Sounds more like an emotional rant to me.
OK then. Now that you mention it, it does rather resemble an emotional rant. ;)

Sounds more like an emotional rant to me.

"We're the One True Church, No Exceptions (And So Is the Orthodox Church)" is not analysis?
Summary, then.

Jay D: Get yourself a dictionary. Then look up the definition of "analysis".

"Analysis later."
I'm looking forward to it. In the meantime, I'll have to make do with this analysis, which seems pretty accurate to me:
"We're the One True Church, No Exceptions (And So Is the Orthodox Church)"

vynette,
Thank you.
It seems to me that by any objective measure of the evidence, your case for Peter being in Babylon is much thinner than the case for Peter being in Rome, but as you suggest, we can just agree to disagree.

Esquire,
I am saying that:
1. Peter ministered to those of the "circumcision."
2. The "circumcision includes both Jews and Israelites, (the ten "lost" tribes).
3. The majority of the "circumcision" resided somewhere "beyond the Euphrates".
4. "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13 refers to either the city (which in ancient times was situated right on the Euphrates) or to the province, which lay between the Euphrates on the west and the Tigris on the east.

vynette,
Re-reading your answer, I guess you are saying that Peter ministered to the Jews, a majority of Jews were "beyond the Euphrates", and Babylon is beyond the Euphrates. Is that correct?

vynette,
Thank you.
You said:
To your second question:
"And would you also agree with me that, other than 1 Peter 5:13, there is no other evidence that Peter was in Babylon? (If you would not agree with this, can you identify what other evidence there is that he was in Babylon.)" I would not agree.

You say that you do not agree on this point, but then, as near as I can tell, you do not provide any evidence that Peter was in Babylon. You skip to the next point, and provide some reasons why you believe Peter was not in Rome. Do you agree or disagree that there is no evidence that Peter was in Babylon, apart from 1 Peter 5:13?
If I have misconstrued your explanation, and you believe that you have provided evidence that he was in Babylon (as opposed to evidence that he was not in Rome), can you clarify?

No really. Stop it.

Esquire,
I apologise if I misconstrued your intent.
To your first question:
"Based on that answer, would you agree with me that other than 1 Peter 5:13, every NT mention of "Babylon" as a then-present location refers to Rome?" I would answer yes.
To your second question:
"And would you also agree with me that, other than 1 Peter 5:13, there is no other evidence that Peter was in Babylon? (If you would not agree with this, can you identify what other evidence there is that he was in Babylon.)" I would not agree.
Firstly, in the New Testament "Egypt" is also used both literally as a locality, and symbolically as a place of false religion.
Secondly, the Bible omits to mention such a momentous event as Peter's presence in Rome. Its evidence points away from Rome in the opposite direction towards Mesopotamia and the Euphrates River, east of Jerusalem, where Peter had every reason to go and preach the gospel.
Thirdly, Peter and Paul each had a clear division of duties to which both were in agreement. (Romans, Galatians, 2nd Timothy, Acts.. It is stated very clearly: "For God who made Peter an apostle to the Jews also made me an apostle to the Gentiles. Recognising the favour bestowed on me, those pillars of our society James, Cephas and John accepted Barnabas and myself as partners and shook hands on it." (Gal. 2:8)
The Catholic Encyclopaedia (Art. Peter) makes an interesting comment:
"Betweeen Peter and Paul there was no dogmatic difference in their conception of salvation for Jewish and Gentile Christians. The recognition of Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles (Gal.2:1-9) was entirely sincere, and excludes all questions of a divergence of views. St. Peter and the other Apostles recognised the converts from paganism as Christian brothers on an equal footing; Jewish and Gentile Christians formed a single Kingdom of Christ. If therefore Peter devoted the preponderating portion of his apostolic activity to the Jews, this arose chiefly from practical considerations, and from the position of Israel as the Chosen People."
Fourthly, this point of division of ministries to Jew and Gentile is reaffirmed by both Peter and Paul many times in their later writings; Rom. 11:13, 15:16-20, 1 Pet. 1.1. Paul always claimed his mission to the Gentiles to be directed by God and not a delegation from men; Acts 22:21, 23:11, 2 Tim 1:11. Equally, he denied several times that he built on other men's foundations or works; 2 Cor. 10:15, Rom. 15:20.
In summary, Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles; this ministry was given to him by God, not by men; this ministry was not built on another man's works. Peter's ministry was to the circumcised, the vast majority of whom were "beyond the Euphrates" according to Josephus.
So, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

vynette,
I have no desire to catch you out (and am not even sure what that means).
Each of the NT references you cite to "Babylon" where it actually means the location Babylon have to do with an historical mention of the Babylonian exile.
Based on that answer, would you agree with me that other than 1 Peter 5:13, every NT mention of "Babylon" as a then-present location refers to Rome?
And would you also agree with me that, other than 1 Peter 5:13, there is no other evidence that Peter was in Babylon? (If you would not agree with this, can you identify what other evidence there is that he was in Babylon.)
My point is very simple. 1 Peter 5:13 says Peter was in "Babylon."
Every other time Babylon is used to describe a then-present-day location in the NT, it refers to Rome.
Combine that with the fact that there is a complete absence of any other evidence that Peter was ever in Babylon, and it becomes doubtful that Peter used "Babylon" to refer to Babylon.
If he was not in Babylon, he was most likely in Rome.

Esquire,
I have learned that your apparently guileless questions are always designed to catch me out so that is why I am rather cautious and wonder what you have up your sleeve with this latest question.
"Other than 1 Peter 5:13, is there any other NT reference to Babylon which you believe does not refer to Rome?"
Matt. 1:11, 1:12, 1:17, Acts 7:43

vynette,
I asked you the following questions:
Other than 1 Peter 5:13, is there any other evidence that Peter was ever in Babylon?
Other than 1 Peter 5:13, is there any other NT reference to Babylon which you believe does not refer to Rome?

I chided you for refusing to answer those questions, at which point you responded with:
Okay, if you all insist on my analysis of Revelation...

With all due respect, I did not ask for, much less insist on, any analysis of Revelation, nor does the "analysis" you provided answer my questions.
They are direct questions. If you have direct answers, it should be fairly easy to provide them.

Esau, you should be dazzled by that kind of wit. Why, it's only just below the average restroom wall scrawl!

Wow, Arnold!
I don't know how I can recover from that -- imagine that -- instead of objectively refuting my comments which feature biblical scholarship from both Catholics and Protestants, you resorted to ad hominem attacks.
Why not try to attack my points which directly refutes Vynette's comments rather than attacking me with your puerile gestures?

In Genesis, God had said He would put emnity between the serpant and the Woman.
Anything between you and Vynette?

Vynette,
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The woman actually regards the Doctrine of the Shekinah and the Theology of the Incarnation.
That is, the Ark of God that is no longer hidden, but displayed and actually opened.
Just who do you think is the Ark of God in the New Testament?
The Woman, radiant with sun, moon and stars, crying aloud in her birth-pangs -- who do you think this is???
And when we see the Man-Child, when born, is carried up to God's throne to shepherd the nations with the Messianic rod -- obviously, this is Jesus Christ.
The woman -- who do you think it is but the Virgin Mary!
In Genesis, God had said He would put emnity between the serpant and the Woman.
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Hence, in Revelation 12, you see the hatred of Lucifer not only for Christ but for Mary, the Woman. The devil seeks after the Woman because the woman is the source of the Incarnation of all this plan of God coming to pass.
Now, Vynette, who is the one here with a determinedly preconceived motive????

Okay, if you all insist on my analysis of Revelation...
Interpretation of Revelation Chapters 12-18 hinges on the correct identification of two main opponents. These are:
(1) a woman arrayed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars;
(2) a harlot with 'Bablyon the Great' written on her forehead, carried by a scarlet-coloured beast.
This identification is not as complex as one might think. The woman 'arrayed with the sun' is the nation of Israel. In Genesis 37:9-10, the twelve tribes of Israel are described with exactly the same symbols. (Jews represent only 2 of these 12 tribes - the other 10 were not in Palestine when Revelation was written.)
The 'scarlet beast' of Revelation is what may be described as 'Latinism' - a state modelled in its constitution and administrative system upon the Imperial Latin State, with its own legal system and courts, and maintaining (until recently) its services, records and literature in the official language of the imperial model.(The Holy Roman Empire was a classic re-vivification of the Latin world-empire of the Caesars).
In Revelation Chapters 12-18, this 'beast' of Latinism is characterised as:
(a) an authoritarian mentality based on a master-slave relationship;
(b) with as many faces as are necessary to achieve its purpose;
(c) which always insists on the principle of compulsive power as the final (if not first) resort in religious and secular fields of life;
(d) relentlessly endeavouring to impose its own image on the world;
(e) subscribing traditionally to universal rule,
and the uniting of mankind in one world-embracing state;
(f) by whatever machinery is necessary,
be it the pagan state or the church state,
(g) and using as its instruments its military or religious leaders.
According to Revelation:
(1) the policy of the 'beast' is to oppose Israel and Israel's Messiah;
(2) the 'beast' has an administrative arm;
(3) the adminstrative arm is described as a religious organisation and a 'harlot';
(4) this religious organisation has arrogated to itself the role properly belonging to 12-tribed Israel.
Judge for yourselves!

Hmmm,
Lots and lots of "answers" until someone asks a difficult question. Which, most likely, is "difficult" only because the "answer" is not satisfactory (i.e., does not support the pre-conceived agenda). So then, and only then, does the one who came swaggering in with all of the answers boldly proclaim that she refuses to be drawn into a discussion.
Figures.

A determinedly preconceived motive. ;)

My 7/11/07 6:30PM post is proven correct again...and again...and again.

Esquire,
"Can I interpret your silence on the questions to mean that you have no answers?
In other words, there is no other evidence that Peter was Babylon, and every other instance of "Babylon" used in the NT is believed to refer to Rome?"
No, you cannot interpret it that way. You can interpet it as a refusal to be drawn away into a discussion of apocalytic genre literature which is a vastly different genre to that of an ordinary letter. Besides, you may take even more objection to any analysis of "Babylon the Great."
As to Babylon being virtually uninhabited, that is simply not true as I have already demonstrated somewhere above. I also pointed out that Babel referred to a province as well as a city.

Jarnor23:
In Christian love, we do not want others falling into error that could literally damn them.
This is precisely why I had taken issue with John's comments.
I do wish to continue making the point that the notion John has been promoting on this blog (i.e., Catholics have the right to declare a valid Pope as Apostate) is indeed heretical and, in fact, defies the very core of traditional Catholic Teaching.
I do not want people who may not know the Catholic Faith well to mistake this heretical notion as part of the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, which John has been disguising it as.
Esquire made some excellent comments on the thread "Commentary on Summorum Pontificum" regarding this and I shall leave it at that.
John,
Why do you insist on doing to others what you claim they are unfairly doing to you?
On what possible basis do you assert that I have "already written [Benedict] off"? You are the one who brought up the "next pope."
I love Pope Benedict XVI, and hope he reigns for as long as Pope John Paul the Great did. But if he does not, I will support the next pope as well. (I may or may not love the next pope, but I will support him to the extent it is my duty to do so regardless of my personal feelings.)
If a pope acts and does those acts which are by definition apostate and heretical are we not bound under the pain of mortal sin not to call this out?
You complain, on the one hand, because Esau has pointed out that you have no misgivings about declaring the Pope apostate if he doesn't agree with you, and then on the other hand, you freely admit that you feel bound to declare the Pope apostate and heretical if he does something that you feel meets those definitions.
That is not Traditional Catholic belief, and if you ascribe to it, you are in error in holding yourself out to be a Traditionalist.
I merely asked you to clarify if your position had changed, since you took such offense at Esau's suggestion that you would call a pope an apostate if he didn't agree with you.
With respect to your hypothetical, you seem to disregard the protection that the Holy Spirit affords to the office of the Vicar of Christ. Your question is somewhat akin to asking if God can create a rock so big he can't lift it. In other words, your question seems to be will the Holy Father oblige Catholics to do something which is against the will of God? The answer is, according to real Traditional Catholicism, "No," so if the Holy Father obliges me to do something that pertains to faith and morals, I most certainly will obey, whatever my personal distaste.
In doing so, I will be following the guidance of St. Pope Pius X, who very astutely noted that the roots of modernism will be found in the disregard of authority, in the substitution of personal judgments for those that have been given authority to make them. I would suggest that you (and all others) follow St. Pope Pius X's advice as well.
Posted by: Equire | Jul 13, 2007 2:41:05 PM

Good point bill912. Of course, maybe that's why no one knew he was there.

Yeah, especially since Babylon was nearly, if not completely, uninhabited by the First Century AD.

vynette,
Can I interpret your silence on the questions to mean that you have no answers?
In other words, there is no other evidence that Peter was Babylon, and every other instance of "Babylon" used in the NT is believed to refer to Rome?
You keep saying that we are using "proof texts" as if repetitively repeating it will make it true. In reality, what you are doing is taking a pile of evidence, examining one piece through a foggy filter, determining that as far as you can tell it is inconclusive, and then simply labeling it a "proof text." What it is is another piece of corroborating evidence, that when considered in the context of all of the available evidence, leads one to the conclusion that the long-standing tradition of Peter having been in Rome is far more probable than the alternative you have offered, which is Babylon.

James, do you love your family? I'd imagine so. Do you always agree with everything they say? I'd imagine not.
In Christian love, we do not want others falling into error that could literally damn them. For the most part here you are seeing people arguing as civilly as possible. Frankly, most atheists I've met by now would have made some "witty" comment about fighting over make believe entities, insult people and belittle them, and believe they "won" something by it. Most of these people are doing quite a bit better than that.
It's me who is the real jerk you have to worry about if you get annoying. ;)

Okay, I admit I haven't read every post on here so perhaps someone already mentioned this, but... I've noticed that what is most "contraversial" about this document (like "defect" refering to other Christian churches/communities) comes from quotes from the Vatican II documents. The Vatican seems to be doing what I've been recommending for years: READ the Vatican II documents and SEE FOR YOURSELF that the Church's dogmas DO NOT CHANGE (but are only understood with greater depth)!

There is only one "proof" text from Clement's letter in which the Roman Catholic Church finds evidence that Peter resided in Rome. Modern translations of the letter, such as that of Lightfoot below, divide it into 65 numbered chapters. The "proof" text in question is from Chapter 5:
"But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance."
The CE Apostolic Succession article introduces the idea that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome by manipulating and massaging the above text to somehow wrest out of the passage the words "They have suffered amongst us":
"Earlier still is Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthians, probably in 96, certainly before the end of the first century. He cites Peter's and Paul's martyrdom as an example of the sad fruits of fanaticism and envy. They have suffered "amongst us" he says."
In these words "They have suffered amongst us" the Roman Catholic Church finds evidence that Peter not only resided in Rome but that he and Paul were also martyred there. It is their ONLY supposed "proof" from Clement's letter.

Clever! I envy that profound a wit!

How these Christians love one another!

"I am simply arguing that Peter was never in Rome at any time. Where is the evidence that Peter ended his ministry (and his life) in Rome?"
No, you are not arguing it, you are just stating and re-stating it. Your assertion that Peter was "never" in Rome is based far more on conjecture than the assertion that he WAS there. There is at least SOME evidence (which your pre-formed conclusion forces you to reject) for that.
Let me put it this way... we have provided evidence that Peter WAS in Rome at some point, you provide some evidence - any - that proves he wasn't.

vynette,
Two other questions for you. (I really don't know the answers to them, but assume that you might.)
Other than 1 Peter 5:13, is there any other evidence that Peter was ever in Babylon?
Other than 1 Peter 5:13, is there any other NT reference to Babylon which you believe does not refer to Rome?

vynette,
So, included within your "no evidence" before 170 AD of Peter in Rome would be:
* the statement in Clements' letter that Peter ended his life in the same location Paul ended his (presumably you would regard this as "no evidence" because, among other things, there is no "solid historical evidence" of where Paul died).
* the statement in Ignatius' letter to the Romans (110 AD) that Peter had commanded the Romans (because you conveniently reserve the right to regard Ignatius' letter as "spurious").
You know, at some point, even if no single piece of evidence is compelling for you, when one takes a look at the quantum of evidence you have thrown into the "no evidence" heap, it starts to look like you might have an agenda. Just maybe.

Esquire
As we were discussing "Babylon" in the context of 1 Peter 5:13, I thought I had made myself very clear. But, I'll say it again. The
"Babylon" of 1 Peter 5:13 is either the city or the province of Babylon in Mesopotamia.
In the absence of any solid historical evidence, Paul's death can only be a matter of conjecture or tradition.
Are the Ignatian Epistles, spurious or not, relevant to this discussion about Peter being in Rome?
Tim J
"The Papal Seat was passed on through the Episopacy of Rome BECAUSE that's where Peter ended his ministry (and his life), not the other way around."
I am simply arguing that Peter was never in Rome at any time. Where is the evidence that Peter ended his ministry (and his life) in Rome?

Some Day:
"With all due respect" I don't remember Jesus saying His teachings no longer applied if you're defending a cause greater than yourself. In fact, I remember Him saying "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
You may want to re-read catholicWayne's excellent post before throwing more out yourself.

catholicWayne,
With all due respect, you must realize that I did embrace my defects as qualities, that would be a doubly a sin, as it is scandalous as well.
Secondly, those passages must be interpreted correctly. It is an error to assume that those passages apply when defending a cause greater than yourself. Namely, Christ, the Cause of everything. Any injuries to oneself one must accept them with the greatest acts of humility. But when it comes to the God and His Church, your love for those redundate in hate for His enemies, open or veiled. Now as I said before, conversion is the first thing on the mind. God manifests His glory greater in mercy than in justice.
Yet, when mercy is not seeked, His justice is fierce.
And as we can be instruments of His mercy, than also His vengeance. More later.

Puzzled,
Let's consider Typology here.
Look to the following where Christ had given authority to the Apostles and which later was passed on to their successors, the Bishops.
Matthew 18:17-18
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
What's particularly significant with Peter is that in Matthew 16:18, Peter was the ONLY one given the Keys of the Kingdom!
Mt 16:18:
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
What is the significance of this?
Let's look at the passages in Isaiah:
Is:22:21: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
Is:22:22: And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isaiah 22:22 is 'KEY' to the language and typology of the 'Key' that Peter received in Matthew 16:18!
Hence, Peter is Father (i.e., 'Papa' or 'Pope) to the New Jerusalem, which is the Church -- just as the Prime Minister in this Isaiah passage was chosen by God to have such authority on behalf of the King, so is Peter the Prime Minister chosen by Christ to have authority on behalf of his Kingship here on earth.
No other person was given the Keys of the Kingdom except Peter, the rock upon which Christ built his Church!
What is of great importance here is not WHERE the papacy was established but WHO the Successor of Peter was since it is he who carries on this same authority given to Peter by Christ Himself.
As the typology in the Isaiah passage concerning the Prime Minister tells us, amongst other scriptural passages, this office of Prime Minister doesn't begin and end with the first Prime Minister, but it is an office where there is an order of succession, as we also see in Acts where we actually witness succession of the position formerly held by Judas.
And who exactly leads this act but Peter himself whereupon the others submit to him as leader of the Apostles.

My professors in a very Reformed seminary taught us that history indicates that Peter was in Rome twice.
He didn't start the church there, that would have been pilgrims in Jerusalem at Pentacost who were from Rome.
It doesn't by itself deal with the issues of what the rock that the Church will be built on is, the man or the confession,it doesn't deal with the growing claims of Roman superiority in the last couple hundred years of the first millenium, leading to the Great Schism, nor the dogmas developed since then by the Latin church.
But it does look like Peter really did visit Rome and later went back and was martyred.

While we're at it, vynette, I take it you dismiss Ignatius of Antioch, and his letter to the Romans at the beginning of the second century. Or would you accept that letter as "evidence"?

vynette,
One other question, should you choose to answer it. Where do you believe that St. Paul died?

vynette,
I know where Babylon is, and I can now guess where you think Peter is saying he was in 1 Peter 5:13. One question that comes to mind is why are you having so much trouble answering the question directly? It's not that difficult a question, and if you were really in a quest for the truth I would think that you would not be opposed to answering questions truthfully and directly.
As for your quest for the truth, there is probably no point in reminding you that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, is there?

Vynette, you reject the witness of the early Church because it destroys your hypothesis.
If we provided evidence from before AD 170, you would say it was tainted, or you would demand even older evidence... "Why isn't there any record before AD 150? Hmmm?"
There is ample early evidence of Peter's presence in Rome. He need not be the first to bring the gospel to Rome. He need not have established the first church in Rome. He did not have to be the most famous Christian in Rome.
None of these things has any bearing - at all - on whether Peter was the first Pope. Jesus made him the Shepherd over His flock. If Peter had been bishop of Brooklyn, we would be called Brooklyn Catholics. Rome only comes into it incidentally. It is not Rome that lends significance to the Papacy, but the Papacy that gives Rome it's greatest significance.
You argue as if there were some requirement that the first Pope be bishop of Rome... there wasn't. Peter could have established his seat anywhere.
The Papal Seat was passed on through the Episopacy of Rome BECAUSE that's where Peter ended his ministry (and his life), not the other way around.

John,
Please provide me with an example??
Well, in this thread, for one.
And the "terrible judge of character" bit has to do with your stated assumptions -- which are wrong -- that I am somehow displeased with Pope Benedict. Perhaps if I had simply said you judged my character wrongly in this regard it would have been clearer.

Good, because this Tom & Jerry fighting between Esau & John was frankly getting the way of this thread.
Of course, this thread mainly seems to be unfounded assertions by Vinaigrette there how if Catholics must believe something to be Catholic, it's CLEARLY a mass conspiracy cover up. So maybe letting this thread die isn't such a bad thing. Pointless to argue with a tinfoil hat wearer.

I think my 7/11/07 6:30PM post has been thoroughly vindicated.

Esquire posted:
"You have thrown "the first name" (and the "last name") at me several times.
And you are a terrible judge of character "
Please provide me with an example??
Or do we need to resort to "Esau" standards and cant we all move on
If I have been out of line I do apologize as the last I checked I am human and commit sins
I hope you feel the same way
God bless you and Esau as well as it is very exhausting the name calling business
Enjoy

Inocencio,
As well as The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sacred Canon Law and de fide dogmas also bind all believing Catholics.
Canon 331
"The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church the Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power."
The Dogmatic Constitution from Vatican I "Pastor Aeternus" 3:1-4
"And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which MUST be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
"To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
"...This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation."
Although Catholics believe that Peter established their church in Rome, they are actually under no obligation to do so. Catholics are simply required to believe the above. Of course, the obvious reason for this singular ommission is that there is no real evidence to support Peter's ever being in Rome.
"My only question for you is what authority do you give yourself to discard documentation and evidence that contradict your conclusion that Peter was not in Rome?"
As I have already said, if there is evidence and documentation pre-170 AD, then please present it.
Regarding the question of "authority," Jesus was asked the same question by the religious leaders of his day. Jesus stated to Pilate that he was born to bear witness to the truth and I have taken on myself a similar commitment. This quest for truth needs no justification.
Esquire,
Babylon = city or province of Babylon, in Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq.

John,
I will as taught always defend myself and not throw the first name as it is not in my character.

You have thrown "the first name" (and the "last name") at me several times.
And you are a terrible judge of character if you think that I am in the least bit disappointed with the Motu Propio, the accompanying letter, or the latest curial document. My only wish is that Pope Benedict would write faster, because I think he is a fantastic teacher.