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.

[The Cuban]

WHy don't you get off of the board, and go to your local major city library to the archeology section and look it up? I am not a freaking research librarian.

[The Cuban]

Oh, and more importantly, I can tell you as an attorney, as you are raising the charge, the burden of persuasion and production is in your hands, not mine.

[Salvation]

A quote for all to ponder:

The saints must be honored as friends of Christ and children and heirs of God. Let us carefully observe the manner of life of all the apostles, martyrs, ascetics, and just men who announced the coming of the Lord. And let us emulate their faith, charity, hope, zeal, life, patience under suffering, and perseverance unto death so that we may also share their crowns of glory.

-- St. John Damascus

[GSlob]

"Whether he was there, or not, is irrelevant.
?"
- Of course irrelevant.
If you get a check for a tax refund that you have not requested and the grounds for which you do not know, you are to cash it [real story, happened to me]. The nature of, and the reasons for, the check are irrelevant, as long as it does not bounce. Thus the check and the reasons for it are to be deemed bona fide.
Ditto here. Enjoy and study the art generated, and be grateful for it. If the history took a different turn, the best one could have gotten instead would be Hagya Sophia, for very high quality artists were [still are] very sparse and at the time were not particularly widely ranging in geographical terms. And Michelangelo was a much better artist than Sinon.

[doc1019]

Now I understand your point, thanks for your patient answer.

[wmfights]

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

It's hard to have a discussion when things are misstated.

I have no reason to believe that Peter didn't visit Rome. I have ample evidence to disbelieve that Peter alone founded the church in Rome; that Peter was the Bishop in Rome for 27 years; that Peter was crucified upside down by Nero; and that Peter was a "super Apostle" and only those who followed through him are the one and only leaders of Christians.

[wmfights]

"I’m not saying he was not there; just that nothing of historical value puts him there."
___________________________

If he had been there for 27 years as the Bishop of that church wouldn't it be fair to expect to see some evidence of that?

He may have been there for short periods, but where is the evidence he alone founded the church, instructed it's members and died there.

[Campion]

Like most historians, I'm still waiting for proof that Peter ever ventured to Rome.

How about the fact that his tomb is there?

Why would he, he had already shown that he was unworthy by denying Christ three times. And after denying Christ, we don't hear about him much.

You'd better blow the dust off your Bible, and read the closing chapter of the Gospel of John, then read Acts at least up to chapter 15, then read the two epistles written by someone about whom you say "we don't hear much".

[doc1019]

See my post #57. As for dust on my Bible, I will thank you know that my Bible might be worn and tattered around the edges, but dusty ... never.

[stfassisi]

There are more historical records to show that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome until he was martyred about 67.
Here are just a few...

Lactantius, The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5, AD 318, "When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew."

Bishop Peter of Alexandria, Penance, Canon 9, AD 306, "Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome."

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, The Chronicle, AD 303, "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [AD 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years."



The Poem Against the Marcionites, AD 267, "In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down."

St. Cyprian, Epistle 52, A. D. 251, described Rome as "The place of Peter."

Orien, Third Commentary on Genesis, AD 232, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History, "Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way."



The Little Labyrinth, AD 211, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 5:28:3, "Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter."

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4, 5:1, AD 210, "Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood."

Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 and 32:2, AD 200, "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]…[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans , which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter."

Clement of Alexandria, Sketches, AD 200, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 6, 14:1, "The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings; should write down what had been proclaimed."

Caius, Disputation with Proclus, AD 198, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:5, "It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Caius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Caius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’."

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies 3:3:1, 3:3:2, and 3:3:3, AD 189, "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.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us."

St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter, AD 170, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:8, "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time."

St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, wrote Letter to the Romans 4:3, AD 110, "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive."

Pope Clement (fourth Bishop of Rome), First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 5, AD 96, "But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience."

There are more historical records to show that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome until he was martyred about 67

[Uncle Chip]

Hey Guys! If I do Adiaireton8's work for him and complete his Part II]Evidence from the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers for that great ecumenical treatise below, will you let him out of his purgatorial dungeon? I changed the numbers "1 and 2" to Roman numerals "I and II". I thought it would go over better with the magisterium there.

Are there any other changes that I should make on our treatise thus far, and if so, please provide the citations so as to include them. If I have left out anything that can be remotely construed by the most rhetorical amongst as evidence, I will post it and I hope you will as well.

I will be down at the monastery later today in their inquisitional library where they torture all those writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to get them to cough up everything they said and even lot of things that they didn't say. We will use every inquisitional device to find all that we need to complete Part II of the treatise.

As you can see, we tortured the writings of Clement of Rome and Justin Martur, but we could not break them. They would not tell us what we wanted to hear. Pray that we are more successful with the latter.

We are doing this for poor Adiaireton8 to spring him from his purgatorial dungeon. Please don't be mean to him, he tried. But where he failed, Uncle Chip will prevail on his behalf. Please help me.

Hang in there, Adiaireton8. Help is on the way. Keep the faith. And I hope they let you read this.

THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO

Part I] Evidence From the Holy Scriptures: There is no evidence at all.

Part II] Evidence From the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: (a work in progress by Uncle Chip on Adiaireton8's behalf)

A. Clement of Rome --- No Evidence

B. Justin Martur --- No Evidence

C. Ignatius of Antioch --- (pending)

D. Irenaeus of Lyons --- (questionable)

E. Dionysius at Corinth --- (pending)

F. Tertullian --- (pending)

G. Hippolytus --- (pending)

H.

I.

J.

K.

[saradippity]

Can you cite the passages in any of the Four Gospels wherein Jesus told anyone but Peter specifically to "feed the flock,sheep,lambs",I am sure it must be there but I have vision problems and often miss a lot. I just don't find it.

I am kind of weird in that I never rely on anything after the Four Gospels until I really understand what went on while Jesus walked,so to speak. It's probably because I am somewhat disorganized so I am kind of fanatic about viewing things in the "order" of presentation.

[Quix]

The Roman religious group/church/denomination/sect.

I don't know how to put it any better.

Father sends His only son to die for a bunch of critters. Son comes and dies a horrid death. Son models what being a servant leader is all about. Son leaves to return to The Father. Sends Holy Spirit to continue to lead the individuals and groups of critters into all truth in humility and shared discernment, decision process etc. as outlined in I Cor 12-14.

After 200 or so years, a group arises with very successful political skills and takes deep powerful root in Rome. Additional political escapades acquire even more power. Tradition builds as calsification and fossilization on the growing plethora of monuments to various human critters--interestingly to human power mongers--instead of to God.

Seems to me if Biblical monuments to the glory of GOD were the objective, depictions of the text of Scripture would have done nicely . . . especially given God's aversion to graven images and all.

In any case, the growing power is UNsurprisingly matched by growing cycles of corruption, gross sin, hypocrisy and overweaning arrogance, haughtiness and abuse of the sheep.

To think that God would have left HIS ANOINTING on such a pile of horse processed hay OF ANY denominational flavor is to construe God as an idiot. To think that Almighty God is so stupid as to allow a collection of folks in His Son's name to acquire power and then use that power on a list of ways OPPOSITE to the model and directions of His Son's teachings . . . and imagining that God would then allow Holy Spirit's anointing to remain on that group???? That's nonsense. Sheer affrontery.

God is not into making sculptures out of horse biscuits.

He's not into gilding horse biscuits.

He leaves all that to Martha Stewart.

Now, certainly, when any individuals have arisin--perhaps again--within the Roman group or any other group who are diligent about following Christ's teachings and examples earnestly and diligently . . . I suspect evidence can be found for a return of the anointing of His Spirit so long as such a case were operant. But such things tend to ebb more than they flow, in my experience and observations.

I suspect a close examination of any denominational group would reveal great long periods of an absence of Holy Spirit's anointing on the leadership and the group with maybe brief interludes where He returned for short gigs, as it were.

What's straw man-ish about expecting, understanding and observing that Roman folks are just as human as other humans? Seems like a no-brainer, to me . . . unless maybe someone is contending that ALL the Roman believers and especially the hierarchy have always been ET's from Zeta Reticuli or some such. Failing that, I think it's quite reasonable to expect Roman believers and leaders to be just as human as the rest of us.

Now why they have appeared so often in history to work so heard demontrating that they are MORE FLAWED HUMAN EXAMPLES-on average in certain eras--than a lot of us--could be a mystery worth exploring. Though I suspect it merely has to do with the arrogance of power mongering and absolute power corrupting absolutely.

As Pastor says . . . God must regret that He didn't redeem monkies, instead.

[Quix]

Break's about over . . .

back to the future . . . no . . .

to

going to pot.

[Lil Flower]

I have a question for you. Are you a Christian?

[Running On Empty]

:-)

[Iscool]

The verse you cited does no such thing. Just because Paul or some other Apostle went to Rome does not logically mean that Peter didn't.

If the 'pope' was in Rome, wouldn't the chief Jews already have heard of Peter, and been preached the Kingdom of God??? Of course they would...

But the chiefs of the Jews knew nothing about the Kingdom of God other than the small talk and rumors they heard about another sect of religious nuts...And since the Jewish people were Peter's responsibility, that's a pretty good indication Peter was no where near the area...

[wideawake]

if I understand the history correctly there was not a large Jewish or Israelite community in Rome

The Jewish community in Rome in the 1st century was the largest Jewish community in the world outside of Jerusalem.

Some estimates claim as many as 50,000.

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.