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.

[Lil Flower]

I see you failed to answer my question in post 97.......or did you? Based on your subsequent posts I think you may have.

The only thing I have seen from reading your posts is that you like to harass and bash Christians. Why is that?

[hosepipe]

(a) Some relate to God thru a christian club/religion..
Praise God they were not lost..

(b) Others relate to God thru Gods family, the family of God, brothers and sisters, even mothers and fathers.. an even more inimate relationship, than a club..
Praise God they were not lost..

(c) Yet others relate to God thru the Body of Christ.. neither a club or family but closer, a unit, a body, we all are "a Self".. Not many selves but one self.. Directed by the head(Jesus the Christ)..
Praise God they were not lost..

Notes; At whatever level the relationship starts and continues is wonderful.. You do not progress from A to B to C.. it happens concurrently.. What about (d), is there a (d)?... Yes.. the Bridegroom and the Bride.. with a wedding, a wedding feast and everything.. Two lovers that will get married.. and who knows.. maybe will produce children in the future.. OOppps I shouldn't have said that... Its a personal revelation.. SORRY... d;-)~',''

[wmfights]

"They were officially expelled from the city late in the century because of sectarian violence in the community, but by the beginning of the second century the Jewish population was very noticeable once again."
_____________________________

My understanding was the expulsions began around 49 AD.

The return date is really not the significant issue, if we are just looking at who founded the church in Rome and who was the first leader of the Roman church.

[wmfights]

"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."
_____________________________

I'm sure you've read the Scripture that sites which Apostle was to go among the Gentiles and which would go among the Israelites. Isn't this an illustration of the question at hand, claiming duties were done by Peter that were done by others?

[Uncle Chip]

Thank you --- I am in your debt.

I am going back to re-examine Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and will bring in Josephus [Jewish Historian] and Tacitus [Roman Historian] to see what they will tell us about this matter before us.

Irenaeus is the first one to say anything about Peter being in Rome [albeit with Paul and founding the church together with him]. None of these other writers told us that he had been there. Are they holding something back? Did they tell us everything? We will reexamine their writings to see what we can squeeze out of them and do all we can to make them cough it up.

[Uncle Chip]

Thank you --- I am most appreciative for your link in which it says:

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.

Was this a known Gnostic manuscript at the time. Surely none of the early church fathers would have been deceived into trusting it, or would they? Is it possible that Irenaeus might have erroneously relied upon it for his statements about Peter and Paul? After all the church fathers were human and their works were not inspired by the Holy Spirit as were those of Scripture.

[William Terrell]

LOL.

I appreciate your documentation and sovereign argument. But there are some things that finally occurred to me last time I debated any the points of Catholic dogma.

You know what you're up against, don't you? A person who believes in his or her heart that he or she is doomed to hell fire and damnation outside the Catholic church, has to accept all Catholic dogma as absolute truth because the perception of the churche's primacy collapses if any one of the conceptual piers upon which it rests is credibly destroyed.

Such a person's security of destination, sense of themselves, foundation of personal faith and integrity of soul is bound up in the groupthink and is protected thereof.

That, by any argument, any cite of scripture regardless of how clear and unambiguous it is, will make a person so bound say to themselves, "Well, gosh, it seems I've taken the wrong approach, so I need to rethink my entire life in faith." is not possible, I'm afraid.

Note you posted three utterly unarguable passages, still you got the argument. You're debating not about scripture and facts; you're debating conditioning based on fear.

So, it's a waste of time. But it's your duty as a Christian brother to warn other brothers of false paths, and you've done your duty, and well, too.

[Quix]

True. true.

I agree.

Thx.

[Lil Flower]

You posted to the wrong person.
Re: 201

[Uncle Chip]

My apologies ---

[wmfights]

"I understand the Catholics claim Linus as the "second" Pope. However, there is no indication Peter claimed himself as the first nor is there any indication that Peter had some "authority" over Paul."
____________________________

The Didache which dates back to the beginning of Christianity spreading through out the middle east is interesting in that it teaches believers to organize and run their churches, not to submit to one absolute authority.
It may well be that what is emerging from 120 AD to 325 AD is the domination of the rural church by the urban church. It seems clear that the idea of submitting to one central authority is a product of the urban church.

[wmfights]

"St Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", 3,1,1, 180 A.D., J208
"...in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." "
_____________________
As I read your post this is the earliest reference and here he is only saying Peter evangelized in Rome, not that he stepped in and was the Bishop for 25 years.

[Running On Empty]

Glad to meet you, too, II

The title of "Mr. August 2006" may seem fitting in a technical sense, but I've been reading on FR forums for some years now.

I thought I'd ping the frequent poster, Uncle Chip, to see if he would like to be nicknamed Mr. September 2006.

[stfassisi]

Friends,you must keep in mind If Peter had said he was writing from Rome, then no doubt, the Romans would have begun an intensive search for him.
Christians were under constant persecution by both the Jews and the Romans from the very beginning and had to practice the faith underground in the homes of believers, and in the catacombs of Rome.

More writings(bear with me because my electricity keeps going on and off due to the 50 plus mph winds in upstate NY today)

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).



"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).


"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate..." Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

"Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

"I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius' Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345).

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I am making a statement that Jesus called him Simon during their last recorded conversation in Scripture. Why? Was the choice of the name "Simon" especially meaningful to Jesus?

[wmfights]

"Christians were under constant persecution by both the Jews and the Romans from the very beginning and had to practice the faith underground in the homes of believers, and in the catacombs of Rome."
____________________________

That's not true. The persecutions came and went do to a variety of factors and were never constant.

[wmfights]

"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180)."
________________________________

It hardly seems that Irenaeus is an objective reporter of historic events. He clearly is trying to support the domination of Christians by one group of Christians.

[saradippity]

Thank you for the comprehensive list which includes a wealth of scripture attesting to Peter's place in the Church Christ established. If it does nothing else I hope that it gives nonCatholics a good idea about why Catholics cannot be moved by their arguments;the Catholic position is steeped in scripture.

I will be very interested to see if nonCatholics will take the time to answer the implicit challenge to refute or argue the scriptures that you cited. I think that would show a desire to work together to accomplish our Triune God's plan for unity.

At this point I won't even mention Tradition and the Church Fathers. Anyway,thanks again.

[Uncle Chip]

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings;

Is Irenaeus doing what I think he is doing here, which is reaching a conclusion without the presentation of the facts that led him to such.

[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;

Was Irenaeus reading embellishing here in order to get some position in the church. For truly the church in Rome was not as "ancient" as that of Jerusalem or Antioch and others. And if he was wrong about that, then he may have been wrong about other things in this statement. If that is the case then the entire statement may need to be discarded in its entirety as lacking credibility.

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

A matter of necessity for whom: the Church of Rome or the other Churches? Maybe it would have been better for everyone if the Church in Rome just decided to agree with the other Churches, instead of pontificating to the contrary. It sounds like Irenaeus was the first "Pontiff" of the Roman Church as he sure knows how to pontificate without substance behind him.

[Diego1618]

Didn't I read that Babylon was just a code name for Rome?

It is my understanding that the Babylon in Revelation is more of a "False Religious System" than it is a city.