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.

[Uncle Chip]

I am trying to find where Irenaeus says that Peter and Paul appointed Linus in the first succession of the bishops of Rome. If you can find it, please post it. Thank you.

[OLD REGGIE]

It is not "inconceivable" at all. If you were a member of a tiny group persecuted by both Jews and Romans, would you put down on paper, which might fall into the hands of the authorities, the whereabouts of your critical leaders? I mean, come on, Paul wasn't stupid.

Interesting isn't it that Paul mentioned many other Christians in Rome. Were their lives meaningless?

Nothing in Gal 2 says that Paul's authority was "much greater than Peter's," or greater at all, in fact. Paul makes a big deal out of rebuking Peter for his bad conduct precisely because Peter's authority was recognized and important.

I agree with you. This is a very poor argument.

And for all you or they know, Peter was already dead by then.

Of course tradition has it, and it is generally accepted, that they were crucified on the same day.

Catholic Encyclopedia - here

".... Except for the writings of Eusebius, who is the most authoritative historian of the early church, far more authoritative than a bunch of Protestant pampleteers in London. And except for that troublesome tomb on Vatican Hill, and the words on it: Petros eni ... "Peter is here"."

I would not claim Peter was never in Rome. We simply don't know. I published the timeline to show it is highly unlikely he was there for any significant period of time.

Are you suggesting the latest discovery of Peter's tomb is finally the correct one? No more? This is it?

[stfassisi]

Sorry for my lack of response,my electricity keeps going in and out due to the wind here.
here is an excellent article
http://cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a066.html

[OLD REGGIE]

"Nevertheless you see that Peter speaks first and sets things in motion, while James concludes the proceedings..."

Acts 15: 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Peter was far from the first to speak.

The earliest example of a Pope exercising authority across the head of the local bishop is Pope Clement I reaching to Corinth to demand reinstallment of certain bishops over the head of no less a figure than apostle John! (Letter to the Corinthians).

It appears hardly to be a "demand" leter. Rather a pastoral letter from one Church to another.

[stfassisi]

In 190 A.D., St. Irenaeus of Lyons lists the Bishops of Rome (Popes) in his book, Against Heresies:

The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church (in Rome), committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate...To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric...In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethern at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians...To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then...Sixtus (the list continues)... In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the turth, have come down to us. [Against Heresies III, 3, 3]

[Diego1618]

More writings(bear with me because my electricity keeps going on and off due to the 50 plus mph winds in upstate NY today)

Sorry for my lack of response,my electricity keeps going in and out due to the wind here.

Sorry for the trouble you are having. Is this a normal weather pattern for you folks this time of year? Stay safe FRiend. Our winds out here (So. Cal.) have been fanning the flames for the last few days.

[Iscool]

It is my understanding that the Babylon in Revelation is more of a "False Religious System" than it is a city.

I believe the initial reference was made when someone here equated Peters' comment about Babylon as being Rome...To justify his presence in Rome...I could be wrong...

I understand as well that Babylon in Revelation is a false religious system but Revelation goes further and gives hints about that religion and points out where that religion is located...

[ladyinred]

Exactly. JESUS is the Rock!

[Iscool]

Note you posted three utterly unarguable passages, still you got the argument. You're debating not about scripture and facts; you're debating conditioning based on fear.

As I understand it, it takes a full year of conditioning before you're accepted into the 'Church'...Which of course is completely contradictory to the bible...I can understand the reluctance to let go o something that you've invested so much time in...

So, it's a waste of time. But it's your duty as a Christian brother to warn other brothers of false paths, and you've done your duty, and well, too.

Thanks...There's some pretty well educated folks on this site...I could never compete with them, nor do I care to try...

Thank God He wrote His bible in a way that we could all get it...Just a matter of believing it...

I too, am convinced I will never have any affect on the posters on this site but pehaps there may be a lurker who will get something out of my attempts to defend God's word...I'll let the Holy Spirit deal with that...

But the great thing about it is that it keeps me in the book...And I have no idea if any others will understand when I say, "And what a book that is"...There's nothing like it...Thanks again...

[Diego1618]

Revelation goes further and gives hints about that religion and points out where that religion is located...

Agreed!

[OLD REGGIE]

Friends,you must keep in mind If Peter had said he was writing from Rome, then no doubt, the Romans would have begun an intensive search for him.

Do you wonder why the Romans with their organization and intelligence capabilities didn't recognize the Christian "code word" Babylon as referring to Rome especially since Peter has already identified himself as the writer? I wonder?

[HarleyD]

So if anyone can find anything in Ignatius's writings about Peter in Rome, please post it to me anytime and I will include it in my treatise.

In post 27 I mentioned that Ignatius in Book 3 does BRIEFLY reference Peter being in Rome when he specifically states:

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

That's it. The end. I doubt if one can make the case that Peter established and led a Church as Pope for 25 years off this one tiny statement that states that Peter couldn't even communicate unless through an interpreter.

I think to be fair to our Catholic friends we would have to concede that Ignatius did write about Peter being in Rome. However, look what he wrote:

1) Both Peter and Paul were there.
2) Peter couldn't talk or preach unless through an interpreter.
3) He didn't stay.
4) They left the Church of Rome in Linus' hands.

And look at what we know from scripture:

5) Paul was the main person who established the Rome church.
6) Peter always felt uncomfortable around the Gentiles
7) Peter is always talked about in scripture as being in Jerusalem even when the Christians were scatter.
8) Paul is recorded in scripture as making many trips to Rome and, at the end, asking for Mark to come who undoubtedly worked with Peter according to Ignatius.

In my mind it isn't whether Ignatius said or didn't say anything for he said one tiny little phrase. But in that phrase Ignatius doesn't support the Catholic assertion that Peter established and reigned over a Church in Rome. On the contrary, he refutes it if one is to be honest. Ignatius tells us that Peter (and Paul) turned the Roman church over to Linus and left.

It is exactly as our friend wmfights correctly points out; these churches were created and established in a decentralized manner, not under one authority. There is no greater Biblical evidence of this then the seven churches of Revelation to whom private messages were address (or for that matter Paul's letters to the church so-n-so). If each of these were under a central authority then wouldn't it make more sense to write the letters directly to the church of Rome?

I do like the idea of a centralized place of doctrine but I believe the evidence clearly shows that the early church structures were independent. They were all Reformed Baptists. :O)

[adiaireton8]

1. In A.D. 44 he was imprisoned in Jerusalem (Acts 12).

Acts 12 does not say or imply that Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem in 44 AD.

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

Thanks for the link. In addition I found another source saying the same thing in a little different words:

"The blessed apostles, 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. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was alotted the bishopric."[Irenaeus: Adversus Haereses :Book III;Chapter 3;Verses 2,3]

Does the RCC consider this statement of Irenaeus to be authoritative and reliable?. Do subsequent church historians disagree with his "line of succession"? And here Irenaeus reports that Peter and Paul appointed Linus, not just Peter, and did not think of Linus and those that followed as successors of Peter more than Paul. How did subsequent Church Fathers forget Paul, according to Irenaeus, Peter's co-Apostle? And according to Irenaeus, Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, not Peter.

So how credible is Irenaeus and are we to rely on anything that he says on this matter as authoritative. Are we to pick and choose what we want from what he says or consume the whole thing or discard his testimony on this matter in its entirety?. He has just told us things that supposedly put Peter in Rome, but then testifies against the legend of that great 25 year Petrine Bishopric in Rome, and nothing yet about Nero or manner of death.

Meanwhile I am continuing to search Josephus, Tacitus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and Justin Martyr. All of these should be able to tell us something about Peter in Rome, but thus far they remain silent. If anyone has copies of their writings, please post anything that they say about Peter in Rome. My search for evidence continues.

[OLD REGGIE]

Thank you for the comprehensive list which includes a wealth of scripture attesting to Peter's place in the Church Christ established. If it does nothing else I hope that it gives nonCatholics a good idea about why Catholics cannot be moved by their arguments;the Catholic position is steeped in scripture.

I will be very interested to see if nonCatholics will take the time to answer the implicit challenge to refute or argue the scriptures that you cited. I think that would show a desire to work together to accomplish our Triune God's plan for unity.

First, Hi Sara, it's been a long time since we have had a FR discussion.

Second, the list of "Scripture" is a long standing Apologetics propaganda listing. Some of it absoloutely correct, some speculation, and some s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-s. It is not worthy of a point by point rebuttal.

Do I believe Peter was pre-eminent among the Apostles? Yes.

Do I believe he was their undisputed leader and became "Pope" after the crucifiction? No.

[stfassisi]

"5) Paul was the main person who established the Rome church."

I used to think like you did until I began to understand Covenants and Typology of Scripture.

2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14 - God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth.

Matt. 1:1 - Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven.

Luke 1:32 - the archangel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given "the throne of His father David."

Matt. 16:19 - Jesus gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." While most Protestants argue that the kingdom of heaven Jesus was talking about is the eternal state of glory (as if Peter is up in heaven letting people in), the kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth. In using the term "keys," Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom).

Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. See also Job 12:14.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. Peter's "keys" fit into the "gates" of Hades which also represent Peter’s pastoral authority over souls.

Matt. 23:2-4 - the "binding and loosing" terminology used by Jesus was understood by the Jewish people. For example, Jesus said that the Pharisees "bind" heavy burdens but won't move ("loose") them with their fingers. Peter and the apostles have the new binding and loosing authority over the Church of the New Covenant.

Matt. 13:24-52 -Jesus comparing the kingdom of heaven to a field, a mustard seed, leaven, and a net demonstrate that the kingdom Jesus is talking about is the universal Church on earth, not the eternal state of glory. Therefore, the keys to the "kingdom of heaven" refers to the authority over the earthly Church.

Matt. 25:1-2 - Jesus comparing the kingdom of heaven to ten maidens, five of whom were foolish, further shows that the kingdom is the Church on earth. This kingdom cannot refer to the heavenly kingdom because there are no fools in heaven!

Mark 4:26-32 - again, the "kingdom of God" is like the seed which grows and develops. The heavenly kingdom is eternal, so the kingdom to which Peter holds the keys of authority is the earthly Church.

Luke 9:27 - Jesus says that there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the "kingdom of God." This kingdom refers to the earthly kingdom of Christ, which Jesus established by His death and resurrection on earth.

Luke 13:19-20 - again, Jesus says the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which grew into a tree. This refers to the earthly Church which develops over time, from an acorn to an oak tree (not the heavenly state of glory which is boundless and infinite).

Matt 12:28; Mark 1:15; Luke 11:20; 17:21 - these verses provide more examples of the " kingdom of God" as the kingdom on earth which is in our midst.

1 Chron. 28:5 - Solomon sits on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord. This shows that the "kingdom of God" usually means an earthly kingdom.

1 Chron. 29:23 - Solomon sits on the throne of the Lord as king in place of King David. The throne of God refers to the earthly kingdom.

Matt. 16:19 - Peter holds keys to this new Davidic kingdom and rules while the real King of David (Jesus) is in heaven.

Luke 12:41-42 - when Peter asks Jesus if the parable of the master and the kingdom was meant just for the apostles or for all people, Jesus rhetorically confirms to Peter that Peter is the chief steward over the Master's household of God. "Who then, (Peter) is that faithful and wise steward whom his master will make ruler over His household..?"

Ezek. 37:24-25 - David shall be king over them forever and they will have one shepherd. Jesus is our King, and Peter is our earthly shepherd.

from scripturecatholic.com

Our Fathers Plan by Scott Hahn and Jeff Cravins is well worth listening to.Its many hours but certainly not boring
Here
http://www.geocities.com/almescallado/our_fathers_plan.html

[OLD REGGIE]

Acts 12 does not say or imply that Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem in 44 AD.

-A8

Acts 11 shows Peter in Jerusalem. Acts 12 describes the arrest. OK?

As far as the year 44 AD, it must be interpolated from Scripture.

[stfassisi]

Sorry for the trouble you are having. Is this a normal weather pattern for you folks this time of year? Stay safe FRiend. Our winds out here (So. Cal.) have been fanning the flames for the last few days

We have occasional high winds but its usually associated with cold fronts, unfortunately we get an average of 70 inches of snow where I am. I,m glad we don,t have the fires to worry about like you

[Diego1618]

Acts 12 does not say or imply that Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem in 44 AD.

Here is what the scripture does say: [Acts 11:28] 28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.

Continuing in Chapter 12: [Acts 12:1-5] 1 It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church , intending to persecute them. 2 He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 3 When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. 4 After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover. 5 So Peter was kept in prison, but the Church was earnestly praying to God for him.

Claudius...."Tiberias Claudius" reigned from 41 A.D. to 54 A.D. so we now know that Peter was imprisoned sometime after 41 A.D. and escaped [Acts 12:8] with divine intervention shortly thereafter. (verse 11)

King Herod died in 44 A.D. so Peter had been in the local pokey sometime between 41 to 44 A.D.

When do you think he was there?

[wmfights]

"I do like the idea of a centralized place of doctrine but I believe the evidence clearly shows that the early church structures were independent. They were all Reformed Baptists. :O)"
______________________________

Let's be fair to our Presbyterian brothers and sisters, it was pretty similar to their structure as well. ;-)

I think I understand why the early church leaders felt a push towards central control. The Canon was not established until the late 300's and there were a great many competing visions the Marcionites, Ebionites and Gnostics to just name a few. Also, the multitude of forged letters and books claiming to be inspired. The problem though in the head long rush to save "orthodoxy" was a hierarchal ritual driven structure with the power of the state behind it emerged.