St. Peter and Rome

Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 11-15-04 | Amy Barragree

[Salvation]

St. Peter and Rome

11/15/04

Dear Catholic Exchange:

Why did St. Peter establish the Church in Rome?

Ed

Dear Ed,

Peace in Christ!

We do not know why Peter went to Rome. The Church has always maintained, based on historical evidence, that Peter went to Rome, but has never taught why this happened. In speculating on this matter, there are two primary considerations.

First, at the time of Jesus and the early Church, the Roman Empire controlled the lands around the Mediterranean, a large portion of what is now Europe, and most of what is now called the Middle East. Rome was one of the biggest, most influential cities in the Western world. It was the center of political authority, economic progress, cultural expression, and many other aspects of life in the Roman Empire. This may have played a role in Peter’s decision to go to Rome.

Second, Jesus promised the Apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them. Scripture shows Peter following the promptings of the Holy Spirit throughout his ministry. It somehow fits into God’s providence and eternal plan that His Church be established in Rome. Peter may have gone to Rome for no other reason than that is where the Holy Spirit wanted him.

Historical evidence does show that Peter did go to Rome and exercised his authority as head of the Apostles from there. The earliest Christians provided plenty of documentation in this regard.

Among these was St. Irenæus of Lyons, a disciple of St. Polycarp who had received the Gospel from the Apostle St. John. Near the end of his life St. Irenæus mentioned, in his work Against Heresies (c. A.D. 180-199), the work of Peter and Paul in Rome:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church (Book 3, Chapter 1, verse 1).

The African theologian Tertullian tells us that Peter and Paul both died in Rome in Demurrer Against the Heretics (c. A.D. 200):

Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each.... [I]f you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority [i.e., in Carthage] derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [i.e., the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island.

Tertullian was certainly not the only ancient author who testified that Peter was crucified in Rome. An ancient, orthodox historical text known as the "Acts of Saints Peter and Paul" elaborates on the preaching and martyrdom of the two Apostles in Rome. The dating of this document is difficult, but historians cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia placed its probable origins between A.D. 150-250.

One of the earliest thorough histories of the Church was Bishop Eusebius of Cæsarea’s Ecclesiastical History. Most of this work was written before Constantine became emperor in A.D. 324, and some portions were added afterward. Eusebius quotes many previous historical documents regarding Peter and Paul’s travels and martyrdom in Rome, including excellent excerpts from ancient documents now lost, like Presbyter Gaius of Rome’s "Disputation with Proclus" (c. A.D. 198-217) and Bishop Dionysius of Corinth’s "Letter to Soter of Rome" (c. A.D. 166-174). Penguin Books publishes a very accessible paperback edition of Eusebius’s history of the Church, and most libraries will probably own a copy as well.

For more ancient accounts of Peter’s presence in Rome, see the writings of the Church Fathers, which are published in various collections. Jurgens’s Faith of the Early Fathers, volumes 1-3, contains a collection of patristic excerpts with a topical index which apologists find very useful (Liturgical Press). Hendrickson Publishers and Paulist Press both publish multi-volume hardcover editions of the works of the Church Fathers. Penguin Books and St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press publish a few works of the Fathers in relatively inexpensive paperback editions.

More treatments of Petrine questions may be found in Stephen K. Ray’s Upon This Rock (Ignatius); Jesus, Peter, & the Keys by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess (Queenship); Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction (Basilica); and in the Catholic Answers tracts “Was Peter In Rome?” and “The Fathers Know Best: Peter In Rome.”

Please feel free to call us at 1-800-MY FAITH or email us with any further questions on this or any other subject. If you have found this information to be helpful, please consider a donation to CUF to help sustain this service. You can call the toll-free line, visit us at www.cuf.org, or send your contribution to the address below. Thank you for your support as we endeavor to “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.”

United in the Faith,

Amy Barragree
Information Specialist
Catholics United for the Faith
827 North Fourth Street
Steubenville, OH 43952
800-MY-FAITH (800-693-2484)

---

Editor's Note: To submit a faith question to Catholic Exchange, email faithquestions@catholicexchange.com. Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange becomes the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.

[JockoManning]

The Church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her
And for her life He died.

She is from every nation,
Yet one o’er all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.

The Church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord to defend,
To guide, sustain, and cherish,
Is with her to the end:
Though there be those who hate her,
And false sons in her pale,
Against both foe or traitor
She ever shall prevail.

Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song!

’Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
Till, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest.

Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won,
With all her sons and daughters
Who, by the Master’s hand
Led through the deathly waters,
Repose in Eden land.

O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with Thee:
There, past the border mountains,
Where in sweet vales the Bride
With Thee by living fountains
Forever shall abide!

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/h/chofound.htm

[JockoManning]

“No one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11

[wideawake]

Peter was a great Apostle, but his mission field was among the Israelites

He was commanded by God himself directly in the Scriptures to receive the very first Gentile convert intom the Church.

His mission field was allotted to him by Christ directly at the end of the Gospel of Matthew when he was commanded by Jesus to go forth and preach to all nations.

[annalex]

That is not to say he couldn't have been the first pope, but I'm not fully convinced he was

St. Peter did consecrate the Antiochean bishop, and he did come, serve, and was martyred in Rome, like you said. He also had consecrated a bishop in Armenia. We read of his travels and extensive missionary work in the Acts, so none of this is surprising, or contradictory to the traditional view of him.

It is indeed likely that by the time St. Peter established himself in Rome, there had been a Christian community there.

We have scriptural evidence of St. Peter's primacy among the apostles and we have the evidence of the early Fathers that they considered him the first bishop of Rome.

If there had been a leader of the Roman community prior to St. Peter, it is strange no never have his name mentioned.

[Iscool]

A quote for all to ponder:

You speaking to me??? I'm one of the Saints...

[annalex]

I can see where it was probably given to Peter 'first', but not alone

Peter is adressed three times by name, and is told to feed the sheep (with variations in proper name and in the verb used and the gender of the sheep) in John 21. Peter was not alone when Jesus spoke, but the speech is addressed to Peter alone. Which gospel do you read where a similar charge was given someone else?

I would say the food is the word of God

It is a valid interpretation, however the Eucharist is also described as "food indeed".

I can't imagine where you got that opinion [that Peter and James authorised Paul]

There is NOTHING in [Gal 2:9) you refer to that puts James, John and Peter above Paul

"18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord" (Gal 1)

"9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal 2:9).

The reference to "pillars", and the imperative "that we should" shows that it was a decision taken by Peter and James. We also know that the decision "to go into Gentiles" originated with Peter alone: "in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10).

We are the Gentile church

We owe our conversion to the Father who coverted us to Christ, to Peter who decided to prozelytize among the Gentiles, to Paul who did most of that work, and to the Catholic Church which maintained the deposit of faith for us for centuries and fought off heresies.

if the three would have disapproved that Paul would have halted his ministry to the Gentiles, which God commanded him to do???

They wouldn't have disapproved, -- this is an impossible hypothetical that three apostles of Christ would disapprove of the work done for Christ. However, Paul felt it necessary to establish his credentials as an adoptive apostle as one sent by the natural apostles. It was indeed important for him, because "how shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Rom 10:14).

[Iscool]

Can you cite the passages in any of the Four Gospels wherein Jesus told anyone but Peter specifically to "feed the flock,sheep,lambs",I am sure it must be there but I have vision problems and often miss a lot. I just don't find it.

Does the bible end (for you) after Jesus was crucified???

[annalex]

Paul was in Arabia learning first hand from God about the mystery of the adoption of the Gentiles, grace thru faith without works, eternal security, etc..

Ah. So grace through faith without works, eternal security and the rest of Luther's heresies are from the Arabs?

[annalex]

Paul never states that he was ordained by Peter. Instead he states that God called him.

We don't know who consecrated (priests are ordained; bishops are consecrated) St. Paul. His apostleship is directly from Christ, so he was an apostle rahter than bishop, and required no consecration. The scripture however does tell us that his work among the Gentiles was authorized by St. Peter according to his vision (Acts 10 and following; Gal 2).

[annalex]

I said that we don’t hear MUCH about Peter after he betrayed Jesus and we don’t.

And I say this statement betrays ignorance of the scripture even by the enfeebled Protestant standard, and I gave you where to read in #18.

[Iscool]

The reference to "pillars", and the imperative "that we should" shows that it was a decision taken by Peter and James.

As you likely know, the we should was found in no manuscripts and was inserted by faith from the translaters...

Paul's commission to go to the Gentiles was already established by God...

[Iscool]

Ah. So grace through faith without works, eternal security and the rest of Luther's heresies are from the Arabs?

Sure...Paul went to Mecca searching for God while Peter jumped on a Lear to Rome...

[Uncle Chip]

We have examined the copy of the Writings of Ignatius all afternoon at the monastery, and we think that we got everything out of it that it knows about Peter in Rome. It was quite forthcoming and confessed all it knew. The words are posted below.

There are other copies at the university. We will now examine those as well to see if they will tell us any more.

I trust that this will be acceptable as evidence in our treatise, though it doesn't say that the commandments Peter and Paul gave were to the Romans. But perhaps in the hands of your rhetorical wizards they can be tortured to confess and tell you what you want them to say.

I trust you are well Adiaireton8. Keep the faith. I hope they let you read this.

THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO

Part I] Evidence From the Holy Scriptures: There is no evidence at all.

Part II] Evidence From the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: (a work in progress by Uncle Chip on Adiaireton8's behalf)

A. Clement of Rome [1st Century] --- No Evidence

B. Justin Martur of Rome [100-165 AD] --- No Evidence

C. Ignatius of Antioch [35-110 AD] --- (still under examination)

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were Apostles" [Epistle to the Romans 110 AD]

D. Irenaeus of Lyons [130-200 AD] --- (questionable)

E. Dionysius at Corinth [2nd Century]--- (pending)

F. Tertullian of Carthage [160-230 AD]--- (pending)

G. Hippolytus of Rome [170-236 AD] --- (pending)

H.

I.

J.

K.

[OLD REGGIE]

"Peter is adressed three times by name..."

What name? Was St. Simon the first Pope?

[OLD REGGIE]

THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO..."

As to the question of whether Peter was ever at Rome, the Roman claim is that he suffered martyrdom there with Paul, after a pontificate of twenty five years. This would have to be in the period from A.D. 41 to 66. But let us note the evidence from the Scriptures:-

1. In A.D. 44 he was imprisoned in Jerusalem (Acts 12).
2. In A.D. 52 he was at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
3. In A.D. 53 Paul joined him at Antioch (Galatians 2).
4. In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but he does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, Paul wants to impart special gifts to the believers in Rome; and in 1:15 he is ready to preach there. In this Roman letter he sends greetings to twenty seven persons, but none to Peter. It is inconceivable that Paul would not have referred to the presence of one who was one of the foremost apostles.
5. In A.D. 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.
6. When Paul writes to the Galatians, he mentions Peter, but not as having been in Rome, or as having been Pontiff there for twenty years. Indeed, the circumstances in Antioch were such that Peter was sternly rebuked by Paul, whose authority was much greater than Peter's. (Galatians 2:11).
7. The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as being his associates, or sending greetings, Peter is never once mentioned.
8. From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (2nd Timothy). He says, "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me" ((2 Tim. 4:16). So if Peter was in Rome he enjoyed a immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the Great Apostle.
9. And finally, in this very epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, "Only Luke is with me" (2 Tim. 4:11). This is conclusive.
Paul had written to Rome: the last years of his life were spent in Rome: and his last letters are all written from Rome. Not only does he never once mention Peter, but emphatically, at the last moment declares "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome.

Published by "Grace and Truth," 28 Burlington Rd., Sherwood, Nottingham England NG5 2GS Tel. 0115 -962 6346

[Campion]

Published by "Grace and Truth,"

They should change their name to "Tommyrot and Foolishness".

It is inconceivable that Paul would not have referred to the presence of one who was one of the foremost apostles.

It is not "inconceivable" at all. If you were a member of a tiny group persecuted by both Jews and Romans, would you put down on paper, which might fall into the hands of the authorities, the whereabouts of your critical leaders? I mean, come on, Paul wasn't stupid.

Indeed, the circumstances in Antioch were such that Peter was sternly rebuked by Paul, whose authority was much greater than Peter's. (Galatians 2:11).

Nothing in Gal 2 says that Paul's authority was "much greater than Peter's," or greater at all, in fact. Paul makes a big deal out of rebuking Peter for his bad conduct precisely because Peter's authority was recognized and important.

The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon were all written from Rome

Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't. Ephesians and Collossians refer to "fetters" and being an "ambassador in chains," and Philemon refers to imprisonment, but Paul was imprisoned in the Holy Land before going to Rome, so that proves nothing. Nor do we know that they were written before Peter's death, so that again proves nothing.

So if Peter was in Rome he enjoyed a immunity which was not accorded to Paul

Says who? He was a hunted criminal!

Not only does he never once mention Peter, but emphatically, at the last moment declares "Only Luke is with me."

And for all you or they know, Peter was already dead by then.

Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome.

A non-conclusion based on a non-argument fraught with wishful thinking. Mildly persuasive, except for the evidence. Except for the writings of the fathers, in particular, Ignatius, who knew both Peter and Paul, and who mentions them as commanding the church in Rome in his letter to the Romans. Except for the writings of Eusebius, who is the most authoritative historian of the early church, far more authoritative than a bunch of Protestant pampleteers in London. And except for that troublesome tomb on Vatican Hill, and the words on it: Petros eni ... "Peter is here".

[annalex]

The word inserted in Byzantine Majority Text is men; it is indeed missing in Stephanus Textus Receptus and others.

kai gnontes ten charin ten dotheisan moi Iakovos kai Kefas kai Ioannes oi dokountes styloi einai dexias edokan emou kai barnaba koinonias ina emeis [men] eis ta ethne autoi de eis ten peritomen

word by word, hyphenating what is a single word in the original:

and knowing the grace the given me Jacob and Kephas and Iohann the esteemed pillars are right-hand gave me and Barnabas fellowship so-that we [on-one-hand] to the gentiles they on-the-other-hand into the circumsized

"Men" is a mere particle: "men folld. by de in the correlative clause or clauses, on the one hand, on the other hand" (see at Lidell, Scott link above, part II). The text without "men" is incomplete grammatically (the proper grammar is "men ... de"), but the meaning is not altered: the natural apostles establish "koinonia", communion or fellowship, with Peter and go on their missions.

The modality "should" is not the missing "men" anyway. It is expressed by "ina". Compare the same word used 6 times in Galatians 2, starting with "that they might bring us into bondage" in verse 4.

Thank you for the opportunity to research this. So, who teaches that "should" in its imperative modal sense was inserted? The original, and Lidell-Scott show that a particle is missing, but the modality is present. Another thing that is missing in all Greek versions is the verb "go", and that indeed is extrapolated by all translators.

Paul's commission to go to the Gentiles was already established by God

What the scripture tells (Gal. 2, Acts 10f) us is that it was established by St. Peter and possibly in congress with James and John, who, of course, were all lead by the Holy ghost in all they did. The impetus to go to the Gentiles originated from Jesus at the parable of the guests at the wedding and the workers at the vinyard; it was given the natural apostles as the Great Commission, but St. Paul had to be adopted into the apostolic college and be given the mission at that later time.

[Admin Moderator]

What you are doing is baiting another poster who has already indicated he wants nothing to do with you. Keep it up and you'll be watching from the sidelines

[annalex]

What name?

St. Peter is addressed as "Simon Peter: Simon son of John", then as "Simon, son of John" two more times in John 21. You are not implying that Christ was talking to someone other than St. Peter, are you? These are all Peter's names.

[stfassisi]

Simple logical common sense should tell you that for over 1400 years of Christianity-Christians believed Peter was Bishop of Rome
If Peter was NOT in Rome there would have been plenty of EARLY Christian writings saying he was not.

Therefor the burden of TRUTH is on you to produce Historical writings from reliable sources to PROVE Peter was NOT in Rome.

I,ll save you the trouble-There is NO reliable sources!

Quoting the Bible is also illogical in regards to this topic!

The Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension.