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.

[wagglebee]

They didn't "miss" something; it was a non-issue. They simply believed that Mary remained a virgin.

And why is it so important now for Protestants to believe that she didn't? Scripture is silent on the subject of her having other children. Surely Luther, et al were aware of the verses about the Lord's "brothers." Other than a desire to minimize Mary, is there one good reason that some Protestants insist that she had other children?

[jo kus]

Ok, Chip. One last time...

First, on Justin.

"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 . . ."

You then wrote: Justin makes here he says that the followers of Simon Magus were called Christians. He isn't saying that they were "Christians", only that they went by the name "Christians" and were called "Christians". True Christians did not trust magicians like Simon the Magician and his disciples, but those who were not true Christians did trust him. Isn't that what Justin Martyr is saying here?

First, let me finish where you left off, so as to better explain my rebuttal.

"...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.

Justin is saying that Simon is claiming to be something he is not. The name "christian" is not indicative of his beliefs. Just because Simon calls himself "christian" doesn't make him a Christian, just as calling oneself a philosopher doesn't make it so. If you care to read on, you will find that Simon teaches that HE HIMSELF is a manifestation of God. For example, in the same chapter you quote:

"And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god"

This is in line with the charecter mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.

Justin makes the same statements elsewhere. Now, at what point does the Catholic Church worship anyone OTHER THAN Jesus Christ as God? Thus, how can you make the comparison of Simon the Magician with the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Church never says what Simon the Magician claims?

You wrote: Apparently the disciples of Simon Magus were teaching some form of Replacement Theology, trying to separate Christians from their Jewish heritage and the Law and the Prophets, and making them think that God was finished with the nation of Israel.

If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit.

My post of Ignatius was meant to compare Simon the Magician with those who believe in the Holy Spirit, thus, separating the two beliefs. The latter one is the orthodox faith, as witnessed by the rest of the Fathers, in continuity with the Catholic Church of today, thus, again, the association you make fails...

You wrote: The substance of the writing [Irenaeus] is what is important and it is evidence that Simon Magus started a religious sect in Rome circa 42 AD that went by the name "Christians" and it grew and evolved to encompass a lot of Christian heresies that Irenaeus traces back Simon Magus and his disciples A fantastic leap of faith based on a misreading of what is written. where exactly does Irenaeus make that accusation? NOWHERE. Irenaeus goes to great lengths to condemn the magician - while Irenaeus pronouncing that the following:

CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.

"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.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES -- BOOK III

Does Irenaeus sound like he is accusing the Catholic Church, the one established by Peter and Paul, to be one with the heretics, such as Simon the Magician? Irenaeus is the last person you will find your pet theory! He clearly states that the Roman Church is the center of Christian teaching Tradition, a Tradition given by St. Peter and Paul themselves! The substance of the writing merely proves you incorrect.

Does the Roman Catholic Church trace its magisterial doctrines, practices and authority to a Roman Bishop who sat in a sacerdotal chair for 25 years from 42 AD? to 67 AD? Yes or No.

I already told you that I cannot tell you without doubt that Peter was bishop for 25 years. But without doubt, Peter taught at Rome, Peter died at Rome, and Rome was considered the center of orthodox teaching for 1000 years by the ENTIRE Church, including the Eastern Fathers. Simon of Samaria, the magician, holds no commonality of doctrines with the Catholic Church. The smoke and mirrors of trying to associate Simon Peter with Simon the Magician is dead on arrival.

Regards

[HarleyD]

And why is it so important now for Protestants to believe that she didn't?

I don't think there is much argument in Christian circles about whether or not Mary was a virgin to death. There are opinions but, in truth, that is between her and Joseph.

The argument is whether we should use Mary as a round about way to get to Jesus? Do we think that if we pray to our Lord Jesus that the whole world will come to know Him tomorrow, Nov 3rd, and He won't listen to us; do we feel if we run to Mary she'll go ask her son who won't refuse her? Well why don't we pray Mary for the whole world to accept Christ tomorrow? (Oops, sorry, forgot. She won't interfere with our free will. That certainly is convenient.)

There is no reason to pray to Mary, Peter, or St. Fred. There is only one person in scripture that I know of who prayed for a dead person to intercede before God for him and it didn't go very well for him or his family.

[HarleyD]

Marian apparitions, however, have been noted throughout Church history

People have seen Lincoln's ghost in the White House. Is that from God?

[wagglebee]

So to your way of thinking, Lincoln was as significant to God's plans as Mary? Did God send an angel to Lincoln?

[Uncle Chip]

Does he really say that? Read it again more carefully.

[Lil Flower]

If you want to post your personal testimony on your salvation experience, I'll give you MY opinion...

Oh, I see, your playing God today. No one, not even Iscool, can judge another persons soul. That is for God and God alone.

[wagglebee]

I don't think there is much argument in Christian circles about whether or not Mary was a virgin to death. There are opinions but, in truth, that is between her and Joseph.

So, you do admit that there is absolutely nothing in scripture that discounts Mary's perpetual virginity?

[annalex]

So what if an appeal was made to remember older parts of God's word?

Because if 2 Tim 3 taught Sola Scriptura, it would have made clear that not only the Old Testament that is the scripture known to Timothy "since infancy", but also the yet-to-be-written scripture is "profitable", etc.

If you want to talk tradition, the tradition was against making up scriptural directives

Again, 2 Tim speaks of oral teaching that Timothy received from Paul. This is the particular scripture we are discussing because you chose it as affirming Sola Scriptura. If you want to change the subject, admit that 2 Timothy does not teach Sola Scriptura and then we'll discuss whatever you please.

I don't think the writers of these letters parsed each word like a lawyer

Let me remind you that all scripture is inspired by God, as the passage we are studying teaches. The choice of words then is also ispired by God. We, Catholics, study it carefully. If you prefer to be sloppy about it, please quit the sola Scriptura pretense which hardly matches this new attitude you are adopting. I insist that if God wanted Paul to write "all scripture is sufficient without recourse to oral tradition" then that is exactly what St. Paul would have written. But he wrote "profitable".

how do [the Catholics] consider councils of men the word of God, equal with the scriptures, and must be presumed to write scripture? And what sins were upon these men, such that they leaveneth the whole lump?

Your constant references to the sins of Catholic clergy is tiresome. The Fathers of the Church did not do anything beyond what Luther did: they sorted out what writings are inspired and what are not, and they explained what they mean. So, was Luther sinless?

The Councils of the Church are inspired by the Holy Ghost, yes, as Christ promised (Mt. 16; Mt 18; Jn 16:13).

Are you seriously saying that the Gospels of Jesus had not be written down at this time?

This is the historical consensus, yes, that at least some Epistles preceded the writing of the Gospels, and all of them preceded the writing of the Apocalypse, which is nevertheless also inspired.

Neither does the Scripture say that one is to pray to dead people

But we don't go by scripture alone. You do, yet you fantacized something about Timothy having been taught Christianity by his parents, of which there is no evidence anywhere.

If the scriptures are silent, so should you be.

This is the central question you are avoiding for several days running: Where is this said in the scripture?

if the church is wrong on inspired scriptures, but retained questionable scripture for it's own purposes?

What if Luther removed scripture for his own purposes?

Luther, however, is not in the scripture. The Church is, and St. Peter is. They are given power to "bind and loose" by Christ (Mt 16, 18). In order to make your point you need to claim that the Gospel of Matthew is invented by the Church for her own purposes.

I see nothing in Matthew that cites authority to a central church, of which the other churches are satellites

Matthew does one better, it cites authority to a single man, St. Peter (Mt 16). There are numerous appeals to unity of doctrine among all local churches. The Church is described as body of Christ by Paul (1 Cor 12).

I explained this misinterpretation of the "rock"

I read it. A fine example of contorting a simple scripture to fit the traditions of Protestant men. Tsk tsk.

The Catholic church councils said. So? All men.

I showed you where the Church derives its authority. You did not show me where Luther derived his authority, despite several days of obfuscation on the matter. Show me. Is the formatting wrong again?

The Septuagint dealt with the Old Testament

Dealt? The Septuagint is the Old Testament that St. Paul is talking about in 2 Timothy 3.

[The fact that Timothy was a bishop] has nothing to do with the authority of the Catholic church to make practices, like prayers to dead people, that are found nowhere in the scriptures.

The point is, the perfection of man of God (2 Tim 3:17) refers specifically to bishops then. The extention of 2 Tim 3:17 to laymen is a tradition of Protestant men. Tsk tsk.

It is up to you to show how departure from the scriptures is permitted, when there are numerous admonitions against such departures.

It is permitted, when the Church is doing it in communion with the chair of Peter, in Matthew 16 and 18. As to admonitions, show me. This is the point of the discussion. Where does the scripture teach Sola Scriptura?

So it can include bad works?

Of course not. I thought the question was merely rhetorical, and did not answer it yesterday, but if you are sincerely in the dark about it, no, bad works are not necessary for salvation.

all we have for trustworthy truth is the written scriptures.

You keep saying this like a clockwork toy, but I'd like scripture for it. I know your opinion already.

You did not rebut anything I posted to you, and you did not show my why 2 Tim 3 teaches Sola Scriptura.

[William Terrell]

So, you do admit that there is absolutely nothing in scripture that discounts Mary's perpetual virginity?

Why should it matter? What matters is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.

We might get some insight into the matter, for those for whom it's an issue, from Matthew:

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Could you see how the above passage would be a teeninesy bit suggestive?

[adiaireton8]

The general rule is that if God didn't say something one way or another then we can't speak for God.

But this "general rule" is not in Scripture. So, once again, you are contradicting yourself.

-A8

[HarleyD]

So, you do admit that there is absolutely nothing in scripture that discounts Mary's perpetual virginity?

On the contrary, I think there is a great deal in scripture that discounts Mary's perpetual virginity. I believe Calvin, Luther and a host of other people were wrong on the matter. I believe there are good reasons as to why they were wrong, but they were wrong nevertheless.

[wagglebee]

Firstborn is a Jewish legal term it has NOTHING to do with any subsequent births. The word til means nothing, it does not presume any subsequent event.

But, I'll ask again, if all of this was so obvious, how come Luther, Calvin and Wesley all missed it?

[HarleyD]

So to your way of thinking, Lincoln was as significant to God's plans as Mary? Did God send an angel to Lincoln?

Do you think every apparition of Mary is legit? How do you know that even ONE of them is legit?

[wagglebee]

No, they are not all legit. The answer to the second is faith, but then again my salvation does not depend upon it.

[HarleyD]

But this "general rule" is not in Scripture. So, once again, you are contradicting yourself.

You keep saying I'm contradicting myself when all I'm saying is that if it isn't clear from scripture then a person can't lay claim to the issue. There are a number of verses throughout scripture that talks about false prophets and teachers stating things that God never stated. Here's one:

Jer 23:20-34 "The anger of the LORD will not turn back until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart; In the last days you will clearly understand it. I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied. But if they had stood in My council, Then they would have announced My words to My people, And would have turned them back from their evil way And from the evil of their deeds. Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off? Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD. "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD. I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy falsely in My name, saying, 'I had a dream, I had a dream!' "

"How long? Is there anything in the hearts of the prophets who prophesy falsehood, even these prophets of the deception of their own heart, who intend to make My people forget My name by their dreams which they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot My name because of Baal? The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?" declares the LORD. "Is not My word like fire?" declares the LORD, "and like a hammer which shatters a rock? Therefore behold, I am against the prophets," declares the LORD, "who steal My words from each other. Behold, I am against the prophets," declares the LORD, "who use their tongues and declare, 'The Lord declares.' Behold, I am against those who have prophesied false dreams," declares the LORD, "and related them and led My people astray by their falsehoods and reckless boasting; yet I did not send them or command them, nor do they furnish this people the slightest benefit," declares the LORD. "Now when this people or the prophet or a priest asks you saying, 'What is the oracle of the LORD?' then you shall say to them, 'What oracle?' The LORD declares, 'I will abandon you.' Then as for the prophet or the priest or the people who say, 'The oracle of the LORD,' I will bring punishment upon that man and his household.

I think that presents a definite positional paper that God does not look kindly upon them who distorts His word. Trouble is, not many people care whether they distort God's word because they are into all this sing-songish "God loves you, God loves me" type of nonsense. God is so adamant about His word that He was willing to abandon Israel for their distortion of it. But, hey, it's in the Old Testament and that was then and this is now.

[HarleyD]

I don't pick and choose apparitions nor do I build shires to them.

[wagglebee]

Is your contention that Mary's role was complete upon the Lord's birth?

[adiaireton8]

all I'm saying is that if it isn't clear from scripture then a person can't lay claim to the issue.

But that itself isn't in Scripture. (And the passages in Jeremiah don't even come close to saying that.) You are stipulating a rule not found in Scripture. Doing so is contradicting yourself because the rule you are stipulating is: Don't stipulate rules not found in Scripture.

-A8

[HarleyD]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Mary's role was complete".

Do I believe that God "used" her and threw her away after wards? No.

Do I believe that God used her and then blessed her in the eyes of other Jewish women by giving her more children? Yes.

Do I believe God honor Joseph and took away his reproach by giving him children? Yes.

This is all supported by scripture. I think Luther and Calvin didn't wish to face the "delicate" issue of dealing with such a minor doctrine. Perhaps had they known how the Catholics would have blown this up out of proportions, they might have taken it more seriously.