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.

[Campion]

Salvation, you might just as well post stuff like this on a "caucus" thread. Evidently other folks on this board can post all kinds of tendentious anti-Catholic stuff, call it "devotional" or a "caucus thread", and then brand anyone not of their tradition who even politely asks a question a "bully" and have them silenced.

[Uncle Chip]

Can you give me a link so that I don't have to type them in from hard copy?

[stfassisi]

If this world still exists 1400 years from now, do you suppose there will non denominational threads saying
""Was Martin Luther ever in Wittenberg?""
LOL!

[HarleyD]

The Eucharist is our Lords greatest Miracle. You have been mislead Dear Brother

Perhaps but I don't believe so. I'm not very impressed with the works of St. Aquinas who I feel was of great harm to the Church's theology in general with his humanistic views.

As far as researching this, I have done so extensively both from Catholic and non-Catholic sources, new and old. While most early Catholic fathers believed in transubstantiation, there is evidence some did not. This counter view does run throughout history up to the Reformation. More importantly, there is no scriptural evidence of transubstantiation with the exception of the tortured verses in John 6.

The problem I find with transubstantiation is that it violates the principle of God-given grace to a mechanical function. It is my opinion that the Catholic Church required the Eucharist to be administered by a certified priest at the 1211 Lateran Council simply to keep attendance up during a time when people were leaving the Catholic Church because of the Holy Wars that had been waged for 200 years. I hate to sound cynical but what better way to keep people from leaving the Church than if you told those superstitious medieval people that they would not receive God's grace unless they came to Church to receive it? It is acknowledged that the view of the Eucharist was a predominate view both with the Catholic and Orthodox. That doesn't make it correct.

I see significant doctrinal shifts in the RCC from 600 up until the Reformation not as a matter of sound theology but rather because of political expediency. The Reformation was a reaction by many who believe as I do who tried to move the Church back to the foundations. The Church finally broke all ties with monergism with the Council of Trent. Regrettably, Protestants have had the same problems.

[Campion]

It is my opinion that the Catholic Church required the Eucharist to be administered by a certified priest at the 1211 Lateran Council simply to keep attendance up during a time when people were leaving the Catholic Church because of the Holy Wars that had been waged for 200 years.

Harley, Ignatius of Antioch said way back in AD 110 that celebrating the Eucharist "behind the bishop's back" was equivalent to devil worship.

[annalex]

Dialogue with Trypho

The entire collection is The Fathers of the Church. I cannot recommend it enough.

[adiaireton8]

As far as researching this, I have done so extensively both from Catholic and non-Catholic sources, new and old. While most early Catholic fathers believed in transubstantiation, there is evidence some did not.

I collected various sayings of the fathers on the Eucharist. Their position is very clear. You can read them here.

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

Justin Martyr: First Apology Chapter XXVI

Is there anything in there that might be construed as evidence of a 25 year Roman Bishopric for Simon Magus? ["Bishopric", of course, being used loosely at this point] Yes or No?

[stfassisi]

""I hate to sound cynical but what better way to keep people from leaving the Church than if you told those superstitious medieval people that they would not receive God's grace unless they came to Church to receive it?""

This is what the devil would like for you to believe,the "ole boy" will use anything to keep you away from what all the Saints and Apostles knew to be TRUE.


The Power of Prayer before the Blessed Sacrament of Eucharist is the secret the Saints knew.It is our Lords greatest miracle and the hardest thing for our finite minds to understand because it takes incredible faith,thus this type of faith is going to obtain miracles in our lives and people we pray for.

In the Eucharist we can only see Christ with our minds(His presence is veiled),our minds enlightened by the gift of faith,thus this type of Faith is going to yield the power of Prayer excel lance.

Take a look at Saint Padre Pio Dear Brother
http://www.padrepio.catholicwebservices.com/ENGLISH/Miracles.htm

Padre Pio is a Saint closer to our generation and many people attributed miracles to him. He received letters from all over the world from people seeking miracles.

When asked about the miracles the humble Padre Pio would always say....
Quote
""I performed no miracles-all I did was spend hours of prayer for them in front of the Blessed Sacrament."
He would always say "It was GOD who provided the miracle.""

The biggest mistake we make as Christians is to set limits on our Lords Supernatural ability to work miracles.We live in a world with the greatest loss of Faith

[1000 silverlings]

The biggest mistake we make as Christians is to set limits on our Lords Supernatural ability to work miracles

How do we do that, exactly?

[stfassisi]

How do we do that, exactly?

Lack of faith and the denial of mircles-demothologization.

[1000 silverlings]

ergo. But faith is a gift from God, so lack of it is not my fault.

demothologization, what miracles have we denied? We all believe every miracle of His recorded in scripture.

[annalex]

Is there anything in there that might be construed as evidence of a 25 year Roman Bishopric for Simon Magus?

CHAPTER XXVI -- MAGICIANS NOT TRUSTED BY CHRISTIANS.

And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:--

"Simoni Deo Sancto,"

"To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds--the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh--we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

The First Apology

I see nothing different from the Acts and the Acts of Peter and Paul: a magician becoming popular among pagans, possibly mocking Christian beliefs. Marcion is also mentioned here, curiously.

[stfassisi]

Yes Faith is a gift,but its not just a matter of just simply believing in God.
As the Apostle Saint James says...
"Even the demons believe in God,the demons believe God is one and they shutter"
Faith is never a matter of doing your OWN thing,its a matter of doing God,s thing,thus faith demands obedience to God even under persecution if that is what God has willed for us,although we might nor understand it at the time,its a matter of completely denying ourselves and trusting in Him.

[Uncle Chip]

Is there anything in there [Chapter XXVI of Justin Martyr's First Apology] that might be construed as evidence of a 25 year Roman Bishopric for Simon Magus?

CHAPTER XXVI -- MAGICIANS NOT TRUSTED BY CHRISTIANS

And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:-- "Simoni Deo Sancto," "To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds--the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh--we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

I see nothing different from the Acts and the Acts of Peter and Paul: a magician becoming popular among pagans, possibly mocking Christian beliefs. Marcion is also mentioned here, curiously.

Look again more carefully at the parts that I highlighted:

1]When does he say that Simon the Magician came to Rome? Was it not during the reign of Claudius. Could it have been in 42 AD?

2]And what were Simon the Magician's followers called there in Rome?

3] Is there anything else here that sheds light on our pursuit of genuine truth regarding just exactly who had that legendary 25 year Bishopric in Rome?

[wmfights]

I appreciate the link. Maybe there really isn't a direct answer to my question. It seems there is a great deal that really is not clearly defined from about 30AD to 400AD.

If we don't know when the magesterium was created or how bishops are selected for it why should it be given such great credibility. I'm a Baptist we question everything. It seems that if your Roman Catholic you question on the periphery but never the structure or decisions that are made from the top of your hierarchy.

[Petrosius]

If as a Baptist you question everything, do you question how and by whom the canon of the Scriptures were determined?

[wmfights]

"While most early Catholic fathers believed in transubstantiation, there is evidence some did not."

Paul did not believe in transubstantiation.
_____________________________
"I see significant doctrinal shifts in the RCC from 600 up until the Reformation not as a matter of sound theology but rather because of political expediency."

From what I've been able to learn about the common meal tradition (Agape Feast) the Eucharist was before and after the meal. The bread was broken before the meal and served in remembrance of Jesus Christ and at the end of the meal the wine in the cup was passed in remembrance of Jesus Christ. In Corinth, Paul rebuked the "haves" because they were breaking from this by eating their meal before the "have nots" were done with work.

I think the common meal tradition fell out of favor with the "church fathers" as the church grew and became part of the state.

[annalex]

Claudius was an emperor for 13 years. The evidence of St Peter disputing with Magus is in the Acts, both canonical and apocryphal. This doesn't make him the same person: it is kind of difficult to have a public disputation with oneself. In fact, it proves Peter being a different person, meeting Magus in the same time frame as Peter is beleived to be in Rome.

Apostle Peter was not a Samaritan.

Marcionites were indeed Christian heretics. It is possible that somehow the followers of Magus were mixed up with them, even more so that the teachings of Magus look like a mockery of the Christian beliefs.

I think, however, that we have solid evidence that you and Jack Chick are the same person.

[annalex]

If we don't know when the magesterium was created or how bishops are selected

We know both things very well. The Magisterium is a way to describe the bishops of the Church as the same body. It was created at the same time the Church was created, at Pentacost. The selection of bishops is the subject of the epistles to Titus and Timothy: men of good character and education show themselves worthy of the job and receive the call of the Holy Spirit, and someone with authority consecrates them.