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.

[doc1019]

I said that we don’t hear MUCH about Peter after he betrayed Jesus and we don’t. I didn’t say that we never hear about him again. He betrayed Jesus and was forgiven, however, his position within the fold diminished considerably after that.

This still does not answer my original question … were is there physical proof that Peter ever visited Rome?

[doc1019]

Neither lived contemporaneous with Peter. Tertuillian AD 145-220, Ireneaus AD 120-202. So anything they have to report would be hearsay. They never claim to have actually seen Peter walking the streets of Rome.

[livius]

I think many people who are not Catholics regard Rome as the equivalent of Mecca - that is, something essential to the religion. Rome is an historical place, there is ample evidence and tradition that St. Peter was (a) appointed by Our Lord to be his vicar and (b) was in Rome. However, none of this ultimately matters, because the Church can exist without Rome the city, and even, for a time and not ideally, without the Pope. It does not cease to exist, for example, between the time of the death of a pope and the installation of his successor.

The Body of Christ is formed by all of us, including the saints, that is, those who went before us and are now the clouds of witnesses, and if someone were to smite the shepherd, the flock might be scattered - but it would eventually be gathered together again.

As for Rome, it is sacred because of the blood of martyrs, it is symbolic, it has been vitally important for centuries - but it is not the Church, and the Church does not depend upon Rome for its existence.

[wmfights]

"Was Saint Jerome mistaken?"
______________________________

This is the crux of the problem. St. Jerome lived from 347AD-420AD. How could he assert who was in Rome 300 years before? Did he have tangible proof?

I think it's ironic that Tertullian is sighted as a source since he was persona non grata after he became a Montanist and never was declared a saint.

Relying on "oral history" is not reliable just look at the doctrines concerning Mary.

[wmfights]

"... but then the Catholics would all boycott the show."
_____________________

No, they would just start another thread and hope we would not dispute their view of "history".

[RobbyS]

There is early testimony that he was, and none to the contrary. But as to the second point, I think there is a misconception about the social status of the early Christians. Our Lord was supported by women such as Mary Magdalen "from the own means," and he was consulted by the likes of Nicodemus, who was a very rich men. St. Paul aludes to the "knights of Caesar." Judaism already had wide appeal among all social classes of Roman society, and her comes a form of Judaism that does away with all the particularity of Judaism that repelled them. Yes, so Rome was a natural place for Peter to go.

[wmfights]

"It rides and falls on the contention that "Peter and his successors" have a connection that allows them to be the final say no matter what."

The whole concept of "Apostolic succession" is flawed. We do not have any "God Breathed" inspired writings in the Canon written after the Apostolic era. We have no supernatural powers passed on to any of the leaders that came after the Apostles. Peter being in Rome and the Bishop of that church wouldn't really change the argument against "Apostolic succession" if you read the Bible.

[wmfights]

"...there is ample evidence and tradition that St. Peter was (a) appointed by Our Lord to be his vicar and (b) was in Rome."
________________________________

Other than a questionable translation in Matthew what proof of these claims do you have?

[wmfights]

"There is early testimony that he was, and none to the contrary."
____________________________________

Please site these sources. I'm not picking on you, but this statement keeps getting made. Jerome is writing 300+ years after the fact. The statements made by Iraneus contradict the position that Peter founded the church in Rome and was Bishop of it. Who specifically testifies that Peter was the founder of the church in Rome and was the Bishop there?

[Uncle Chip]

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)".

Ahhh !!! Finally some sacred words from Holy Father Irenaeus!!! Thank you!!! Let us meditate on them but first some questions:

1]Does Irenaeus list his sources for including "Peter's" name in the above quote. Clearly, if he had, the Scriptures in his hand, he could cite Luke, Paul, and Peter as sources for Paul "evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" there, but where oh where did he get the information to put "Peter's" name there???

2]Certainly he had Saint Justin Martur's writings in his hands or that early presbyterian Saint Clement of Rome, later papalized? What did these Ante-Nicene Fathers say about Peter and Rome?. If anyone should know, they should. Post their sacred writings on this matter so we can meditate on them as well, or are they silent on the matter and thus arguing to the contrary from silence?

3]And could Irenaeus have been influenced by all of that Gnostic literature that he was digesting, possibly believing that some of its imaginative stories were actually true. Could he have thought that the apocryphal Acts of Peter or the Acts of Peter and Paul were true, or believable in some way, or even that these wonderful apocrypha were canonical in any way? Maybe he believed these myths about Peter were actually true, after all the magisterium claim that the canon of Scripture was not established until the 4th century, right?. How could Irenaeus possibly know that these books were going to be put on the "not to be read " list? How can we fault poor Irenaeus?

4]What do the great scholars of the Holy See have to say about Irenaeus. Try these words from the great Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops:

"Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as 'greatest, most ancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul'. Here we must admit a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul".

And further:

"According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone, appointed Linus as the first in the succession of bishops of Rome. This suggests that Irenaeus did not think of Peter and Paul as bishops, or of Linus and those that followed him as successors of Peter more than Paul".

Some very sobering points made by an honest Catholic author who has probably had very few masses said for him. How did you guys forget Paul all these years? Father Irenaeus would be ashamed of you. You could have atleast made them co-Popes, but no, you had to rob Paul to papalize only Peter.

Is that enough of our meditation on the sacred words of Father Irenaeus or is there more? No evidence so far of Peter being "bishop" but actually words to the contrary. And where is anything so far from Irenaeus on that legendary "25 year reign on the sacerdotal chair and upside down crucifixion under Nero"? Is he arguing for this from his silence on the matter? And was he too consigned to purgatory for his sins of being rhetorical or maybe not being rhetorical enough? Let's all pray that we find the evidence to spring him from there.

[Uncle Chip]

Good to see that you've stepped into this discussion with humility, charity, and love to your brethren.

Thank you, I had good teachers.

[Uncle Chip]

So they consign Tertullian to purgatory and deny him "sainthood" and yet quote him as a source for that legendary Petrine Bishopric in Rome that we have heard so much about all these many years. What does that say about what they really think about Tertullian and his writings?. Perhaps becoming a Montanist was his Penance for his sins of rhetoric embellishment?

[Salvation]

Great points. Glad the thread is still on topic. And most amazingly, attracting many Catholic-bashers.

[The Cuban]

What,you want a photograph or a post card, willfull blindness and sophistry on your part, I can not correct.

[wmfights]

"So they consign Tertullian to purgatory and deny him "sainthood" and yet quote him as a source for that legendary Petrine Bishopric in Rome that we have heard so much about all these many years."
___________________________

Somewhere along the line institutional "group think" took over and any and all dissent was to be destroyed. It's easy to understand in the context of the threat from the Marcionites, Ebionites and especially the Gnostics, but the consequences are pretty dramatic in that the one thing guiding the behavior (a desire to protect orthodoxy) led to the opposite outcome.

[Bainbridge]

When a Roman Catholic doctrine is challenged it is bashing.
Is it Protestant bashing when you challenge a belief of the "separated brethren"?

[The Cuban]

How can you assert, in the face of the mountain of evidence that Peter was in Rome, that he was not 2000 years later?

[Uncle Chip]

Adiaireton8, Adiareton8, are you okay? Have they consigned you to that purgatorial dungeon until you can come up with the evidence that our great ecumenical thesis requires? Are you having trouble with your Part 2?

Well hang in there, buddy, because I am going to help you. I am going to do your part for you with the help of those left here in the land of the living threads and we will spring you from your purgatory as soon as possible. So keep the faith --- help is on the way.

[I hope they let you read this]

[doc1019]

Willful blindness! I think not, just a strong desire for facts not hype or fable. If historical fact is not forthcoming then I must conclude that the events in question are still in question.

Rather than make light of my question how about giving me some historical proof. I accept nothing with blind faith. I accept much by faith (not blind) based solely on biblical pronouncements. The Bible puts Paul in Rome but says nothing about Peter being there. I can find nothing in either archeology or contemporary documentation that puts Peter in Rome. I’m not saying he was not there; just that nothing of historical value puts him there.

[The Cuban]

Or maybe you want a hotel log saying "peter checked in here, AD 63, signed Nero"? Tell me the proof you need other than 2000 years of oral and written history attesting to that fact, a marked grave, markings throughout the catacombs indicating his presence, and the fact that a church and/or pilmgrimage area was built almost immediately over the spot of his execution since immediately after his death?