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.

[annalex]

Paul rebuked the "haves"

St. Paul rebuked the whole approach, as he explained that the Eucharist is a sacrament and not a gastronomical meal (1 Cor 11). Since then, the Happy Meal was no longer.

[wmfights]

"The Magisterium is a way to describe the bishops of the Church as the same body."
_________________________

Okay, so every bishop is a member of the magesterium?

Do they meet to resolve questions whenever they arise? If so is it a conclave at the Vatican, or some other location?

[wmfights]

"Since then, the Happy Meal was no longer."
________________________

I believe the Didache is 25-50 years later and it teaches congregations how to conduct the meal.

[Uncle Chip]

You still did not answer my question:

Is there anything in Chapter XXVI of Justin Martyr's First Apology that might be construed as evidence of a 25 year Roman Bishopric for Simon Magus whose followers were called Christians? Yes or No ----

[stfassisi]

What are you Talking about when you say "Paul did not believe in transubstantiation"

What part of this scripture don,t you understand....

“This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord. A man should examine himself first; only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11: 27-29).

Now lets look at similar writings from Saint Ignatius in 100 A.D...
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).


How is that you can be Solo Scriptura and selectivly NOT believe what is clear. You can,t have it both ways.

[wmfights]

I Cor.11:24-26

[stfassisi]

I Cor.11:24-26 Does NOT deny Transubtantation.

Take a look at 1st Corinthians, 11:23-26. "For I received from the Lord what I shall deliver to you." Interesting, he received it not from Peter and the apostles. When Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus or perhaps at some other time, what did Jesus deliver to Paul? Instructions for the Eucharist. "I received from the Lord what I also deliver to you. That the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup after supper saying, 'This cup is the New Covenant in my blood. Do this." Commandment, imperative tense. "As often as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

You proclaim the gospel. Let's go back then to Corinthians 9, verse 14, "In the same way the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." How does Paul proclaim the gospel? Just by preaching? Or by celebrating the Eucharist? "As often as you do this, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." That's the gospel. Paul is talking in verses 13 and 14 about how he should be supported as an apostle and he does so in conjunction with temple service at an altar where there is sacrificial offerings which he as an apostle has the right to receive from. What's he talking about? A New Covenant temple? A New Covenant altar? A New Covenant sacrifice where he proclaims the gospel by celebrating the Eucharist.

[annalex]

so every bishop is a member of the magesterium?

Yes, provided he is in communion with the Pope.

But let me elaborate. The Magisterium is not on any particular schedule, similar to, say, the Congress. They communicate as necessary and meet as necessary. There are really two aspects to the Magisterium: Sacred and Ordinary. I was describing the Ordinary Magisterium, which guides the Church at all times. It is to be obeyed but it may reverse itself. The teachings of Sacred Magisterium are given on a solemn occasion and are infallible dogma. They are proclaimed at councils. In principle, the Pope can originate sacred magisterial teaching alone (papal infallibility) but is has not been exercised this way in recent (past thousand years or so) history.

See Magisterium

[wmfights]

I Cor. 11:24-26

The key passage verse 25 "In the same way, after supper he took the cup..."

IOW, they broke bread before supper and then after supper they drank the wine. If the bread and wine were being transformed they would have consumed both one immediately after the other. This was being done "in remembrance" of the sacrifice at Calvary and the new covenant being established. Also the cup and bread were passed, if these Christians thought this was actually the blood of Jesus Christ would they take the chance of spilling it, or dropping pieces of his body on the floor?

[stfassisi]

Dear brothers/sisters
The way many protestants read scriptures constantly is a beautiful thing,but there is too much confusion in interpretations amongst various groups.

For your own research you should try and check your interpretations using typology.

This is a free Bible study for you to use.
http://www.salvationhistory.com/Online/intermediate/covlove.cfm

You may or may not agree but its worth you doing this.


I have a busy week ahead so I,m checking out for now

Peace in Christ to you all

[annalex]

But Didache is not describing a meal. It may not be the soundest of Eucharistic theology, but it describes a sacrament:

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen..

But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

(Didache)

[annalex]

There is nothing in Chapter XXVI of Justin Martyr's First Apology that might be reasonably construed as evidence of a 25 year Roman Bishopric for Simon Magus.

He is described as a blaspheming teacher and he is not described as appointing or overseeing priests, the essential function of a Christian bishop.

What a Jack Chuick might construe of it, I have no knowledge or interest.

[wmfights]

"The teachings of Sacred Magisterium are given on a solemn occasion and are infallible dogma. They are proclaimed at councils."
__________________________

I appreciate your patience. I had already looked at wikepedia but they really didn't have a lot of info.

If I get it, when a council is called the findings of that council are then dated, published and considered findings of the magesterium. IOW, the Nicene Council was a meeting of the magesterium. If for example it's an ordinary finding this could be developed by letters sent from one bishop to the next until every one has had their say, if they want to, and when there is an agreement there is a finding.

[annalex]

if these Christians thought this was actually the blood of Jesus Christ would they take the chance of spilling it, or dropping pieces of his body on the floor?

The same chance exists today, and on occasion the Precious Body is dropped or the Precious Blood is spilled. If it happens, various methods exist to repair the mishap. The time gap between the taking of one species and another has nothing to do with it.

[annalex]

Yes, except if the two bishops have any reason to suspect that they teaching is not common to all, they would probably check with the curia (The Court in Rome) as well.

[HarleyD]

Paul did not believe in transubstantiation.

That is an excellent point. Paul did not believe in transubstantiation but that the elements were mere symbols that proclaimed the Lord's coming.

From what I've been able to learn about the common meal tradition (Agape Feast) the Eucharist was before and after the meal.

That is a rather intriguing view. I have not done a lot of studying into what constituted the traditional feast. Rather I looked at the meaning of the Eucharist, the pronouncements of the Eucharist and the various historical positions and views throughout the church. It is a rather difficult study since type in Eucharist and you pull up pages and pages of Catholic views.

[wmfights]

"The time gap between the taking of one species and another has nothing to do with it."
_________________________________

The way in which the bread and wine were treated was indicative of how they were viewed. They did not put any unused portion of the bread in a special box till the next time they had communion and likewise with the wine. They recognized the bread and wine were symbolic.

[adiaireton8]

Paul did not believe in transubstantiation but that the elements were mere symbols that proclaimed the Lord's coming.

Where are you getting this notion (i.e. that Paul did not believe that the bread and wine, when consecrated, actually become the Body and Blood of our Lord)?

-A8

[ladyinred]

Anti-Catholic bigotry is very popular here.

And visa versa.

[HarleyD]

Thank you stfassisis, but Scott Hahn is one of the last person I would want to instruct me.