11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity Is Centered on St. Peter and Rome

Bl. John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” History paints an overwhelming picture of St. Peter’s apostolic ministry in Rome and this is confirmed by a multitude of different sources within the Early Church. Catholic Encyclopedia states, “In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure.” Protestantism as a whole seeks to divorce Christianity from history by rending Gospel message out of its historical context as captured by our Early Church Fathers. One such target of these heresies is to devalue St. Peter and to twist the authority of Rome into a historical mishap within Christianity. To wit, the belief has as its end the ultimate end of all Catholic and Protestant dialogue – who has authority in Christianity?

Why is it important to defend the tradition of St. Peter and Rome?
The importance of establishing St. Peter’s ministry in Rome may be boiled down to authority and more specifically the historic existence and continuance of the Office of Vicar held by St. Peter. To understand why St. Peter was important and what authority was given to him by Christ SPL has composed two lists – 10 Biblical Reasons Christ Founded the Papacy and 13 Reasons St. Peter Was the Prince of the Apostles.

The rest of the list is cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia on St. Peter and represents only a small fraction of the evidence set therein.

The Apostolic Primacy of St. Peter and Rome

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.

1. The Gospel of St. John

That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ’s prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — “And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.

2. Salutations, from Babylon

St. Peter’s First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).

3. Gospel of St. Mark

From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.

4. Testimony of Pope St. Clement I

Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5):

“Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory”.

He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us” (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.

5. Testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch

In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Epistle to the Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.

6. Taught in the Same Place in Italy

Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says:

“You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).

7. Rome: Founded by Sts. Peter and Paul

Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.

8. St. Peter Announced the Word of God in Rome

In his “Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, Church History IV.14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above).

9. Rome: Where Authority is Ever Within Reach

Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Præscriptione 36, he says:

“If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John.”

In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Against Marcion 4.5).

10. Come to the Vatican and See for Yourself

The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25) directed against the Montanists: “But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church”.

By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there” (i.e. at Rome).

11. Ancient Epigraphic Memorial

There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment (“Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat”, ed. Preuschen, Tübingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter’s death in Rome.

The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.

Bottom line. The Bereans checked with scripture to see if even what Paul and Silas taught was true.

yup, with OT scripture

They took the Apostolic Tradition preached by Paul and Silas (handed down to them) and cross-verified with scripture

That's downright orthodox of them

instead, why does your philosophy reject the Berean way of accepting Christ's teachings handed down via the Apostolic Tradition?

Be like the Bereans

The Bereans did NOT stick to cynical personal interpretation and listened to Paul and Silas. They referred to scripture but accepted the ORAL teachings of Paul and Silas. And they believed.

The Thessalonians stuck to cynical personal interpretation and rejected the oral teachings of Paul and Silas.

>>The Bereans did NOT stick to cynical personal interpretation and listened to Paul and Silas. They referred to scripture but accepted the ORAL teachings of Paul and Silas. And they believed.<<

But now we DO have the writings of the apostles as scripture and unlike the followers of the RCC we know that new revelation and teaching is NOT given to the RCC by Christ as it was to the apostles. Only Catholics, Mormons, Muslims and the like believe that there is new revelation.

1 Tim. 5:17 17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

qui bene praesunt presbyteri duplici honore digni habeantur maxime qui laborant in verbo et doctrina

οι καλως προεστωτες πρεσβυτεροι διπλης τιμης αξιουσθωσαν μαλιστα οι κοπιωντες εν λογω και διδασκαλια

or Acts 15:6 συνηχθησαν δε οι αποστολοι και οι πρεσβυτεροι ιδειν περι του λογου τουτου
conveneruntque apostoli et seniores videre de verbo hoc

And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

The English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as "elder" or "presbyter.

take Acts 20:17-38
And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church./ a Mileto autem mittens Ephesum vocavit maiores natu ecclesiae

And 28: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. / adtendite vobis et universo gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit episcopos regere ecclesiam Dei quam adquisivit sanguine suo

So, the presbuteros (priest in English) were made overseers of the flock, to feed the Church of God..

So I exhort the elders [presbyters] among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed: Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. (1 Pet 5:1-4)

So, buddy boy, the Cynic's interpretation negating Christ's teachings on the royal priesthood of all believers with the elders/ministerial priesthood is utterly wrong.

dartuser: I'm 100% sure he never said Matthew was written only in Hebrew ...

One thing that is absolutely certain at this point is that the original language of the gospels was Hebrew, not Greek.

Why don't you actually read before commenting?

I've noticed in all your posts, whether commenting on the Bible or here on other peoples comments, a lack of reading

it would be good to read the Bible for one. so many arguments on the scripture and Christianity without any knowledge or wisdom or prayerful meditation on Christ... tsk. tsk.

These councils were called in response to the Cathar and Albigenesian, which were using adulterated vernacular versions of the Bible that produced doctrines that were destructive to society and the individuals.

Oh, you mean more of those groups who your religion tortured and murdered for refusing to bow down to your popes...

And it's good to see a Catholic admit that there were other versions of the scriptures out there being spread about besides the Catholic version...

But you guys always fail to mention that those adulterated versions are the ones the early church fathers mostly quoted...And that those versions became known as the Received Texts, and the Masoretic Texts, and the Majority Texts...

AND, that these are the adulterated texts that Martin Luther used to write his bible in the vernacular...

And those original Greek texts were still being copied in Greek (not Latin) up thru the 10th century and beyond until they were ultimately translated into English...

There's an awful lot you guys leave out in your stories...

post 132: One thing that is absolutely certain at this point is that the original language of the gospels was Hebrew, not Greek.

There are passages in the Greek translations that were copied verbatum, rather than translating them logically for meaning, proving that it was specifically Hebrew from which the Greek gospels were copied. Hebrew puns and colloquy could not otherwise have found their way into the Greek copies. Had a Jewish author written them in Greek, they would certainly not have made such a stupid mistake.

Dart-user: I'm 100% sure he never said Matthew was written only in Hebrew ..

Are you also 100% certain of the other erroneous beliefs you have?

>>The English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as "elder" or "presbyter.<<

Not this again. So it’s “commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter” but the Catholics would prefer the word priest so they just use that right? Let’s look at the interpretation of “presbuteros”.

Presbuteros
Definition: elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly.

Now let’s look at the word used in the New Testament for priest.

Hebrews 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest (archierea – only used for Christ in the New Testament) who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.

1 Peter 2:5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood (hierateuma – used for all believers), offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

I can’t seem to find any reference in the New Testament of any Church leader being referred to as a priest. They are referred to as elders/presbuteros (an elder is the older of two people). The term presbuteros is used 67 times in the New Testament.

Matthew 13
Mark 7
Luke 5
John 1
Acts 18
1 Timothy 4
Titus 1
Hebrews 1
James 1
1 Peter 2
2 John 1
3 John 1
Revelation 12
Now, the Greek word for priest are:

Kaiaphas – used for an Israelite High Priest
Hiereus - a priest, one who offers sacrifice to a god (in Jewish and pagan religions; of Christians only met.).

I still haven’t found a Greek word that means priest applied to the leadership in the New Testament church. I can find the leadership of the Jews and Pagans referred to as priests but not the leadership of the New Testament church.

So, once again, without using entomology could you please find from the New Testament where leadership in the church is called a priest.

>>So I exhort the elders [presbyters] among you, as a fellow elder<<

No Greek word there meaning priest. Only through entomology does the RCC get to the use of priest. The only leadership positions in the New Testament called priest is Christ, the leaders of the Jewish religion, and Pagan leadership. So which is it?

“buddy boy” ey? You really need to calm down and read scripture instead of RCC propaganda.

And this is apparent in the roles of the elders (Presbuteros), bishops etc. in the New Testament -- NOTE: the English term "priest" is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros (presbyster/elder) -- these have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

It certainly is not...That would be like you saying that in the language of the Catholics, a Chevy Corvair is the simple contraction of the words 'ice cream cone'...

It's not amazing that your religion makes these things up, but what's amazing is that some of you people actually seem to fall for it...

And BTW, you might want to study the duties and activities of the OT priesthood, and then study and try to figure out what it means that the 'veil of the temple' was ripped asunder...It really is enlightening...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.