Dioscoros
posted on Apr 23, 2004 - 10:57 PM
Peace George,
thank you for your reply. I agree that we should not theorize without proof, and that is why I saluted you for taking time to research different sources and come up with support to your argument. I have done the same by providing the Coptic Tradition regarding the matter, which is expressed by H.G. Anba Youssef on suscopts.org . and in general by the Coptic Church. That does not exclude the need to examine other references as any honest researcher would do, but it should be examined in light of the Holy Tradition. ALso, one has to examine which Tradition is Holy and which is man inserted, on the other hand. The authority on this issue is the Church.
Our church has held this view as part of its Traditon since the establishment of the Church in Rome, probably at a later time to St.Mark's Evangelism and the Establishment of The Church of Alexandria.
Eusebius, the renowned historian that he is, is not infallable. He had his sentiments, his personal inclinations, and he could have been misled by Roman documents. It is possible.
I wish you read the article I provided more carefully, not focusing on the "irony" in it, which does not exist.
Equally important to your scholastic approach is to define the problem we are trying to research. If it whether St. Peter preached in Rome or not, it might well be so. I agree that the Great St.Peter was martyred in Rome on the same day with The Great St.Paul. I agree because it is part of our Coptic Tradition. As such, it is highly improbable that this blessed Disciple, who is considered among the Pillars of Evangelism and one of the most dear to the heart of Christ, not to preach in his short or long stay before his martyrdom.
As we agree on the above, we disagree on the following: Who established the church of Rome ? Before we continue, let me define what I mean by "Establishing a church". It means that an Apostle goes to a city and gives the sacraments to the group of believers, and therefore he is a connection between the Day of Pentecost and this group of believers. This Apostle can be one of the blessed 12 disciple of Christ, or one of the 70 APostles, or one like St.Paul chosen by the Lord and receiving the gifts of the Holy Spirit from the Church in Jerusalem through the APostles.
Only Evangelism does not mean establishing a church. Me, you and any layman or deacon cannot give the gift of the Holy Spirit.
As such, I will answer some of your points you brought in your post.
There is no evidence that St. Paul ordained anyone for Rome. Because a bishop of a city does not ordain a bishop in his place as long as he is alive. For the same reason, and by closely examining the laws of the church as defined by the Apostles themselves, it is impossible for St.Peter to ordain a bishop instead of St.Paul while he is still alive.
St.Peter is subject to the Church, and not superior to the Church.
One other point to ponder is the ordinations of St.Ignatius in Antioch, around 65-67 a.d. This is the same time of martyrdom of St.Peter. Antioch is the oldest gentile See in christianity, second to Jerusalem as a whole. It is written in the scripture that the Apostles sent St.Peter to Antioch. He was the Bishop of Antioch, and therefore St.Ignatius was ordained only after the original bishop of Antioch was martyred.
As per the laws of the church laid by the Apostles, a bishop cannot be bishop of two cities in the same time. Granted that the Apostles are a step higher than the Bishops, Archbishops, Popes and Patriarchs, Antioch and Rome are two different See.
There is some scriptural implications that someone preached in Rome before St. Paul: Notice what Roman 15:19-25, 28-29, and 32 say:
I did not understand how the verses you brought forth support your opinion that St.Peter was before St.Paul in Rome and established the church. The verses do not support the idea that anybody was even before St.Paul in Rome.
However, it might be quite possible that there were Romans who believed in Christ, maybe from a Jewish origin before they were banished or from the "visitors from Rome" (Acts 2:10) to returned to Rome after the Pentecost.
St. Mark was a disciple of St. Peter.
...and at a time, he was evangelizing with St.Paul as well before the conflict occured between St.Paul and St.Bernabeau and St.Mark joined St.Bernabeau. They (St.Peter and St.Mark)might have been on a joint mission together, in which naturally St.Peter would be the Leader, but it has little to do with the subject we are researching.
It has nothing to do with Chalcedon. That was a secondary coincidence and a later development. Rome may have used this fact for their benefit.
I respectfully disagree here. It has everything to do with Chalcedon. The RC church did not use it to their benefit, they fabricated it to push their unholy agenda.
It then gives more verses to prove that oral tradition is better than written words.
Not better, just equally important. The Apostles preffered it, maybe out of convinience or for whatever reason.
Do you see the irony? Using Scripture to show that Solo Scripta is not valid.
No, I am sorry, I don't see the irony. The article about Sola Scripture is very sound, in my opinion and the opinion of H.G. Bishop Youssef, who let it to be posted on his site. There is not stronger argument than to prove a heresy wrong from the sources heretics follow. If the Bible itself does not sanctify the Sola Scripture idea, how can some hold the Bible alone .
You said:
Even more of an irony is that the other article about St. Peter says, "4. How could St. Luke who even documented that St. Paul shaved his head (Acts 18:1 neglect the work of St. Peter in Rome, the capital of the empire, if it indeed took place?There is not a single verse in the Holy Bible that implies that St. Peter preached in Rome
Is there ? There has to be a reliable source to support the claim of St.Peter establishing the church of Rome. Both in OO tradition, which are the Only Orthodox Church remaining, and in the Bible, does it state that St.Paul is the one who preached and established the church of Rome. No where, in The Holy Tradition or in the Bible, except in the man maid RC tradition, does it state that St.Peter preached in Rome or even was there before his martyrdom.
Remember, Eusebius is not part of the Infallable Holy Tradition. 
That is the definition of Solo Scripta. But if oral tradition (as well as other documented sources) say St. Peter not only preached in Rome but he preached there first, what should we believe: solo scripta or oral tradition?
I think you well know as do I that our church opposes the Sola Scripture heresy, and the article listed many sound arguments from the Bible (as long as you neglect the Coptic Tradition) to show where the idea of Peter in Rome falls short. I wish you read it more carefully.
You also misunderstood why we reject the Sola Scripture heresy. Not because we don't honor the Bible as the Word of God and as infallable, because we are the Church which gave the Bible to the World, but the interpretation of the Bible has to be done in light of the Holy Tradition and as the Apostles understood it and delivered it.
The only solution is to examine both Scripture and tradition with equal weight,
I agree totally.
....knowing that both may tell part of the story or both may be historically incorrect or we may be interpreting both incorrectly.
We may be interpreting things incorrectly , yes. We , unlike the Vicar of Christ, 
are fallable. But in the light of the Holy Tradition, this cannot happen.
BUT YOUR LAST SENTENCE WILL NEED YOU TO REVISIT IT AGAIN. THE BIBLE OR HOLY TRADITION CANNOT BE HISTORICALLY INCORRECT. IT CANNOT BE INCORRECT ON ANYTHING.
Peace,
Dioscoros
Joined: Feb 25, 2004 | Posts: 663
). That said, it is still believed in most scholarship that Mark was still the earliest Gospel written. But except for some wacko's who want to see John the Baptist as the Teacher of Righteousness, it has been pretty firmly established that all the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Jesus.
) incense, candles, and all other symbolic art. Most will have a crucifix in the front of the church. But the idea is that the most important thing is one's personal relationship with Jesus, and everything else is a distraction and hence sinful.