Timeline for Why is the Last Place on Earth St. Peter Founded the Seat of his Authority?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 2019 at 10:04 | answer | added | davidlol | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 6, 2019 at 20:15 | comment | added | SLM | Well, per Daniel, they knew it wouldn't last, so it doesn't seem like much of an explanation for why the church at Rome eventually claimed to be the seat of Peter. It seems to sound a bit like the argument that Jerusalem was the heart of the earth and so that is where the See of Peter should have remained. And for that matter Antioch is where we were first called Christians. So, a claim of headship based on geography rings hollow to me. | |
| Mar 5, 2019 at 20:09 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | Are you aware that Rome was the capital and chief city of the Roman Empire a the time? Does it occur to you that this might matter, in terms of getting the faith to spread throughout an empire? (Or "the known world" of the time)? (Joe seems to point to a similar view) | |
| Mar 5, 2019 at 19:38 | answer | added | SLM | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 5, 2019 at 19:29 | comment | added | SLM | Well I ask "lived last" or "died", but not sure what you're trying to suggest. I agree there's no reason, at least that I know of, that it does matter where he lived or died. Antioch or Jerusalem or perhaps Rome could all make a claim on Peter's supposed head of the apostles position. I'm just trying to understand why the supposed last place he lived or died matters. Again, its simply to say, I don't see the reason, if there is one. Marcellus I (in one answer) says the Lord made the transfer of the See of Peter. Okay, but is there some reason (besides his last place to live or die)? | |
| Mar 5, 2019 at 17:52 | comment | added | workerjoe | @SLM I'm not sure the original claim is saying it's in Rome because of where Peter died; merely that it is in Rome and that is where he died. In other words, the original claim doesn't necessarily address "why it would matter..." as in your question. | |
| Mar 5, 2019 at 4:45 | comment | added | SLM | @Joe true enough that Popes lived in other places besides Rome. The question stems from the belief that Peter established his bishopric first in Antioch, as others have said. Why would it necessarily have transferred to Rome where Peter supposedly died? Is that the only valid claim for Rome? | |
| Mar 5, 2019 at 0:26 | comment | added | workerjoe | Seems to me that the claim is a mere statement of fact. Peter died in Rome. The current Pope lives in Rome today. Does the questioner assume that the Church is claiming the Popes live in Rome now because it was the last place Peter lived? That would be a weird claim in the context of history... because there have been times when Popes lived elsewhere. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 23:28 | comment | added | Ken Graham♦ | St. Peter may have founded the See of Antioch. Whether he was it's first bishop is in question. If he did not serve as it's first bishop than his transferal to Rome did not exist. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 22:57 | comment | added | SLM | From Geremia answer this statement "Marcellus I, in a letter to the Antiochenes, says: “The See of Peter was begun with you, and was transferred to Rome at the Lord’s command," This is basically a "just so" statement, but does address the idea that Peter did begin the See of Peter at Antioch. Apparently there's no real Catholic question about it. Supposedly, however, it was transferred to Rome, but why, what difference does it make where Peter last roamed, per the OP. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 22:52 | comment | added | Ken Graham♦ | The Catholic Church is not all together sure whether St. Peter governed Antioch as a bishop or he established the region as a bishopric and put St. Evodius in charge of the region. Sources are not clear. If the latter is true then your question has no ground. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 22:42 | comment | added | Ken Graham♦ | One has to distinguish a difference from the last place in which he personally was the governing a diocese as it's bishop and any other diocese that he may have established with it's own proper bishop. Tradition (legend) says that as the Bishop of Rome he established other dioceses with other bishops. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 18:06 | answer | added | Geremia | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 18:03 | history | edited | Geremia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added Antioch link
|
| Mar 4, 2019 at 16:37 | history | edited | Peter Turner♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 4, 2019 at 16:36 | comment | added | Peter Turner♦ | More than what is the proof of this claim, I'd like to know what is the source of this claim. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 16:09 | history | asked | SLM | CC BY-SA 4.0 |