because it shows a church operating against the norms of the day

Rome had "some leadership" whom no one ever called Bishops until they were ordained so by the apostles Peter and Paul. Bishops presided over Presbyters/priests. They still do. They were also the chief celebrants of the eucharist and represented unity for Christians in a particular city/area. In fact, I recall a thing about st. Ignatius in Antioch appealing to the Bishop of Rome so far away to return him to his see in Antioch from which he had been wrongly deposed. Should find that quote and post.

[vooke]

Lol! That is an interesting reading of Acts 15, left interesting bits out, in my view. At the time of that council, James was head of the Jerusalem church, Peter had long fled Jerusalem after the prison-break.

This is quite interesting. Are you suggesting that the Bishop of Jerusalem fled Jerusalem and handed over the reins to someone else only to come and visit?

Peter was a visitor there as much as Paul but still, he stands after listening to what we are told is a hot, hot debate and when they see peter speak, the room not only turns hush hush and obedient but the dispute is pretty much finished after Peter declares his doctrine, call it opinion.

kadame,
You are exaggerating. Silence when Peter spoke is a matter of order and etiquette. This is exactly why Paul said that even when prophesying, two at most should speak. And you can bet when Paul and Barnabas spoke, there was the same silence. Ama? Tell me what you can say of Peter's speech in Acts 15 that you can't say of Paul and Barnabas. Peter just had a unique, first experience in Cesarea in Acts 10 and that showed BOHS preceding circumcision complete with several heavenly warnings against calling Gentiles unclean.

Whatever Peter experienced, James decision was final and it carried the day as evidenced by the contents of the letter.

In Galatians 2 just shared did you notice Paul and Peter are in Antioch and still some guys are sent from James in Jerusalem. James was not a leader in Jerusalem temporarily, it was permanent.

My money is on JESUS' opinion since I don't recall James being renamed Cephas, told the church would be built on him and getting handed the keys of the Kingdom of God by Christ himself, or even getting the job of feeding the flock of Christ, both lambs and sheep, but ok.

Those words have been DIFFERENTLY understood ever since they was uttered. That is enough to minimize dogmatism over them. Even Catholicism is at pains to explain how ONLY Peter had the keys. Look up the encyclopaedia on the keys entry.

Let me digress a bit.
The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.

Note the words in red. On the day of Pentecost, when Peter gave his first sermon, he said that BOHS was nothing more than what Joel had prophesied and he quoted these very words. But on that day, the blood,fire and smoke and moon turning to blood was never recorded like literally. Yet Peter had the confidence to claim it stood fulfilled.

A skeptic like Termie may have aksd, 'Where is the blood, smoke and moon turning red?'
What am saying is, the fact that Jesus gave Peter the keys and called him rock should be interpreted cautiously, especially with the excessive evidence of leadership prominence by others in Jerusalem when Peter was still alive which is contrary to predictions of one understanding of that verse.

Where was James when Peter decided a new apostle was needed, spoke for Christians in Jerusalem after Christ had left?

That's a good question. All of them was there together with Mary and Jesus brethren as recorded in acts 1.

The most important point is, what should we make of this? Remember the appointment of the new apostle happened BEFORE Pentecost which happened 10 days after ascension. So Matthias was appointed within days of ascension, under 10 days. During this time, the apostles had been instructed to do NOTHING until they received power. So there was basically no opportunity for James to demonstrate leadership here.

Note, I don't for a second insist Jesus made him a leader. I only say like Paul, he SEEMED to be a pillar, and since he continued after Peter left Jerusalem, I think we can conclude he was a leader. There is evidence of him acting as a leader.

Besides, like I said, James was basing his "Judgment" on Peter's declaration, but again, ok.

Not on Peter, but on ALL that had been shared. Please don't attempt to water down Paul's conversion speech in that meeting. That is a bit dishonest.

Do me a favor, try to dig the same historical references on what they had to say about James the Lord's brother. The funny thing and this beats me is, James was not exactly an apostle (am not hinting at nepotism!!) in fact at some point in John, they appeared to have doubted Jesus ministry. James the disciple had been beheaded. How James rose to prominence is....is puzzling but we know he did.