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]

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..?"

I'll pick just one...This is the church, eh??? The Bride of Christ that Peter is appointed over???

I find this amazing...It must be that a lot of the 'Church' members look at those verses and say to themselves (or each other), 'man those people are smart'...I can look at those verses all day long and not see where it says Peter was appointed anything...But those smart people can see it...

Ya know why they would say that??? Because it's not there...The church isn't even there...The church is gone...,

Just a couple of verses prior to that you read that the Lord is off somewhere getting married...To the espoused Bride

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

The context of Luke 12:41,42 is the servants, not the Bride...The Bride isn't even there...

Luk 12:36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
Luk 12:37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.

What you guys competely ignore is that these verses CLEARLY are the 2nd coming of Christ; and The Lord, the Bridegroom is somewhere OFF the face of the earth with the Bride and they are both coming back...AND, there are people here on earth who are waiting for the Bride and Groom to show up...

[wmfights]

"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."
___________________________________

This discussion is a perfect example of why we should trust Scripture alone. We really do not have any sources we can absolutely trust other than the inspired "God breathed" writings from the Apostolic era.

[Uncle Chip]

Thank you for the quote from Ignatius. If it is true that Peter was in Rome at some time, it would have been when Paul was there and between Paul's imprisonments. Is there any way to determine the dates of that period between imprisonments?

[stfassisi]

Dear Brother /Sister,Your problem is you are arguing against interpretations of 2000 years of understanding scripture by a whole host of Saints.

I understand where your coming from because I was in the Methodist Church for 17 years.

Don,t be afraid to interpret the Bible as the Saints interpreted the Bible.

I,ll be happy to help if you wish.

Peace in Jesus Christ

[saradippity]

Yes,it has been a long time. Was happy to see the last two sentences of your new tag line. "To be perfectly clear. I know nothing."

Praise and congratulations,you have finally recognized what we (the worthy adversaries) concluded many years ago.(o__-)<---that's a wink from a computer illiterate.

Good to see you again!!!

I am even less inclined to argue with folks who extrapolate,interpolate,parse,pick,choose and ignore than I once was. I'll just say that it is tragic that rather than uniting in the face of dangerous opposition it seems that some people just want to keep spinning,twisting and mixing the mess.

[William Terrell]

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..?"

When I read that and the rest above, they looked pretty impressive. Matter of fact, they almost induced brain freeze and slavish acceptance. Assumption of truth is a powerful programing tool. Whoever wrote that progression is/was a master copy smith.

[William Terrell]

Does the church determine who are to be designated as Saints?

[adiaireton8]

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

Precisely my point. But "44 AD", without any error bars, cannot rightly be "interpolated" from Scripture.

-A8

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Paul received his authority from Peter and James. ***

I believe Paul got his authority directly from GOD himself.

Gal 1:11 ¶ But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.


Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul did get the approval of Peter and James.

[stfassisi]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

[adiaireton8]

See here.

-A8

[Diego1618]

I believe Paul got his authority directly from GOD himself.

Precisely!

[Acts 9:15] But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.

[William Terrell]

Was that a "yes', a "no"?

[Uncle Chip]

I wanted to thank you for all your help with the quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers regarding Peter in Rome. There are a few more to add to your list if you don't have them:

1]Ignatius in Book 3: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter . . . " [Harley D found it. I wonder what the rest of it says]

2]Ignatius in Epistle to the Romans [110AD]: "I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were Apostles."

3]Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth: "the planting of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our own Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time." [quoted later by Eusebius]

4]Hippolytus:"Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia".

Does anyone have a list of these so far from earliest to latest, like from Ignatius to Irenaeus to Tertullian . . . all the way up to Eusebius and the Council of Nicea.

At this point we have a credible witness in Ignatius and might look more carefully at what he says, after all he was writing to the Romans of that early period.

Hippolytus tells us now that Peter was in Italy. And this is confirmed by Dionysius of Corinth who likewise says "Italy" [not Rome]. Is it possible that Peter and Paul preached together somewhere in Italy but outside of Rome between Paul's imprisonments? But then Dionysus's credibility is a little suspect here because he says that Peter was with Paul at the founding of the church there. How did Luke miss that and why didn't Paul say something about his partner?

Irenaeus tells us that Peter and Paul were there in Rome together but that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome [not Peter]. Even under harsh scrutiny, he refuses to reveal his sources for some of his assertions, but we continue to examine him even though he is getting a little tired of all the questions.

And of course, the examnation of Josephus [Jewish historian], and Tacitus [Roman historian], and Clement of Rome, and Justin Martyr continues to see what they can tell us about Peter in Rome. They should know something.

Hey St. Francis of Assisi, did you have any damage from the storm up there? Is everyone okay?

[OLD REGGIE]

Praise and congratulations,you have finally recognized what we (the worthy adversaries) concluded many years ago.(o__-)<---that's a wink from a computer illiterate.

The smarter I get the more I realize how little I really know. :-)

BTW I don't consider you an adversary. One who has different ideas maybe but we are not really that far apart. Don't sweat the details.

I am even less inclined to argue with folks who extrapolate,interpolate,parse,pick,choose and ignore than I once was.

That's Apologetics. Methinks it would be a dangerous world if we all thought, or were forced to think, in exactly the same way.

I'll just say that it is tragic that rather than uniting in the face of dangerous opposition it seems that some people just want to keep spinning,twisting and mixing the mess.

Are you saying "My way or the highway"?

[OLD REGGIE]

Precisely my point. But "44 AD", without any error bars, cannot rightly be "interpolated" from Scripture.

I guess you are saying no dates, including the birth and crucifiction of Jesus, can be interpolated from Scripture.

For example something like "the 12th year of Nero's reign" is completely worthless as a dating tool?????

[Iscool]

I appreciate your offer of help with interpreting the bible...But thanks anyway, I'll just stick with believing it as it stands instead of interpreting it...

Dear Brother /Sister,Your problem is you are arguing against interpretations of 2000 years of understanding scripture by a whole host of Saints.

The verses I posted are pretty simple...Plain speaking...Easy to understand...

The church (the espoused Bride) ran off with the Groom (Jesus) to get married...And there's no way to interpret that other than what it says...

Is the church the Bride of Christ now??? Of course not...If the wedding had already taken place, you and I and every Christian on the face of the earth missed the wedding...Is the wedding and Marriage Supper of the Lamb real??? You bet it is...

The church is gone...Jesus is gone...But the church is here...So it's future...It hasn't happened yet...But it will...

So if your 2000 years worth of (Catholic) Saints haven't gotten that, they never will...And if they can't (or won't) get that, I don't see how they could be qualified to get anything else worth learning...

I don't mean to sound insulting...But I don't know how else to say it...We're talking some pretty simple scripture here...This stuff is milk...

[Iscool]

Whoever wrote that progression is/was a master copy smith.

I agree...And those folks are programmed to let the Magisterium tell them what the bible 'means'...The average person can't understand...Even when it's plain and simple...

[adiaireton8]

I guess you are saying no dates, including the birth and crucifiction of Jesus, can be interpolated from Scripture.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying only that "44 AD" cannot justifiably be "interpolated" from Scripture as the date of Peter's imprisonment in Jerusalem.

-A8

[HarleyD]

If it is true that Peter was in Rome at some time, it would have been when Paul was there and between Paul's imprisonments. Is there any way to determine the dates of that period between imprisonments?

That's a good question. I don't know. But here is an interesting calendar. Some points to note:

1) 36-39AD - The stoning of Stephen took place between 36-39AD around the conversion of Paul.
2) 42AD - Paul didn't meet Peter and rest for three years after his conversion to that places the start point on the timeline at around 42AD.
3) 42AD - 49AD Paul first trip
4) 49AD - The Jerusalem Council and the expulsion of Jews from Rome took place around 49AD.

WARNING-GUESS WORK BELOW

My GUESS is between 42 and 49 AD Paul and Peter were in Rome setting up a church. This would make a lot of sense in that Paul undoubtedly would have a desire to go back to the Gentiles. Also scripture talks about Paul meeting the leaders and one has to wonder who would have funded Paul's first trip. I wondered if the council didn't give Paul some money to go on his first trip and they paid a visit to see how the money was being spent. The problem with my speculation is that, if memory serves me correctly, there is no record of Paul traveling to Rome on his first trip.

I think it’s interesting the Jerusalem Council took place the same year as the expulsion from Rome. I wondered if the false doctrine the Jerusalem Council was faced with wasn’t perhaps a reaction to the increased persecution and eventual expulsion of the Jews from Rome. Jewish Christians might have desired Gentile Christians to become more "liked them" through acts of the Law hoping problems would lessen. Given that Peter had a difficult time preaching and undoubtedly felt himself isolated in the Roman culture, it wouldn't have taken much for Peter, James, etc to start thinking like this (especially if he had to leave Rome); whereas Paul had a more worldview of things.

It is only if Paul and, later, Peter traveled to Rome during the first missionary journey that Ignatius statement could be plausible. Personally, I happen to believe Ignatius statement. It doesn't contradict the scripture but simply shows that Paul didn't spend 7 years in Cyprus and Galatia (Paul liked to travel). Also, Ignatius does say they traveled together or who arrived first. OTOH, one has to remember Ignatius was writing 80 years (?) after the fact so that is like me saying where Aunt Viola traveled to in 1930. It is built on hearsay. But no where do I find a time for Peter to spend 25 years in Rome.