medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Peter's coming to Rome was questioned by Marsilius of Padua in the 14th
century.
Tom Izbicki
Larry Swain wrote:
> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>
>
>> Right - I seem to recall reading something that supports
>> that. Of course, the whole culture of the era offers a host
>> of reasons both men would wind up in
>> Rome (it seems almost inevitable at some level).
>>
>
> I haven't followed the whole thread.....so if I'm merely repeating information, please forgive me. On the one hand your statement is quite right. On the other hand, there is evidence that Peter didn't make it to Rome and that the story, though early, that he died there (I Clement) is false. For one thing, there's the ossuary with Christian symbols and the name Simon bar Jona inscribed on it. Michael Goulder wrote on this a few years ago in the Scottish Journal of Theology, (2004), 57 : 377-396 "Did Peter Ever Go to Rome? He makes some compelling arguments, but I don't think he's successful at explaining I Clement away.
>
>
> Having
>
>> both Peter and Paul die in Rome and being able to lay claim
>> to their relics seems to have been a
>> factor in Rome's "primacy" or honored
>> position (as described by the Council of Chalcedon - or was
>> it Ephesus?).
>>
>
> Pope Leo had been arguing it for awhile, but it was finally spelled out at Chalcedon, canon XXVIII reads: "And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her."
>
>
>> I've always found it curious that Paul seems to have
>> faded into the background by the third century, at least as
>> far as a "player" in Roman primacy and
>> (apparently) even pilgrimage.
>>
>
> I'm always surprised by the pilgrimage aspect, but not the primacy. After all, Peter knew Jesus in the flesh and spirit and was the first leader of the Jerusalem church. Paul, while important for the church, wasn't known to have done major miracles and by his own confession didn't know the human Jesus, so his role in arguing the primacy of Rome is small.
>
> Larry Swain
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
> to: [log in to unmask]
> To send a message to the list, address it to:
> [log in to unmask]
> To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
> to: [log in to unmask]
> In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For further information, visit our web site:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
>
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|