Posts: 2,812
Threads: 271
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
2
I mean opinions will vary, I know Mar Shimun openly wrote against it. I know the current Patriarch respects the tradition based on just the experience and tradition of those who belong to that branch of the Church.
But ultimately who are we to say? If the RCC believes Peter was their first bishop then ok. Our belief or disbelief won't affect them or us, right?
I know it wouldn't matter to me personally if I were of the Latin rite. As it doesn't matter to me if outsiders doubt anything the CoE holds.
Posts: 2,812
Threads: 271
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
2
I think the RCC claims both, right?
Posts: 4
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation:
0
Greetings!
Shamasha Paul, what do you know about this? St. Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm">http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm</a><!-- m -->
MG
Posts: 142
Threads: 15
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation:
0
I'm of Paul's opinion, as laid out above and I have worked it out for myself some time ago. You cannot imagine how hard it is to change your mind about that (and other things) when you hear them repeated over and over again as undeniable truths, all that from your childhood, with no one around you daring to challenge anything coming from "above". As in a good army command.
If I may, you know, it could be one of those stories .. where two guys meet and one corrects the radio news to the other << Yes, Vanya, it is all true what they say, but ... just not in Petersburg but in Moscow, and not bicycles but cars, and not they give away but they steal>>
Looking at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/453832/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle/5632/Tradition-of-Peter-in-Rome">http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... er-in-Rome</a><!-- m --> ...
"The earliest evidence (c. ad 200) is found in a fragment of a work by Gaius (or Caius) witnessing to a tradition at least a generation earlier (c. ad 165) that the ?trophy? (i.e., tropaion, or monument) of Peter was located at the Vatican. Though difficult to interpret, the use of the word trophy indicates that in this period the Vatican area was associated with either the tomb of the Apostle or simply a monument erected in the area of Peter?s victory (i.e., his martyrdom)."
So .. there was a monument, which some wishful thinker have claimed then to be a burial place, and then hey, Shimun Keefa must have been buried here, right, so he must have been a bishop, what else ? and hurray we have great roots! I would not be surprised to find out just that scenario when I get a chance to ask them in the world to come how it really was. And knowing Latin church and different "traditions" which grew there over centuries I would not be surprised at all.
It makes a difference though to some people. Maybe not to you, but to some the (historical) truth (or bending it too much) is very important.
There is one question connected with this - when Paul was writing his letter to the Romans there was a community there already (I believe Jewish based). So, the question begs to be asked, who has proclaimed the gospel in Rome first ? And I believe it was the peoples who attended Shavuot in Jerusalem (Acts 2:10) and witnessed the outpouring of the Holy Spirit who brought the Good News to the capital of the empire.
Shlama,
Jerzy (Jurek)