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.

[Iscool]

Seems a little odd that the Jewish leaders didn't mention the first pope...Apparently the Jewish leaders had never been in contact with Peter...Act 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.

Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Act 28:24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

If Peter was in Rome, Paul then was building on another man's ministry, contrary to the bible and Roman theology...

[Salvation]

So are you saying that Peter and Paul worked against each other?

I don't think so!!

[Iscool]

Peter was told to feed the sheep...Paul told the elders to feed the church...

Act 20:28 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.

And who ordained the overseers??? Was it Peter??? Nope...How about Paul??? Nope...It was the Holy Ghost...

Was 'feed the flock' a special admonition given to only Peter??? Of course not...

And what was the food that was to be fed???

[Iscool]

So are you saying that Peter and Paul worked against each other?

Nope...I'm saying Peter wasn't there...And the bible hints at that as well...

[RobbyS]

You have the testimony of Ireneaus and Tertullian. Absent evidence to the contrary, that should be enough. Besides, this is as unexceptional as asserting that a Frenchman might go to live in Paris. Rome was a magnet drawing people from all over the world and had a large Jewish population.

[Running On Empty]

Please tell me the chapter and verse where the Bible "hints" at that.

[HarleyD]

From Irenaeus of Lyons:

"...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.[sic: not Pope] For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6 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. - Irenaeus-Book 3

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews3 in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,...

Irenaeus tells us several things. First, Peter AND Paul established the Church of Rome. Second, when the Church of Rome was established they left it in the hands of Linus. Finally, they left Rome.

Paul had several journeys to Rome and Irenaeus seems to suggest that Peter had at least one. But Irenaeus does not make Peter the Pope of Rome nor does he say that Peter stay around to oversee it. On the contrary, he says he left. I find Catholic writings often leave out these important facts in Irenaeus' writings. Later writings is nothing more than speculation.

[annalex]

The charge to Peter in the last chapter of John was self-evidently given to St. Peter alone.

References to consecration and ordination are numerous in the epistles and the Acts.

The food was primarily the Eucharist, which, Christ taught, was "food indeed". Nothing prevents us to understand is expansively as the entire teaching of the Church. This is how Peter himself understands it in 2 Peter -- as the deposit of faith he received firsthand.

There is no mutual exclusivity between St. Paul and St. Peter. Whatever St. Paul did, even if arguing with St. Peter, he did because St. Peter and St. James, "the pillars" authorized him.

It is a bit late. If you are not sure of the verses I am referring to, I will give you references tomorrow.

[RobbyS]

No, Peter did not "rule" the Church from Rome. What he and Paul did was to lend their authority to the see of Rome, especially since each man was martyred there. As a result the capital city of the empire became the main focal point of the Church, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem.

[annalex]

Paul received his authority from Peter and James. He was sent to the Gentiles, but Peter had the universal order to wield the keys and "feed the lambs".

[Gamecock]

Come on Harley, let's not let facts get in the way of current tradition! ;-)

[John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?]

Is that why Paul had to confront Peter about his hypocrisy? Is that why God had to give peter a vision about the unclean becoming clean? The gentiles were infidels in the eyes of Peter until God gave him the vision. Paul was called to the gentiles while peter was called to the Jews.

[annalex]

The decision was already made at the Jerusalem council to let go of the dietetic law. That was done under St. Peter's leadership who had the vision (Acts 10) about it. St. Paul objected to Peter's personal behavior, but as we know from Scripture, it was Peter who initiated the reform. This was a doctrine that came from Peter and possibly John and James (Gal 1:9f, 2:1), so Paul could not be making a doctrinal point when he made his remark to Peter in Galatians 2:11f.

Peter was not called to the Jews in any exclusive sense -- it was Peter who opened the Chruch to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and converted the first Gentile (Acts 11).

[Aliska]

I think there was already a church at Rome before Peter got there. It sounds from the bible like he founded the church at Antioch first, or was at least was instrumental in its early history. The church of Antioch exists today and traces its lineage back to St. Peter.

The only way Peter could have founded the church at Rome was if he had appointed/commissioned the first leader of the church and sent him there. Paul wrote to the Romans and makes no mention of Peter's being there which is odd since he names so many others.

By the time Peter finally got to Rome, which I believe he did, and wrote a letter from there with the code word "Babylon" (I don't think he was literally at the ancient Babylon), someone else had already been leading the church; it could have been informally organized by early lay people, like I believe many others probably were in the earliest times, the leaders may have been "ordained" by the laying on of hands by one of the apostles.

That is not to say he couldn't have been the first pope, but I'm not fully convinced he was. It doesn't take many years for historians to get wrong information recorded that was handed down by word of mouth, and sadly, I think some writings were later altered to give more substance to claims.

I've read all the claims; none are totaly convincing one way or another.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

I would direct you to the end of the Gospel of John, the Acts of the Apostles and the Letter of Peter. Then again, maybe those aren't the "proper sources" for your not hearing much about him.

[Uncle Chip]

Many anti-Catholics argue that Peter was not the first leader of the Catholic church because James was the bishop of Jerusalem. If James was the bishop of Jerusalem, where was Peter at the time? Why did the Catholic church move from Jerusalem to Rome? Was there a power struggle between Peter and James? Did James accept Peter as Pope of Christ's church?

Gosh, maybe for the partial answer to these questions you should consult the great Eusebius in Church History; Book III; Ch22:

"At this time, Ignatius was known as the 2nd bishop of Antioch, Euodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the 2nd ruler of the Church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first."

Golly gee, I wonder who that could have been? Hmmmm.Try Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles saw I none, except James, the Lord's brother". Yes, James, one of Jesus's four brothers, son of Mary [Mt 13:55]. There goes your postulation and that legend of perpetual virginity in one fell swoop.

Paul in Galatians describes his meeting with the three pillars of the Church in Jerusalem: James[bishop? maybe], Cephas [Peter the Apostle], and John [the Apostle?]. Is that 2 Apostles and a Bishop? We take your Queen.

Not only do you guys not believe the Holy Scriptures but you don't even believe your own Ante-Nicene Fathers. Where do you get these great pontifications? Maybe you should meditate on the great Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan who explained in From Apostles to Bishops, that apostles were not bishops and bishops not apostles, and that the Church in Rome until atleast the middle of the 2nd century was run by a college of presbyters. Yes, my dear deceived brethren, the first church in Rome was Presbyterian. And you have the audacity to call them "separated brethren". You all should return to the First Presbyterian Church of Rome, the church of your fathers, and quit this nonsense

[Mad Dawg]

Whatever Peter's position or authority, whatever validity the R.C. Church may or may not have, there are Ireneaus and Tertullian saying explicitly that Peter was in Rome. Do we have anyone from around the time of those two saying Peter never went to Rome?

It's interesting to me how this conversation draws arguments about Peter's postion and authority and against the R.C. Church. That just clouds the question, UNLESS the argument is in essence ad hominem [that's meant to be a descriptive, not an evaluative, phrase] and goes something like "The R.C. Church is full of lying, neurotic, superstitious fools, and has been since the time of Ireneaus and Tertullian. Consequently their evidence is of no weight."

I think the argument could be plausibly offered with respect to Tertullian. Anybody who could write as wittily as he did about "'Christians to the Lion' What? So many to one lion?", cannot be all bad, IMHO. But I know of no a priori reason to think that Ireneaus was incredible.

So we have one credible early witness to an even earlier "common knowledge" that Peter was in Rome. What is there in the "against" column except the strong desire of some that it not be true, so that every possible suggestion that the RC Church might somehow be the Church in its fullest can be discredited?

But as I and others far more worthy and important than I have said, the question of where Peter was is a different question from what his vocation was and what the Church is.

[Uncle Chip]

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 . . .

"Speculating on this matter". There is no speculating in the Church of Rome, because once the "Holy Fathers" have spoken, the matter is settled, there is no more debate. And this matter is settled history. Both Jerome and Eusebius put it to bed. Jerome clearly writes: "Simon Peter . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus."

What is there left to "speculate" about. Holy Father Jerome says that Simon Peter went there not to preach the Gospel but in order to overthrow Simon Magus [Simon the Magician]. Was Saint Jerome mistaken? Surely the Holy Fathers are never wrong.

[Uncle Chip]

Hey, has anybody over here seen or heard from Adiaireton8?. I'm worried about him. Is he Okay????

[Iscool]

The charge to Peter in the last chapter of John was self-evidently given to St. Peter alone.

I can see where it was probably given to Peter 'first', but not alone...That is evident...

The food was primarily the Eucharist, which, Christ taught, was "food indeed". Nothing prevents us to understand is expansively as the entire teaching of the Church. This is how Peter himself understands it in 2 Peter -- as the deposit of faith he received firsthand.

Act 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

I would say the food is the word of God...It builds you up as well as provides for the inheritance, because it contains the Truth for your salvation...

1Pe 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

There is no mutual exclusivity between St. Paul and St. Peter. Whatever St. Paul did, even if arguing with St. Peter, he did because St. Peter and St. James, "the pillars" authorized him.

I can't imagine where you got that opinion...It certainly didn't come from the bible...

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Paul, at the very least, was on equal footing with Peter...

My church, your church and every other Christian church in the U.S. fall under the scope of the ministry of the apostle Paul, not Peter...We are the Gentile church...

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

There is NOTHING in the verse you refer to that puts James, John and Peter above Paul...They didn't give him the hand of permission, they gave him the hand of fellowship...

You think that if the three would have disapproved that Paul would have halted his ministry to the Gentiles, which God commanded him to do??? I think not...