Author Topic: St. Peter the Procrastinator?  (Read 3138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,761
St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« on: February 08, 2011, 06:51:39 PM »
Supposing the Catholic claims about St. Peter and Roman primacy are true, why then did St. Peter wait so long to go to Rome? Why didn't he go immediately, instead of waiting decades?


EDIT--I added a "St." in front of the name Peter, so as to avoid being given an official warning...  :angel:
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 07:00:21 PM by Asteriktos »
"My doubt in Christ is not like that of a child; it was forged in a furnace of faith." - Dostoevsky

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2011, 06:57:15 PM »
Perhaps he first imagined that the primacy would reside in Antioch.
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2011, 07:25:11 PM »
Or, maybe it didn't matter where he went. If he haded ended his ministry, and been martyred along with Paul in Antioch, that is where the primacy would reside. The same would be true if he had ended up in Abu Dabi, Amsterdam, or Albquerque.  :D
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2011, 07:29:37 PM »
Or, maybe it didn't matter where he went. If he haded ended his ministry, and been martyred along with Paul in Antioch, that is where the primacy would reside. The same would be true if he had ended up in Abu Dabi, Amsterdam, or Albquerque.  :D

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2011, 07:36:36 PM »
Or, maybe it didn't matter where he went. If he haded ended his ministry, and been martyred along with Paul in Antioch, that is where the primacy would reside. The same would be true if he had ended up in Abu Dabi, Amsterdam, or Albquerque.  :D

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Why would he know that he would he would end his ministry in Rome? Why would he have to groom a particlur See? I don't follow? The Popes now days don't normally know who their successor is going to be, so they can't really "groom" this person.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 07:38:29 PM by Papist »
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2011, 07:41:47 PM »
I'm not talking about him knowing what would happen. I am saying it would only make sense for him to have worked to secure one particular city as his seat and that of his successors.
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,761
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2011, 07:46:04 PM »
So even though the entire future of the Church was riding on him, St. Peter just sort of wandered from place to place? Hmm, that does sound like something God would do...  :D
"My doubt in Christ is not like that of a child; it was forged in a furnace of faith." - Dostoevsky

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2011, 07:47:29 PM »
So even though the entire future of the Church was riding on him, St. Peter just sort of wandered from place to place? Hmm, that does sound like something God would do...  :D
The future of the entire Church was riding on all the Apostles, and their ability to transmit the Gospels, and they went all over the place, not just Rome. Do you think that they all knew exactly where they were going to end up?
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,761
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2011, 07:53:33 PM »
Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... :)
"My doubt in Christ is not like that of a child; it was forged in a furnace of faith." - Dostoevsky

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2011, 07:59:24 PM »
Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... :)
I guess I am having trouble understanding the objection. I mean, Jesus didn't know "the day nor the hour". Couldn't the Father have sent him a quick memo? We can all come up with "what ifs" til the cows come home. Why didn't God give the Pope super powers so that people would obey him? Why didn't God give St. Peter the ability to see the future so that he could stay one step ahead the Romans? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,761
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2011, 08:06:07 PM »
The objection is... Rome is... Rome!  :angel: Isn't it? Some of the arguments for the primacy of Rome seem to have to do with it being the most important city in the (so-called) known world. Even a Council accepted by Orthodox as Ecumenical* says as much. You seem to be saying that it could just have been the Church centered in Podunk, if that happened to be where Peter ended up? Also, what of the question of deusveritasest in his last post?

*I don't know if Roman Catholics accept that particular canon...?
"My doubt in Christ is not like that of a child; it was forged in a furnace of faith." - Dostoevsky

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2011, 08:14:46 PM »
The objection is... Rome is... Rome!  :angel: Isn't it? Some of the arguments for the primacy of Rome seem to have to do with it being the most important city in the (so-called) known world. Even a Council accepted by Orthodox as Ecumenical* says as much. You seem to be saying that it could just have been the Church centered in Podunk, if that happened to be where Peter ended up? Also, what of the question of deusveritasest in his last post?

*I don't know if Roman Catholics accept that particular canon...?
Well, it seems that we are coming from different premises on this question. We Roman Catholics do not believe that it had to be Rome qua Rome that was selected as the See for the Papacy. Perhaps some of the Byzantines of the Early Church emphasized this for political reasons in order to elevate the See of Constantinople, but that has never been our reason for the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Rather, it has to do primarily with St. Peter (and in a subordiante way, St. Paul) and the authority granted him by Jesus. We can see this in the writings of Iraneaus, Maximos, Gregory the Great, etc. Was it a good thing that Rome ended up being where St. Peter handed on his Papacy? Probably. Was it providential? Most likely. Was it necessary? No.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,578
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2011, 10:47:40 PM »
So if St. Peter was martyred say in Ephesus, Ephesus would have been a primary see?
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 687
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2011, 11:45:42 PM »
I brought this up in another thread not sure I ever got an answer. If St Peter is Christ's vicar and the primacy falls on Rome because that is where he was martyred then if Pope Benedict XVI is Christ's vicar and is martyred in Newark, NJ than it must mean that Newark is the new seat of the Papacy because that is where he was martyred. I don't see how a principle can cease to stop working when convenient for us. If it doesn't work that way for the current pope's martyrdom then it wouldn't work for St Peter's Martyrdom.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2011, 01:56:57 AM »
The future of the entire Church was riding on all the Apostles, and their ability to transmit the Gospels, and they went all over the place, not just Rome. Do you think that they all knew exactly where they were going to end up?

The status of Peter and the other Apostles in the context of your doctrine of Petrine primacy is not appropriate. In either your doctrinal system or in ours, it doesn't particular matter for any one of the other Apostles to establish any particular See as theirs. We apply this same principle to Peter. Your Petrine primacy doesn't allow for that to be true of Peter, however. Peter had to establish a See as his, and one particular See at that, and he had to make such clear. And if you hold that Peter held to this Petrine doctrine, he should have been aware of this necessity. So it would seem that for a while that Peter was probably imagining that Antioch would be this See. However, eventually he transferred to Rome. I think the significant question here is why he didn't stick with Antioch and moved on to Rome?
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2011, 01:58:49 AM »
I used to procrastinate all the time, but now I leave it until tomorrow.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2011, 02:03:26 AM »
I have another question for you, Christopher, that I think might be significant to this discussion. You seem to have assumed that it is the location of the martyrdom of Peter which defines the See that received the primacy. I haven't in the past received such a strong affirmation of this opinion before. Could you explain why you assume it is the location of Saint Peter's martyrdom which defines the See with his primacy rather than some other attribute of relationship to the given city?
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2011, 02:15:06 AM »
I brought this up in another thread not sure I ever got an answer. If St Peter is Christ's vicar and the primacy falls on Rome because that is where he was martyred then if Pope Benedict XVI is Christ's vicar and is martyred in Newark, NJ than it must mean that Newark is the new seat of the Papacy because that is where he was martyred. I don't see how a principle can cease to stop working when convenient for us. If it doesn't work that way for the current pope's martyrdom then it wouldn't work for St Peter's Martyrdom.
Yes, they never explained if they brought the relics of St. Peter to Avignon, and if they didn't, how could the "true successor of St. Peter" be there?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,436
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2011, 02:20:35 AM »
Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2011, 02:21:58 AM »
The objection is... Rome is... Rome!  :angel: Isn't it? Some of the arguments for the primacy of Rome seem to have to do with it being the most important city in the (so-called) known world. Even a Council accepted by Orthodox as Ecumenical* says as much. You seem to be saying that it could just have been the Church centered in Podunk, if that happened to be where Peter ended up? Also, what of the question of deusveritasest in his last post?

*I don't know if Roman Catholics accept that particular canon...?
Well, it seems that we are coming from different premises on this question. We Roman Catholics do not believe that it had to be Rome qua Rome that was selected as the See for the Papacy. Perhaps some of the Byzantines of the Early Church emphasized this for political reasons in order to elevate the See of Constantinople, but that has never been our reason for the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Rather, it has to do primarily with St. Peter (and in a subordiante way, St. Paul) and the authority granted him by Jesus. We can see this in the writings of Iraneaus, Maximos, Gregory the Great, etc. Was it a good thing that Rome ended up being where St. Peter handed on his Papacy? Probably. Was it providential? Most likely. Was it necessary? No.
No, you see it in St. Irenaeus etc., whether you can or not. Bp. Victor never claimed any special authority from St. Peter, and the first bishop of Rome we know who did, St. Stephen nearly a century later, he was rebuked on that point.

"Byzantines" are a "renaissance" invention, created over a thousand years after the founding of Constantinople.  Where did the bishop of Rome get that title "pontifex maximus" from again?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2011, 02:24:01 AM »
Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
Ah yes, the ever development of doctrine. so much for the Faith delievered once and for all to the Saints.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2011, 02:26:08 AM »
Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... :)
I guess I am having trouble understanding the objection. I mean, Jesus didn't know "the day nor the hour". Couldn't the Father have sent him a quick memo? We can all come up with "what ifs" til the cows come home. Why didn't God give the Pope super powers so that people would obey him? Why didn't God give St. Peter the ability to see the future so that he could stay one step ahead the Romans? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Isn't that attributed to a pin headed doctor who is claimed to be angelic?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2011, 02:33:02 AM »
Or, maybe it didn't matter where he went. If he haded ended his ministry, and been martyred along with Paul in Antioch, that is where the primacy would reside. The same would be true if he had ended up in Abu Dabi, Amsterdam, or Albquerque.  :D

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Why would he know that he would he would end his ministry in Rome? Why would he have to groom a particlur See? I don't follow? The Popes now days don't normally know who their successor is going to be, so they can't really "groom" this person.
LOL. Oh really?
Quote
On 2 January 2005, Time magazine quoted unnamed Vatican sources as saying that Ratzinger was a front runner to succeed John Paul II should the pope die or become too ill to continue as pope. On the death of John Paul II, the Financial Times gave the odds of Ratzinger becoming pope as 7–1, the lead position, but close to his rivals on the liberal wing of the church. In April 2005, before his election as pope, he was identified as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine. While Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger repeatedly stated he would like to retire to his house in the Bavarian village of Pentling near Regensburg and dedicate himself to writing books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Joseph_Ratzinger#Prediction
I do recall Card. Ratzinger trying to retire, but Pope John Paul II refusing and keeping him on.

and many of their predecessors, despite the canons against it, appointed their successor. In fact, because of such an appointment, a validly elected pope is now seen as the antipope Dioscoros.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2011, 02:35:01 AM »
Supposing the Catholic claims about St. Peter and Roman primacy are true, why then did St. Peter wait so long to go to Rome? Why didn't he go immediately, instead of waiting decades?


EDIT--I added a "St." in front of the name Peter, so as to avoid being given an official warning...  :angel:
Yeah, what's with all the hanging around at Jerusalem, and then pracitcally no trace of him there remaining.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2011, 03:28:49 AM »
Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.

The idea of a man having such a high degree of primacy as you attribute to him and not even being aware of it sounds pretty absurd.
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2011, 09:31:30 AM »
Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.

And perhaps the power and influence attributed to the "Holy See" did as well?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2011, 12:51:44 PM »
So if St. Peter was martyred say in Ephesus, Ephesus would have been a primary see?
I believe so.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2011, 12:52:57 PM »
I brought this up in another thread not sure I ever got an answer. If St Peter is Christ's vicar and the primacy falls on Rome because that is where he was martyred then if Pope Benedict XVI is Christ's vicar and is martyred in Newark, NJ than it must mean that Newark is the new seat of the Papacy because that is where he was martyred. I don't see how a principle can cease to stop working when convenient for us. If it doesn't work that way for the current pope's martyrdom then it wouldn't work for St Peter's Martyrdom.
No, it has to do with where St. Peter was martyred, not wheter the current Pope dies. His Holiness is the Bishop of Rome, not Newark. You are guys are really reaching now.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2011, 12:54:21 PM »
Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 12:54:39 PM by Papist »
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2011, 12:57:44 PM »
I have another question for you, Christopher, that I think might be significant to this discussion. You seem to have assumed that it is the location of the martyrdom of Peter which defines the See that received the primacy. I haven't in the past received such a strong affirmation of this opinion before. Could you explain why you assume it is the location of Saint Peter's martyrdom which defines the See with his primacy rather than some other attribute of relationship to the given city?
That is an excellent question, and I suppose that to some degree it has to do with the Fathers constantly mentioning the twin martyrdoms of Peter and Paul when praising the Apostolic See. Also, it seems only logical, as Peter did function in other Sees, but it's Rome where he ends as martyr, and Rome which is seen as the See with Primacy in the early Church.  St. Iraneaus begins this, as do other Fathers. The political arguement about Rome being the head of the empire doesn't seem to be used until Constantinople begins trying to elevate itself. I will provide some Catholic sources on this matter tonight.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,578
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2011, 01:34:56 PM »
Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... :)
I guess I am having trouble understanding the objection. I mean, Jesus didn't know "the day nor the hour". Couldn't the Father have sent him a quick memo? We can all come up with "what ifs" til the cows come home. Why didn't God give the Pope super powers so that people would obey him? Why didn't God give St. Peter the ability to see the future so that he could stay one step ahead the Romans? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I want to address this point.  Christ may have not known the "day nor the hour" but He certainly knew Who He is.

I just want to be clear are you saying that St. Peter didn't know he was a primate among the Apostles, or that he just didn't know it was going to be Rome where he dies?

Also, if you have any reading resources that fully and best defends the RC position, I'd be interested in that resource.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 01:35:45 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2011, 01:39:11 PM »
Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... :)
I guess I am having trouble understanding the objection. I mean, Jesus didn't know "the day nor the hour". Couldn't the Father have sent him a quick memo? We can all come up with "what ifs" til the cows come home. Why didn't God give the Pope super powers so that people would obey him? Why didn't God give St. Peter the ability to see the future so that he could stay one step ahead the Romans? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I want to address this point.  Christ may have not known the "day nor the hour" but He certainly knew Who He is.

I just want to be clear are you saying that St. Peter didn't know he was a primate among the Apostles, or that he just didn't know it was going to be Rome where he dies?

Also, if you have any reading resources that fully and best defends the RC position, I'd be interested in that resource.
Peter knew who he was and that had primacy. I don't think he knew that he would end up in Rome all along.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2011, 04:09:24 PM »
Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... :)
I guess I am having trouble understanding the objection. I mean, Jesus didn't know "the day nor the hour". Couldn't the Father have sent him a quick memo? We can all come up with "what ifs" til the cows come home. Why didn't God give the Pope super powers so that people would obey him? Why didn't God give St. Peter the ability to see the future so that he could stay one step ahead the Romans? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I want to address this point.  Christ may have not known the "day nor the hour" but He certainly knew Who He is.

I just want to be clear are you saying that St. Peter didn't know he was a primate among the Apostles, or that he just didn't know it was going to be Rome where he dies?

Also, if you have any reading resources that fully and best defends the RC position, I'd be interested in that resource.
Peter knew who he was and that had primacy. I don't think he knew that he would end up in Rome all along.

Which leads me back to wondering about this:

The future of the entire Church was riding on all the Apostles, and their ability to transmit the Gospels, and they went all over the place, not just Rome. Do you think that they all knew exactly where they were going to end up?

The status of Peter and the other Apostles in the context of your doctrine of Petrine primacy is not appropriate. In either your doctrinal system or in ours, it doesn't particular matter for any one of the other Apostles to establish any particular See as theirs. We apply this same principle to Peter. Your Petrine primacy doesn't allow for that to be true of Peter, however. Peter had to establish a See as his, and one particular See at that, and he had to make such clear. And if you hold that Peter held to this Petrine doctrine, he should have been aware of this necessity. So it would seem that for a while that Peter was probably imagining that Antioch would be this See. However, eventually he transferred to Rome. I think the significant question here is why he didn't stick with Antioch and moved on to Rome?
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2011, 04:11:48 PM »
I have another question for you, Christopher, that I think might be significant to this discussion. You seem to have assumed that it is the location of the martyrdom of Peter which defines the See that received the primacy. I haven't in the past received such a strong affirmation of this opinion before. Could you explain why you assume it is the location of Saint Peter's martyrdom which defines the See with his primacy rather than some other attribute of relationship to the given city?
That is an excellent question, and I suppose that to some degree it has to do with the Fathers constantly mentioning the twin martyrdoms of Peter and Paul when praising the Apostolic See. Also, it seems only logical, as Peter did function in other Sees, but it's Rome where he ends as martyr, and Rome which is seen as the See with Primacy in the early Church.  St. Iraneaus begins this, as do other Fathers. The political arguement about Rome being the head of the empire doesn't seem to be used until Constantinople begins trying to elevate itself. I will provide some Catholic sources on this matter tonight.

Some of the Fathers, however, did identify Antioch primarily as the See of Peter rather than Rome, and on top of that is the theory that Peter didn't spend enough time in Rome to really have been an overseer of the city at all like he was at Antioch (popularized in that essay by HH Pope Shenouda III, I'll post it if you don't know what I'm talking about).
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 04:12:06 PM by deusveritasest »
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2011, 04:21:45 PM »
Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
In other words, Papist doesn't want further exposure of a lack of answers on the Vatican's part.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 04:22:49 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2011, 04:23:48 PM »
I brought this up in another thread not sure I ever got an answer. If St Peter is Christ's vicar and the primacy falls on Rome because that is where he was martyred then if Pope Benedict XVI is Christ's vicar and is martyred in Newark, NJ than it must mean that Newark is the new seat of the Papacy because that is where he was martyred. I don't see how a principle can cease to stop working when convenient for us. If it doesn't work that way for the current pope's martyrdom then it wouldn't work for St Peter's Martyrdom.
No, it has to do with where St. Peter was martyred, not wheter the current Pope dies. His Holiness is the Bishop of Rome, not Newark. You are guys are really reaching now.
What about when he was the Bishop of Avignon?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2011, 04:26:26 PM »
Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
In other words, Papist doesn't want further exposure of a lack of answers on the Vatican's part.

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that your way of communicating is overly antagonistic.
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2011, 04:29:51 PM »
I have another question for you, Christopher, that I think might be significant to this discussion. You seem to have assumed that it is the location of the martyrdom of Peter which defines the See that received the primacy. I haven't in the past received such a strong affirmation of this opinion before. Could you explain why you assume it is the location of Saint Peter's martyrdom which defines the See with his primacy rather than some other attribute of relationship to the given city?
That is an excellent question, and I suppose that to some degree it has to do with the Fathers constantly mentioning the twin martyrdoms of Peter and Paul when praising the Apostolic See. Also, it seems only logical, as Peter did function in other Sees, but it's Rome where he ends as martyr, and Rome which is seen as the See with Primacy in the early Church.  St. Iraneaus begins this, as do other Fathers. The political arguement about Rome being the head of the empire doesn't seem to be used until Constantinople begins trying to elevate itself. I will provide some Catholic sources on this matter tonight.
You do that. While you are at it, do provide some sources of how St. Paul drops out of the picture, or do you have Catholic sources on this matter where St. Peter is mentioned without St. Paul as founding the see of Rome?

Also, do you have Catholic sources on how St. Peter functioned in Antioch, so much that Rome celebrates his chair there, but his functioning at Jerusalem leaves no trace?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2011, 04:47:52 PM »
Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
In other words, Papist doesn't want further exposure of a lack of answers on the Vatican's part.

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that your way of communicating is overly antagonistic.
Are you saying that Papist can dish it out, but can't take it?

Your supposition would be more likely if he did manage once to answer objections raised.  For instance:
I brought this up in another thread not sure I ever got an answer. If St Peter is Christ's vicar and the primacy falls on Rome because that is where he was martyred then if Pope Benedict XVI is Christ's vicar and is martyred in Newark, NJ than it must mean that Newark is the new seat of the Papacy because that is where he was martyred. I don't see how a principle can cease to stop working when convenient for us. If it doesn't work that way for the current pope's martyrdom then it wouldn't work for St Peter's Martyrdom.
No, it has to do with where St. Peter was martyred, not wheter the current Pope dies. His Holiness is the Bishop of Rome, not Newark. You are guys are really reaching now.
He has yet to substantiate that where St. Peter was martyred marked the spot where the pontificate was to abide (and then there's that problem of Avignon). He just begs that question, as he begs the question of the successors to the pontificate, and in doing so ignores the importance his supreme pontiffs themselves have put on the point that ICXCNIKA raises:
Quote
In 1271 the election that ended with the choice of Gregory X at Viterbo had lasted over two years and nine months when the local authorities, weary of the delay, shut up the cardinals within narrow limits and thus hastened the desired election (Raynald, Ann. Eccl., ad ad. 1271). The new pope endeavoured to obviate for the future such scandalous delay by the law of the conclave, which, almost in spite of the cardinals, he promulgated at the fifth session of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 (Hefele, Hist. des Conciles, IX, 29). It is the first occasion on which we meet with the word conclave in connection with papal elections. (For its use in English literature see Murray's "Oxford Dictionary", s.v., and for its medieval use Du Cange, Glossar. med. et infimæ Latinitatis, s.v.) The provisions of his Constitution "Ubi Periculum" were stringent. When a pope died, the cardinals with him were to wait ten days for their absent brethren. Then, each with a single servant, lay or cleric, they were to assemble in the palace where the pope was at his death, or, if that were impossible, the nearest city not under interdict, in the bishop's house or some other suitable place. All were to assemble in one room (conclave), without partition or hanging, and live in common... Clement V decreed that the conclave must take place in the diocese in which the pope dies (Ne Romani, 1310...
Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm
ICXCNIKA is only reaching for an issue that Papist's supreme pontiffs and his magisterium raised.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 04:49:47 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2011, 04:49:10 PM »
I have another question for you, Christopher, that I think might be significant to this discussion. You seem to have assumed that it is the location of the martyrdom of Peter which defines the See that received the primacy. I haven't in the past received such a strong affirmation of this opinion before. Could you explain why you assume it is the location of Saint Peter's martyrdom which defines the See with his primacy rather than some other attribute of relationship to the given city?
That is an excellent question, and I suppose that to some degree it has to do with the Fathers constantly mentioning the twin martyrdoms of Peter and Paul when praising the Apostolic See. Also, it seems only logical, as Peter did function in other Sees, but it's Rome where he ends as martyr, and Rome which is seen as the See with Primacy in the early Church.  St. Iraneaus begins this, as do other Fathers. The political arguement about Rome being the head of the empire doesn't seem to be used until Constantinople begins trying to elevate itself. I will provide some Catholic sources on this matter tonight.

Some of the Fathers, however, did identify Antioch primarily as the See of Peter rather than Rome, and on top of that is the theory that Peter didn't spend enough time in Rome to really have been an overseer of the city at all like he was at Antioch (popularized in that essay by HH Pope Shenouda III, I'll post it if you don't know what I'm talking about).
Post it anyway. It would be nice to quote a real Pope.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2011, 06:31:37 PM »
Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
In other words, Papist doesn't want further exposure of a lack of answers on the Vatican's part.

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that your way of communicating is overly antagonistic.
bingo
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,761
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #41 on: February 09, 2011, 09:54:31 PM »
Bp. Victor never claimed any special authority from St. Peter, and the first bishop of Rome we know who did, St. Stephen nearly a century later, he was rebuked on that point.

How many Popes before Pope Stephen I, besides Popes Victor and Callixtus, do we have writings from?
"My doubt in Christ is not like that of a child; it was forged in a furnace of faith." - Dostoevsky

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #42 on: February 09, 2011, 10:46:43 PM »
Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
In other words, Papist doesn't want further exposure of a lack of answers on the Vatican's part.

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that your way of communicating is overly antagonistic.
bingo
LOL. Freudian slip?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,748
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #43 on: February 09, 2011, 10:51:18 PM »
Bp. Victor never claimed any special authority from St. Peter, and the first bishop of Rome we know who did, St. Stephen nearly a century later, he was rebuked on that point.

How many Popes before Pope Stephen I, besides Popes Victor and Callixtus, do we have writings from?
St. Peter.
St. Clement.
St. Soter
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,761
Re: St. Peter the Procrastinator?
« Reply #44 on: February 09, 2011, 11:08:51 PM »
So of the six, half of them may or may not have held to papal primacy in some form or other (Clement, Victor, Stephen), two didn't really write enough (or have enough extant) that we can really argue either way (Soter, Callixtus), and one you would have hoped would have written on the subject (St. Peter), but who we only have one, or at best two, small letters from.
"My doubt in Christ is not like that of a child; it was forged in a furnace of faith." - Dostoevsky