from "Tu sei Pietro", article by Michele Mascitti (Il Cristiano, May 2001)
Today, in the religious and non-religious world, there is much discussion about the primacy of the pope: there are those who believe, even in the non-Catholic sphere, his figure as useful and necessary. We know only one thing: that it is a role that Jesus never wanted or authorized and that Peter never held.
Introduction
Among the disciples of Jesus, Peter is certainly the one who emerges both for his many demonstrations of faith and for his falls. His name was Simon , but Jesus gave him the name Peter .
He had an ardent nature, a lively, impetuous temperament; he was a frank, open, outspoken, energetic man, full of enthusiasm, but at times also presumptuous: he relied too much on his own moral strength, while fear had the upper hand over him.
When Jesus called him to make him his disciple, he quickly abandoned everything and followed him. This was no small sacrifice, but Peter never regretted it. With Jesus he traveled through Galilee, Judea, Samaria. Wherever Jesus went, he was following him. He was chosen by Jesus to follow him, on the mount of the transfiguration. He was also among those who most closely should have prayed with Jesus in Getzemane's garden.
To him Jesus predicted martyrdom; in fact, thus the testimony of various ancient writings, of the death with which he would glorify his Lord, is unanimously handed down to us.
The episode which, without any doubt, made him famous to all Christian posterity, is the one in which Jesus said to him:
“And I also tell you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the doors of the grave will not be able to overcome it ” (Mt 16:18).
In reality there are many who know these words, but there are few who know the whole episode and know how to combine it with all the events that concern it. Let us therefore reread in full what is written in Matthew 16: 13,20:
"Then Jesus, having reached the surroundings of Caesarea Philippi, asked his disciples:" Who do people say that the Son of man is? " They answered: 'Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets ». And he said to them, "And you, who do you say I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus, replying, said: «You are blessed, Simon, son of Jonah, because not flesh and blood have revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also tell you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the doors of the living room will not be able to overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. "
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church, in these words addressed by Jesus to Peter, sees his elevation to the head of the Church . Head of the Church is the Bishop of Rome, that is the Pope, who according to the same magisterium is the legitimate successor of Peter.
On the occasion of the coronation of the Bishop of Rome, the Cardinal in charge of placing the tiara on the head of the newly elected Pontiff pronounces these words:
"Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that you are the father of Princes and Kings, the ruler of the world, the Vicar on earth of our Savior Jesus Christ, to whom is honor and glory for ever and ever " (so wrote Silvio Romani in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, under the heading: " Coronation " ) .
The question I wish to answer through this study is this: With the words Jesus spoke to Peter, as we read in the Gospel of Matthew, is it true that Jesus elected Peter to head the Church? And, if eventually, those words do not constitute the election of Peter as head of the Church, what meaning do they have ?
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church”
We have already read the entire dialogue between Jesus and Simon Peter while they were in Caesarea Philippi. The text that we will deal with in this first part as I said in the introduction concerns Matthew 16: 17,18:
“Jesus, replying, said:« You are blessed, Simon, son of Jonah, because not flesh and blood have revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also tell you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the doors of the grave will not be able to overcome it. "
The magisterium of the Catholic Church affirms that Jesus, with these words, constituted Peter, the head of the whole Christian Church, and that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is his legitimate successor. In the Constitution “De Ecclesia” of the Second Vatican Council, this fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church was reaffirmed. In fact, in it we read:
"Certainly Peter was constituted by Jesus, Fundamental Stone of his Church and Supreme Shepherd of the whole flock, hence his Primacy over the faithful and the Apostles which is perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter" (Constitution "De Ecclesia" : Ed. Città New, page 14).
The Catholic author Silvio Romani still says:
"If the successor of St. Peter is not the Pope, he is no one else: thus no Church would be the Church of Christ, and Catholicism, founded by Christ, as Christ wanted it, would have been liquidated by Nero with the death of Peter. , and Christ in his most solemn promise, would have been denied by the fact, barely thirty years later. The Pope, therefore, is invested with the same powers and duties as Peter and with his own prerogatives, as the Church has confessed for twenty centuries ” . (Silvio Romani in the Encyclopedia of Christianity under the entry "Pope" ).
Romans himself, speaking of the primacy of Peter, says to the entry "Primacy":
"Primacy: supreme power conferred by Jesus on Peter, which contains not only an honorific pre-eminence, but also a true and proper authority and jurisdiction over all the other Apostles. The Gospel clearly shows the promise of this primacy: (you are Peter, etc.) and the bestowal (feed my lambs, feed my sheep). From the Acts of the Apostles it appears that Peter, aware of this jurisdiction, exercised it strongly in the primitive Church and no one dared deny it to him as an undue usurpation ”.
Let us then ask ourselves some questions:
• "Is it true that Peter was constituted by Christ the Head of the Church?"
• “Is it true that he exercised the Primacy within the primitive Church?
• "Is it true that no one dared deny him as if it were a usurpation?"
There are various reasons for rejecting all these claims.
Now we will see the reasons that exclude the primacy of Peter .
An indispensable premise
The declaration of Jesus: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" is reported only by the evangelist Matthew . The other three evangelists all three recounted the episode of Peter's testimony and all three conclude their words with the words that Peter addresses to Jesus, saying to him: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mk 8 : 29; Lu 9:20; Jn 6:68, 69). All three Evangelists omit the rest of the episode. So we only learn from Matthew that Jesus said:“You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church” .
How come the other three evangelists omit this sentence addressed by Jesus to Peter?
According to some, this response of Jesus was interpolated in the fourth century to support the thesis that Peter had been constituted by Christ the head of the whole Church and that the Bishop of Rome was his only and legitimate successor. This opinion, however, has no historical foundation and is to be rejected: the Word cannot have any kind of mystification. It should also be noted that if the passage had been artfully interpolated, it would not have left the door open to discussions, but would have been interpolated in a different way, with less equivocal words, which would have left no doubt. They would also have added it in the other Gospels! It is, therefore, more credible that the passage is authentic. Indeed, at the appropriate time, we will see how it has great value,The passage, therefore, is to be considered authentic.
How, then, to explain the omission by the other three evangelists of those words? It is certain that, if Jesus had wanted to put Peter at the head of His Church, the omission of this constitution would be serious. But we know that the evangelists wrote the Gospels under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this excludes that there could have been such an omission. As good connoisseurs of the message of Jesus, they knew that the Master with those words omitted by them, did not intend to raise Peter to the head of Christianity, His Universal Church, therefore the omission is not a fact that impeaches the written Word , but, as we will see, under accusation are those who reverse the fundamental concepts of the Word of God.Many things have had to omit the evangelists in their Gospels, also for reasons of space; John the evangelist declared it saying: (21:25) “Now there are still many other things that Jesus did; if they were to write one by one, I think that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written about them ” (Jn 21:25). The Evangelists limited themselves to reporting the salient facts, and for the other three Evangelists the salient, most important facts relating to Jesus' conversation with His disciples in Caesarea Philippi, consisted of Peter's confession of faith: "You are the Christ the Son of the living God ” . John in his Gospel solemnly declares this, saying: "But these were written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and, that, by believing, you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). For the three Evangelists, or it would be better to say: for the Holy Spirit, the words that Jesus addressed to Peter were not as important as those of Peter's confession of faith to Jesus; after all, as we will see later, the words of Jesus were a repetition of the words of Peter and underlined their value, but they did not constitute the new fact of the alleged elevation of Peter to the Head of believers. That is why those words are not written in the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John.
A mistake to avoid
In Jesus' words to Peter, which are the object of our study, we observe that Jesus said:“You are Peter and I will build my Church on this rock” . The Greek meaning of these two words used in the Holy Text is different: Petros means pebble, any stone; Petra , on the other hand, means rock, boulder. A more precise translation of the original text would be this: "You are a pebble, and on this rock ( your affirmation) I will build my Church" . This more precise translation of the original Greek text would avoid the error that leads to confuse the meaning of "petros" with "petra". In fact, Christ did not build His Church on any pebble, but He built it on the "rock". Who this rock is we will see later; and if it is difficult for us to understand the meaning of Jesus' words, it was not difficult for the disciples to know that the Rock is Christ, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10: 4 (they all drank the same spiritual drink, because they drank from the spiritual rock who followed them; and this rock was Christ), Peter's statement: "You are the Son of the living God" , was the recognition of the person of Jesus, whom the Father had sent into the world as Messiah and Savior of all believers. Precisely for this reason Jesus said to him:“You are blessed, Simon, son of Jonah, because not flesh and blood have revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also tell you: You are Peter (a pebble) and on this stone (the rock, the affirmation you have expressed) I will build my Church " (Mt 16: 17,18).
It is essential to avoid the mistake of confusing the petra , which is the rock, with the petros which is the stone, the simple pebble.
By avoiding this error, the text appears clearer.
A very significant dispute In the
Gospel of Luke we read the following:
“A dispute also arose among them (the disciples): which of them was considered the greatest. But he said to them: 'The kings of the nations rule over them, and those who subject them to their dominion are called benefactors. But it doesn't have to be that way for you; indeed, let the greatest among you be as the smallest, and the one who governs as the one who serves. Why, who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not he who is at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves ” (Lu 22: 24-27)
This quarrel took place between the disciples after celebrating the Last Supper with their Lord, when they began to sense that Jesus was speaking of His death. This took place, therefore, long after Jesus said to Peter:“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” . Well, if with these words Jesus had made Peter the head of the Church, this dispute between the disciples would not have arisen , because they would have well known that Jesus had made Peter their future head. But they disputed to know which of them was considered greater, because the words addressed by Jesus to Peter had not given the meaning of an election as head of the Church.
Someone may observe that the disciples did not understand Jesus' words, just as they did not understand many other things, equally important. Even admitting this hypothesis, the episode narrated by Luke does not stop at the dispute between the disciples, but also has a sequel: Luke tells us that Jesus intervened in their dispute. Now, if Jesus had made Peter the head of the Church, he would have said to them: “Why do you dispute? Don't you remember that in Caesarea of Philippi I made Peter your head and head of the Church? ”.On the contrary, instead, Jesus intervened to declare to them that no one should aspire to the primacy to rule over the flock, but that those who wanted to be great before the eyes of the Lord, should behave as servants, as He had behaved, servant. With His intervention, Jesus eliminates the idea that, with the words addressed to Peter in Caesarea of Philippi, he made him Prince of the Apostles and head of the whole Church.
Equality among the disciples
The Evangelist Matthew, the same one who reported in his Gospel the words of Jesus that we are examining, reports another discourse that Jesus made to his disciples in another circumstance; in fact, Jesus said to them:
"But you don't call yourselves" Rabbi "; because only one is your Master, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father, because only one is your Father, the one who is in heaven. Do not be called guides , because only one is your Guide, the Christ ” .
This speech, too, was made after having said to Peter: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" and here too it dispels any idea of primacy. With this declaration of His, Jesus establishes two principles:
1. Perfect equality among the disciples ; none of them should have been called by the others: Teacher, Father, Guide, having to consider among them all brothers, none greater than the others.
2. With this categorical prohibition against being called by other men: Teacher, Father, Guide, he tells us that these attributes belong to God the Father and to Him alone.
Jesus had established the equality of all the apostles and all the members of the Church, local and universal in which only the Holy Spirit is his worthy representative, and not a man: "But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name he will teach you all things and remind you of all that I have told you ” (Jn 14:26). He is the delegate, the Vicar, not a man!Therefore, He has forbidden the disciples of all times to assume the functions of head of the whole Church. It follows that whoever appropriates these attributes arbitrarily appropriates them, usurping what belongs to God.
For this reason Gregory I, called the Great, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to the Metropolitan Patriarch of Constantinople, John, the Faster, who had assumed the title of Universal Bishop , saying to him: "I positively and freely declare that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop, or wants to be given such a title, has the pride and character of the antichrist, of which he is the precursor " . (Ep VI, 80: quoted by E. Meynier: in History of the Popes, Alpina typography Torre Pellice 1932 p. 71).
Peter never exercised the functions of Head of the Church. After Jesus' ascension into heaven, he never exercised the functions of prince of the apostles and of the Church . There were, in fact, provisions taken by the Church, which if she had had a head, would have been taken only by Peter. From the Word of God, however, it appears that no particular function was ever performed by Peter. Rather. Let us consider some examples:
• The election of the twelfth apostle: the apostle Peter, in a speech addressed to the approximately 120 people gathered, pointed out to them that the betrayal of Judas and his subsequent suicide had reduced the number of disciples from 12 to 11. and here he suggested to proceed with the election of the twelfth apostle choosing him from among those who had been in the company of Jesus from the baptism of John up to His ascension. However, it was not Peter who elected the twelfth apostle, but he "cast lots"between two disciples who had these requisites, and the lot fell on Matthias who was associated with the eleven. (Ac 1:26). If Peter had exercised the function of leader of the group, in the same way as Jesus had elected the 12 disciples, he would have elected the twelfth who failed. But it was not he who elected him, because he never exercised the function of Chief.
• Election of the seven deacons : as the number of converts multiplied, so did the needs. The apostles did not keep up with all the services and needs. The apostles pointed out to all the members of the Church that it was necessary to find among the members seven men, of whom there had been excellent testimony and whom they would make up as deacons. When these seven men were found, the members"They presented them to the apostles, who, after praying, laid their hands on them" (Ac 6: 6). It was not Peter who elected the deacons, but he should have done so if he had exercised the office of head of the Church. It was the Church that chose the men and the college of apostles to consecrate them as deacons.
• The Gospel in Samaria:following a persecution which the Church of Jerusalem met, all were dispersed, except the Apostles. The missing people left Jerusalem and began to proclaim the message of the Good News elsewhere. With joy the Samaritans accepted the message of salvation announced to them by Philip who was one of the Deacons. It was indispensable that the work he began was completed by the Apostles. If Peter had been the Head of the Church, he himself, having become aware of this need, would have sent one of the Apostles to Samaria. We read, however, that "the Apostles who were in Jerusalem, having heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, sent Peter and John there" (Acts 8:14). Peter, therefore, instead of ordering others to go, he received the order to go, because he was not the Head of the Church.
• The Jerusalem Conference: the Gospel had also been announced to the pagans, and many of them had converted to Christianity. But, the Christian churches, until then, were made up of believers who came from Judaism, who were all circumcised, but the pagans were not. Hence a discussion arose, because some of the converted Jews claimed that the converted pagans also had to be circumcised according to the rite of Moses to be saved. Other converted Jews, on the other hand, were fully convinced that circumcision was of no value to salvation. How was the situation resolved? It was established that the controversial parties, represented by the most notable "go up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders to deal with this question". (Acts 15.2). Well, if Peter had been the Head of the Church, he himself would have had to summon those believers to resolve the controversy by giving directions according to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. We note instead that it was not Peter who convened the Jerusalem Conference but the Churches in which dissent arose; it was not Peter who presided over the Conference and proclaimed what had been established; therefore, it appears that even on the occasion of the Jerusalem Conference, Peter did not exercise the function of Head of the Church. Indeed, we read: “Then the apostles and the elders met together to consider the matter. And a lively discussion having arisen, Peter stood upand he said: «Brothers, you know that from the beginning God chose me among you, so that from my mouth the strangers might hear the Word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows hearts, bore witness for them, giving the Holy Spirit to them, as to us; and he made no discrimination between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. So why do you tempt God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe to be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way as them »”. It is evident here that Peter did not open the work of the Conference to receive the participants and present the dilemma to be faced. In fact, it is said that before Peter opened his mouth to speak, she was born"A lively discussion" among the defendants. Furthermore, Peter, in speaking, claims to listen not as Head of the Church, but as the one who had previously been elected by Christ Jesus to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, reporting that God had given the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, who did not they were circumcised, deducing that circumcision was not indispensable for the purposes of salvation. Pietro was not even the last to speak to finish the workof the Conference as after him they spoke Barnabas, Paul and finally to conclude the work spoke James, the brother of Jesus, Elder of the Church of Jerusalem. The work of the Conference was therefore concluded by James with a final proposal approved by the college of the Apostles and sent by letter to the churches. Peter, in all this, did not have a directive function . In solving the problem, he conformed to the orders given by God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Peter, therefore, did not exercise the function of Head of the Church under any circumstances, as the events in the book of Acts remind us.
The primacy of Peter
(the following text has been adapted from the writings of G. Butindaro and A. Palmieri)
As Christians, we believe that the only head of the Church is Jesus. The apostle Peter was not appointed head of the Church by Jesus and therefore he could not pass this on to any successor.
The apostles also attest to this truth. Paul, for example, writes that God raised his Son and "placed everything under his feet, and gave him as supreme head to the Church, which is his body, the fulfillment of him who brings to fulfillment. everything in all " (Eph. 1: 22,23). " Christ is the head of the Church , he, who is the Savior of the body" (Eph. 5:23; cf. Col. 1: 17,18, Eph. 4:15).
Therefore the Church of God does not have two heads, of which one is in heaven and the other is on earth; or one invisible and the other visible, but only one and He is in heaven at the right hand of God, and by faith He is in the hearts of all who have received Him as their personal Savior.
The first alleged successor of Peter who took this title or in any case the position of pastor of all the churches was Leo I called the Great (440-461), who strongly maintained that Jesus would grant Peter the primacy of apostolic dignity, which passed then to the bishop of Rome who is responsible for the care of all the churches. This title was considerably strengthened in the seventh century when the emperor Phocas, in 607, to reciprocate the friendship of the bishop of Rome recognized the supremacy of the "apostolic see of Peter over all churches" (caput omnium ecclesiarum) and forbade the patriarch from Constantinople to use the title of "universal" which from that moment had to be reserved only for the bishop of Rome (then it was Boniface III).
In doing so, the pope forgot what his predecessor had declared in this regard (Pope Gregory the Great had declared that the bishop who claimed the title of "universal bishop" was a precursor of the antichrist and that no one should take this name of blasphemy ) , and he did not refuse to be called "universal bishop".
THE PRIMACY OF PETER
Peter never claimed to have a primacy.
In chap. 16, ver. 23, of Matthew it is written that Jesus turning to Peter said to him: "Get away from me, Satan, you are a scandal to me. You do not have a sense of the things of God, but of the things of men".
Jesus had to restore him three times in the mission of the apostolate ("feed my sheep" mentioned in ch. 21, vers. 15-17 of the Gospel of John), after Peter's triple denial (Matthew ch. 26, ver. 69) -79).
The "eleven apostles" and the hundreds of "disciples" of Jesus knew well that Christ had not given any primacy either to Peter or to anyone else. The Gospel of John, bishop of Asia Minor, was written around the year 100 and the author was also well aware of Peter's old age who was forced to stretch out his hands because another will gird him and lead him where he would not want to go (John. ch. 21, ver. 18). At the time of the apostles:
1) it was the disciples who between two competitors "cast lots and the lot fell on Matthias who was associated with the eleven apostles" in place of Judas (acts chap. 1, ver. 26);
2) were the simple brothers of the church of Jerusalem who "when Peter went up to Jerusalem questioned with him" (acts chap. 11, ver. 2);
3) Paul publicly reproaches Peter, from what appears from chap. 2, ver. 11 of the letter to the Galatians: "But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I resisted him in the face because he was to be condemned";
4) it was Saint Paul who in his second letter to the Corinthians (chap. 11, ver. 5) writes: "Now I believe that I was in no way inferior to the chief apostles";
5) in the "conference" of Jerusalem it was James who says: "I judge that ...", while the decisions are taken collegially, according to what is shown in chap. 15 of the Acts, ver. 13, 19, 22, 25: "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders with the whole church ...";
6) Peter describes himself as a simple "servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" in his second letter to chap. 1, ver. 1;
7) Paul in his letter to the Galatians (chap. 2, ver. 1) writes: "Paul, apostle (not from men, nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ)".
THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM
The "keys" of the kingdom of heaven and hell are inherent in the preaching of the Gospel .
The pagan priesthood, with its altars and its sacrifices, was considered the interpreter and intermediary of the divine will.
The Catholic priesthood was created by the Roman curia in 1160 to couple it with the Eucharistic sacrifice (introduced only in the 11th century) and with the confession and absolution of sins. The faculty of consecrating other priests was attributed to the bishops and the pope, while the power over everything and everyone became a monopoly of the Roman pontiff.
In this regard it is recalled that in the Gospel there is no priestly caste. In particular, Jesus told all his faithful (apostles and disciples) to preach the Gospel and that those who believe their message will be saved, while those who reject it will be condemned. In essence these ambassadors of Christ and notifiers of His Word symbolically hold "the keys" of the afterlife as they place the listeners in the position of the most important free responsible choice; if the person accepts the preaching he will be converted, will be absolved of his sins, will himself become an evangelizer and will finally enter heaven. If, on the other hand, the person rejects the message of Christ, his sins remain tied to him and the gates of heaven will be closed to him.
It is obvious that this free salvation is not entrusted to a priestly caste or a church institution, but to all Christians (whom Scripture calls saints) according to the abilities and talents of each one. Jesus said to all who had faith in him:
a) "I tell you that all the things you have bound on earth will be bound in heaven and that all the things you have loosened on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew chap. 18, ver. 18);
b) "as the father sent me I also send you: receive the Holy Spirit, whoever you forgive sins will be forgiven, whoever you retain them will be retained" (John chap. 20, ver. 19-23).
Not historical evidence but traditions and novels report that Peter was in Rome for 25 years from 42 to 67.
In the letter to the Galatians in chap. 2, ver. 6-9, the apostle Paul writes: "But those who enjoy particular consideration (which ones have already been to me it does not matter; God has no personal concern) those, I say, who enjoy greater consideration imposed nothing more on me; indeed when they saw that the evangelization of the uncircumcised had been entrusted to me, as to Peter that of the circumcised (Jews) - (since He who had worked in Peter to make him an apostle of circumcision had also worked in me to make me an apostle of the Gentiles) - and when they knew the grace that had been granted to me, Giacomo, Cephas (Peter) and John, who are considered pillars, gave Barbara the hand of association so that we could go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised ".
In fact we find Paul in Greece, Macedonia (Acts chap. 17, 18 and 20), in Italy, in Rome (Acts chap. 27 and 28), while Peter was in Jerusalem, Babylon, etc. In particular:
1) Peter was in Jerusalem after the resurrection of Jesus (Acts chap. 1, ver. 14);
2) Peter was sent by the apostles to Samaria, together with John (Acts chap. 8, ver. 14);
3) in the year 42 Peter was in Jerusalem, where he was visited by Paul, three years after his conversion, which took place in the year 39;
4) Peter went to Lydda (Acts ch. 9, ver. 32);
5) Peter went to Joppa where he stayed for many days (Acts chap. 9, ver. 43);
6) Peter went to Caesarea for a few days (Acts ch. 10, ver. 48);
7) Peter returns to Jerusalem (Acts ch. 11, ver. 2);
8) King Agrippa, a year before his death (45) had Peter arrested in Jerusalem (Acts ch. 12, ver.3). After his liberation, Peter "went to another place" (Acts ch. 12, ver. 17), so small that he was not named, like the small towns of Lydda and Joppa;
9) in the Jerusalem conference "it was decided that Paul and Barbara should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders" (Acts 15, ver. 2), where Peter was also;
10) in the epistle of Paul to the Romans, written in the year 58 by Corinth, the apostle declares himself "ready to proclaim the gospel also to you who are in Rome" having the ambition to preach where Christ had not been appointed not to build on the foundation of others (chapter 1, ver. 15 and chapter 15, ver. 20). At the end of the last chapter he addresses his greetings to as many as 26 members of the Roman Christian community, but among them the name of Peter does not figure;
11) Paul, who arrived in Rome in the year 61 "summons the chief among the Jews" (Acts chap. 28, ver. 17) who tell him they want to know what he thinks of this "sect" (Christianity), because "it is known that everywhere it encounters opposition" (Acts chap. 28, ver. 22). No mention of Peter and his 19-year apostolate !;
12) after renting a house in Rome for two years (Acts chap. 28, ver.30), around the year 63, Paul wrote a letter to the Colossians. This letter ends with the usual greetings from brothers of the church of Rome and fellow prisoners. No greetings and news from Pietro !;
13) at the end of the short letter (written in Rome in the year 67 and addressed to Philemon) Paul, "old" (chapter 1, ver. 9), sends the usual greetings from the members of the Roman Christian community (verses 23- 24): no mention of Peter;
14) the Catholic tradition says that Peter was martyred in the year 67 when Paul was also killed, who wrote his second letter to Timothy from Rome. At the end of this letter, Paul reports: "as for me, I am about to be offered as a libation and the time of my departure has come" (chap. 4, ver. 6). "Luke alone is with me" (ver. 11)! "Everyone has forsaken me" (ver. 16). No news of Pietro. In fact, Peter was in Babylon (I letter of Peter chap. 5, ver. 13) on the field that the Lord had entrusted to him to preach the Gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment