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.

[Diego1618]

Where's their evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch?

I'll bet the Vatican knows!

[Diego1618]

The tribes were assimilated into other cultures by then, in fact, were probably considered Gentiles.

Bingo!

[1000 silverlings]

Yippee! Did I win the pot? I bet 2 dollars if not more's in it!

[Diego1618]

Do you ever read "Debka.com"?

I have in the past....but not on a regular basis. Why? What's up?

[Uncle Chip]

Peter got around. He went Ireland where they called him "Patrick" (no doubt from Pater and Bishopric) where he chased all the snakes out. From there he went to Scotland where he was called "Paddy" and they named wagons after him. Gold tablets found in the Americas reference... well you get the picture.

He had those happy feet and was fast in his old age, I hear. He hustled all the way from the Babylon in 67AD to Rome at the age of what 75 in a few short months just to be there for all the fun and festivities, torchlight parades and all. He should have fired his tour guide.

[Campion]

Where's their evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch?

There's no evidence for that from the Bible, either, is there. :-0

However, not only do we not wish to provide any evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch, we'll positively insist that he was the Bishop of Antioch ... before he turned over that See to another man, and went to Rome.

[1000 silverlings]

Ah, that must be where we got Peter Rabbit from

[Campion]

Since there became 2 copies of Ignatius' Epistles (one set where there is no mention of the Catholic church), which ones are you referring to???

How about the Syriac version here, translated by Protestant Phillip Schaff, on the CCEL website hosted by the Protestant Calvin College.

[Uncle Chip]

However, not only do we not wish to provide any evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch, we'll positively insist that he was the Bishop of Antioch ... before he turned over that See to another man, and went to Rome.

So then you disagree with that great Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan who insists that Apostles were never Bishops and vice versa?

[1000 silverlings]

Actually, now that I think about it, being a bishop would be a reduction in rank for an Apostle. Apostles got their authority from Christ, bishops got theirs from the Apostles.

[Uncle Chip]

Ah, that must be where we got Peter Rabbit from

Yes, since he probably died in Babylon shortly after writing his last Epistle from there, he became known as the "Eastern Bunny". And people say that there is nothing Christian about bunny rabbits and Easter or is it Eastern?

[Campion]

So then you disagree with that great Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan who insists that Apostles were never Bishops and vice versa?

I don't know who F. A. Sullivan is, and don't know why you think I should consider him authoritative.

It is true that the office of Apostle is superior to that of Bishop, so that St. Peter would hold the office of Bishop of Antioch while keeping all of his authority as an Apostle.

As for his position in Antioch, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

The later tradition, which existed as early as the end of the second century (Origen, "Hom. vi in Lucam"; Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", III, xxxvi), that Peter founded the Church of Antioch, indicates the fact that he laboured a long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end of his life and then appointed Evodrius, the first of the line of Antiochian bishops, head of the community. This latter view would best explain the tradition referring the foundation of the Church of Antioch to St. Peter.

[Campion]

Sorry, that should have read:

It is true that the rank of Apostle is superior to that of Bishop, so that St. Peter would hold the office of Bishop of Antioch while keeping all of his authority as an Apostle.

[Uncle Chip]

And holding two positions was frowned upon. How can you be bishop and apostle, and travel and reside in one place.

[1000 silverlings]

Why wasn't he just called Pope? Why "bishop" when the rank is lower?

[Uncle Chip]

I don't know who F. A. Sullivan is, and don't know why you think I should consider him authoritative.

He's cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia and wrote From Apostles to Bishops

It is true that the office of Apostle is superior to that of Bishop, so that St. Peter would hold the office of Bishop of Antioch while keeping all of his authority as an Apostle.

Holding two offices at the same time was frowned upon in the Scriptures. An apostle was a travelling missionary and founded churches and moved on. Peter travelled around the area as an Apostle while James was probably a bishop or presbyter along with others in Jerusalem. If anyone was the first bishop of Antioch, it would have been Stephen or Barnabas. Does Eusebius mention them?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

That's ridiculous

Been around since 1998. Voice of experience. Glad to meet you Mr. August of 2006.

[Uncle Chip]

One other thing about that quote from Eusebius. Peter spent more time in Jerusalem than in Antioch. Why wouldn't Eusebius say that Peter founded the church of Jerusalem ---which he apparently did. If he was Bishop anywhere, he would have been the Bishop of Jerusalem not Antioch.

Do you think that Eusebius was trying to disguise Peter's Jewish heritage by linking him to Antioch rather than Jerusalem?

[stfassisi]

Syriac Fathers say Peter was Bishop of Antioch for 30 years

Please post the writings of the Syriac fathers that explicitly say Peter was the Bishop of Antioch for 30 years.

Post the actual writings,NOT protestant interpretations please.

[1000 silverlings]

Can you read Aramaic?