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.

[Lil Flower]

Although I did not address my question to you, I'll ask you now. Why do you care what "we" believe? You have made it a point to say "Your Ante-Nicene fathers", and "your magisterium", so clearly you are not Catholic. so according to you, Catholics believe in myth. Again, why do you care?

Now how about answering a question that I have directed at you, are you a Christian?

[annalex]

Jerome included the questionable Apocryphal OT books

St. Jerome did not exercise any personal judgement when he translated the Old Testament Vulgate: he simply translated the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books.

The canon was well established prior to Jerome's work, albeit not formally till early 400 at Carthage. The crieteria for inclusion were verifiability of source, a link to the apostles, and doctrinal solidity of content. Works that would be useful but did not directly relate to the deposit of faith left by Christ were not included, no matter how convenient politically it would have been to include them. For example, there was a lot of consideration done to the letter of Clement to Corinthians: it served the papacy well and contained much theological teaching, and was quite early. But Clement was no apostle, and so the letter was secondary in its theology. It was not included.

what they claim in there could hardly be relied upon by a historian

Some of the apocryphal Acts I read, and some contain accounts that a modern reader would see as fantastic. However, they are still evidence inasmuch as they also refer to hard facts. We are religion of miracles and a church of miracles. It makes little sense, for example, to discard a biography of an apostle (forget which one) as a whole because it contains the unlikely story how that apostle first baptized a lion, and then encountered the same lion in the circus.

[Lil Flower]

My claim is no more or less than some Church father

Well, there is something we can agree on. To read some of these posts, the most brilliant individuals off all time are posting on Free Republic.

[stfassisi]

Common sense and logic tells us that this is much ado-about nothing because the fact that there is NOT early writings saying Peter was NOT in Rome and this whole thing went unchallenged for over 1400 years,thus its sort of Davinci code like stuff to think Peter was not "head father" of the "Universal" Catholic Church.
I actually think some of this research is good for our Protestant Brothers and Sisters(and ourselves) because learning from Christian History MAY leed them (and us) closer to understanding of Catholicism,but there are also unfortunate cases where they end up Jack Chick like .

BTW,Awesome tagline and screen name from a wonderful Saint

[annalex]

last time I debated any the points of Catholic dogma.

The issue of Peter in relation to Paul is a purely scriptural issue, and I only refer to the scripture in discussing it. Perhaps IsCool misunderstood me in thinking that I intentionally overlook verses like Gal 2:7; I believe my response to him in 190 disabused him of that notion. My one point here is that Paul sought the approval of the "pillars", which shows that he needed one. My second point is that Peter was not sidelined to preach exclusively to the Jews because scripture tells us he in fact was the one who converted the first Gentile, Cornelius. None of this constitutes any kind of "Catholic dogma" in the same sense as what we discussed with you, William, not long ago.

With you we discussed veneration of saints. As you recall, I admit that it was an aspect of Christian faith scantily covered by the scripture and that largely relies on the teaching of the Church. The shape of that argument was that I showed you scripture which explains that the teaching of the Church can, and in fact should apply to parts of the faith that the scripture is silent about. This is the case with the nature of intercessory prayer. It is not the case with simple historical accounts of who sent whom where to preach what and to whom.

You lost that argument on scriptural grounds ("enough wiggle room in the scripture", you said) and now you try to direct attention to what you imagine my motivational framework is. Not that I mind discussing my persona, but what you are offering is an evasion.

[HarleyD]

If Paul had already been there, wouldn't they already have a "spiritual gift"?

I think based upon v12 Paul is making a point that whenever Christians get together they are blessed and find comfort with one another (present Freepers site excluded-oh, just kidding). A "where two or three are gathered there am I..." type of thing.

It's kind of like listening to a missionary or an out of town preacher and how it stirs your soul. It's somewhat special. Now, of course no one has every asked an out-of-town church accountant to speak so my analogy may not go very far.

[Lil Flower]

Thanks, St.Therese is my favorite Saint.
From what I'm reading, there is a whole lot of ego and not alot of charity. I really don't understand why the Catholic threads always get hijacked like this. I've read numerous Protestant posts, and I've never seen anything like this on their posts. I would never go to those posts and start throwing "Biblical punches" at them.

[Uncle Chip]

I answered your post because you mentioned my name in there.

As to why? I am a genuine truthseeker in search of evidence for a claim that your magisterium has made for 1500 years. If it is true, then prove it.

Post the "words" from Scripture or sacred Tradition of your Ante-Nicene Fathers that prove your claim. Otherwise you have a claim without evidence, and many within and without your church will be seeing, some for the first time, how empty that claim is.

[wagglebee]

I really don't understand why the Catholic threads always get hijacked like this. I've read numerous Protestant posts, and I've never seen anything like this on their posts. I would never go to those posts and start throwing "Biblical punches" at them.

Anti-Catholic bigotry is very popular here.

[Lil Flower]

I think based upon v12 Paul is making a point that whenever Christians get together they are blessed and find comfort with one another (present Freepers site excluded-oh, just kidding).

I can only speak for myself here, and I realize this post is not directed at me, but in general, I have rarely seen where Christians find comfort on these posts. I don't think non-Christians would bash each other the way I have seen it here. And I would also like to say, wherever I may have contributed to that I am truly sorry, and that apology goes to anyone I may have offended. What concerns me is that if a non-Christian were browsing these posts, after about 5 min. I think they would run screaming in the other direction, and I for one couldn't blame them.

[Religion Moderator]

If you wish to keep the discussion of a subject limited to the confession, in this case Catholism - put the words [Catholic caucus] in the title.

Otherwise it is an open thread, and challenges are allowed because open threads are like town squares.

The closed thread, e.g. caucus, will be honored (challenges pulled) as long as it is not used as "base camp" to make sniper attacks on anyone else's confession.

[annalex]

Was the choice of the name "Simon" especially meaningful to Jesus?

You are asking me to make an extra-scriptural speculation here. One thing we can notice is that the given by Christ name Peter, which was to associate Simon bar Jonas with Christ's Church, was used here as well as "Simon". So, if anyone were to make a point that the promise of Christ to build His Church on Peter was somehow rescinded, -- this proves that hypothesis wrong.

The dialog in John 21 had two purposes. One was to give Peter an opportunity to repair the effect of his betrayal. The other was to reappoint him as the Prince of the Apostles. It is possible to read into the frequent use of Peter's birth name a rebuke. If that is your inclination, I agree that it is a possibility. But let us not forget that Evangelist John continues to call Simon bar Jonas Peter throughout; another explanation, and the one I would prefer, is that Christ simply echoes His original call to Simon.

Often, another aspect of that exchange is brought up, and that is the use of words for "love". While Jesus says "agapas" -- do you love me with divine love?, Peter resonds with "philao" -- I love you with highest form of human love. This shows precision on the part of the Evangelist, -- the conversation was likely taking place in Hebrew or Aramaic where the distinction does not exist. However, the use of words here is sometimes brought up as an indication that Peter's love was in some sense not matching Christ's love, -- which is of course very true, -- but the leap is made to suggest that Peter in fact denied Christ by htese words, which is without warrant.

[Lil Flower]

For starters, you are confusing me with someone else. I am not interested in proving anything to you. Believe what you want to believe, that's what I do.
You can post whatever you wish to prove your point. If you think that is going to shake my faith, you will be sadly mistaken.
Now, since you won't answer my question as to whether or not you are a Christian, I will assume the answer is no. Because as far as I can see, you have posted nothing that would show otherwise.

[annalex]

Peter was far from the first to speak.

His words are the recorded words, but I agree, the scripture points to a debate that is not recorded.

a pastoral letter from one Church to another

Cortinth is not in Roman bishopric. The letter is a demand, not an advice. Have you read it? The papal supremacy is likened there to Aaron pulling the larger stick from among the 12 tribal priests.

[Uncle Chip]

Even your assumptions are incorrect.

[Lil Flower]

Thank you for clarifying that. However, I still stand by my claim that attacks on Catholics are much more prevalent on here. But,thick skin and all that, right? ;)

[annalex]

Paul did get the approval of Peter and James [but authority he got from Christ]

If you wish. I rarely argue about words. The point is, St. Paul needed the "approval", because without it he would be just another preacher without a visible link to the Church.

[HarleyD]

Just because we each have our respective positions doesn't mean we don't take great joy in each other testimony and proclamation of Christ. You're probably a greater comfort than you realize. Me, OTOH, is a way for a good Catholic to grow in their faith. :O)

[Lil Flower]

My assumptions are incorrect? Really? Well then to quote you, prove it.
Seriously, I have a legitimate reason for asking that question. I'm trying to understand the reasons for all your posts. And your claim that you are a truth seeker ain't making it. all you have done is ridicule others for their beliefs.

[wagglebee]

I don't have a problem with it, I was simply agreeing with Lil Flower's observation that Catholic threads seem to get "hijacked" more frequently than Protestant thread. However, as you have mentioned, there is a great deal of theological disagreement among Protestants and they probably hijack each others threads more than Catholics are aware.