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.

[adiaireton8]

Scott Hahn is one of the last person I would want to instruct me.

Why?

-A8

[wagglebee]

Would you care to cite some examples?

[wmfights]

"I have not done a lot of studying into what constituted the traditional feast."
____________________________

It's hard to find a lot of information. I think I Cor.11:25 gives a clear statement to how communion was incorporated into the common meal. The bread was passed before the meal and the wine was passed after the supper.

Pliny the younger also provides information in his letters to the Emperor Trajan. He investigated, persecuted and killed Christians and then wrote the Emperor that:

"[The accused Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day [Sunday] before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god,and bound themselves by a solemn oath.....after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food-but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." (Pliny, letter's 10:96 page 7 The Birth of Christianity by John Crossan.

What the early Christians were doing was meeting in the morning then going to work and when the day was done having the common meal during which they had communion. It's pretty telling that Pliny says "food of an ordinary and innocent kind" if the bread and wine were transforming into the body and blood of Jesus Christ that would not have been "ordinary".

[ladyinred]

The Davidic Kingdom foreshadows the "Kingdom of Heaven" which Jesus came to establish. That "Kingdom of Heaven" is precisely and exactly the Holy Catholic Church. It's really pretty simple.

Oh my! Is that the postion of the Catholic Church Campion, or is that your opinion? I hadn't heard this before. Isn't the kingdom of Heaven within us?

[adiaireton8]

I'll take the unanimous voice of the fathers over the pagan Pliny.

-A8

[HarleyD]

Why?

Someone who goes from being a Presbyterian to Pentecostal to Roman Catholic doesn't strike me as quite understanding the faith. To be fair, this is the problem I alluded to earlier with the synergistic view. Many confused Presbyterians THINK they understand the monergistic Reformed position but don't. They would never head to Rome if they truly did.

Scott Hahn represents a good person who believes in the synergistic view. They're confused as to what they believe. The Roman Catholic Church is just another denomination.

[wagglebee]

So, your basic contention is that Catholics who become Calvinists are thinking clearly, and Calvinists who become Catholic are simply confused?

[annalex]

They recognized the bread and wine were symbolic.

All you know is that St. Paul writes of the reception of the Precious Blood following the reception of the Body at the Last Supper when Christ himself gave the Eucharist. You cannot even point ot any particular time gap. The rest is your plain conjecture not based in any scripture. The Orthodox don't reserve the elements today, and they beleive in the Real Presence. The priest simply consumes the unused parts.

[ladyinred]

Thanks for that link. I went to Mary and saw that she is considered the ark of the new covenant. I will take more time later to read more there. That was another new concept to me.

[annalex]

Pliny says "food of an ordinary and innocent kind" if the bread and wine were transforming into the body and blood of Jesus Christ that would not have been "ordinary".

You are relying here on a pagan to understand a Catholic Sacrament. Any number of non-Catholics today likewise do not believe in the Real Presence, we won't name any names...

[HarleyD]

It's hard to find a lot of information. I think I Cor.11:25 gives a clear statement to how communion was incorporated into the common meal.

Yes, I had a terrible time about this. You have to wade though so much gibberish before you can get to the historical positions. Nothing like trusting in the scripture to God's glory. Sola scriptura. :O)

[HarleyD]

LOL!!!!

I never thought of it quite that way but...yes. I would also say the same about synergistic Protestants.

We are saved by the grace of God. We were slaves to sin, we now become slaves to righteousness because of God simply changing out nature. This is the clear teaching of scripture. If one does not understand this, they are confused.

[Uncle Chip]

But it is evidence, nonetheless. Right?

Particularly when combined with the documentary evidence of later Ante-Nicene Fathers of your own sacred Tradition. Right?

And even those of Jerome and Eusebius. Right?

Who unequivocably declare that Simon Magus went to Rome in 42 AD. Right?

And while the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that what Jerome and Eusebius said about Peter in their respective statements was without foundation, it did not say the same about Simon Magus in their statements. Right?

And the followers of this Simon the Magician in Rome [for perhaps 25 years] were called Christians. Right?

[wagglebee]

And who decides this? Shouldn't everyone who reads scripture (especially the same translation) arrive at the same conclusion?

[wmfights]

"Nothing like trusting in the scripture to God's glory. Sola scriptura. :O)"
_________________________

Amen Brother!

[adiaireton8]

Well, I was raised Pentecostal, became Reformed just after college, received an M.Div. from a PCA seminary, then later became Anglican, and then later became Catholic.

You must think I am very confused. :-)

What do you think about the following? We want truth. If we just believed everything we heard, we might learn a lot of truths, but we would also accept many falsehoods (which we don't want). But if we don't believe anything we hear, the although we will successfully avoid treating falsehoods as true, we won't acquire truth. And acquiring truth is what we want. So we have to steer between gullibility (credulousness) on the one hand and close-mindedness on the other. If we merely listen to those with whom we already agree, we won't ever be challenged to discover whether we are wrong. This is why cults often forbid contact with those outside the cult. That kind of intellectual protectionism preserves error. But for this very reason, a genuine truth-lover never puts up a wall to challenges or opinions contrary to his own. He welcomes contrary opinions. He voraciously reads the opinions and arguments of those with whom he disagrees. Why? Because doing so is a win-win situation for him. If he finds out that he was wrong, then he has gained truth, which is a win for the truth-lover. But if in the process of reasoning or debating he is able to show that the other person's position is wrong, then he is confirmed in the truth of his own position, and that again is a win for a genuine truth-lover.

So, whether Hahn moved from Presybeterian to Pentecostal to Catholic, or whether he was a cradle Catholic, it shouldn't matter as regards whether we (as genuine truth-lovers) should be willing to listen to his evidence and argumentation. And likewise, genuine truth-loving Catholics should be willing to listen to the evidence and argumentation of Protestants. Right?

-A8

[ladyinred]

No, I should have just stayed out of this! I just know that there is great anomosity between Catholics and Protestants here and it saddens me.

[wagglebee]

I have no animosity toward Protestants at all (I am married to one), I am very saddened by the anti-Catholic bigotry some display here. If there are Catholics who display the same bigotry toward Protestants, then I despise that as well.

[adiaireton8]

I just know that there is great anomosity between Catholics and Protestants here and it saddens me.

I can only speak for myself. I have no "animosity" toward Protestants. I was raised Protestant, and so much of what I know about God and Christ I learned as a Protestant from Protestants. I'm extremely grateful for that, and deeply indebted to all the Protestants who poured their lives into mine, to ensure that I knew God.

But, I want to ask you a question. What do you think we should do about the division between Catholics and Protestants? Obviously a Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?" isn't going to solve the problem.

Don't you think that the best thing to do about it, is to dialogue with each other, exactly what we are doing here?

-A8

[annalex]

You found some conradiction between the Catholic Encyclopedia and Justin Martyr? What is it?