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.

[Petrosius]

They recognized the bread and wine were symbolic.

Please indicate ONE statement from the early Church that clearly and unambiguously denies the Real Presence and holds that the bread and wine were only the symbolic presence of our Lord.

[ladyinred]

I appreciate your post. I know, I always wish for the Rodney King thing here on the religious forum, and I suppose it isn't realistic in the least. My main concern is that lurkers read these threads and I wonder if they want anything to do with Christianity after doing so. While dialogue is a good thing, I wish it could all be done with Christian love and respect for each other, differences and all. Too much to ask I am sure! It isn't every poster or every thread of course, but some get pretty nasty at times. God bless you.

[Uncle Chip]

The answer to your question is in this statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia to which I commented earlier on this thread:

"It is widely held that Peter paid a first visit to Rome after he had been miraculously liberated from the prison in Jerusalem; that, by "another place", Luke meant Rome, but omitted the name for special reasons. It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to Rome about this time (after 42 A.D.), but such a journey cannot be established with certainty. At any rate, we cannot appeal in support of this theory to the chronological notices in Eusebius and Jerome, since, although these notices extend back to the chronicles of the third century, they are not old traditions, but the result of calculations on the basis of episcopal lists. Into the Roman list of bishops dating from the second century, there was introduced in the third century (as we learn from Eusebius and the "Chronograph of 354") the notice of a twenty-five years' pontificate for St. Peter, but we are unable to trace its origin. This entry consequently affords no ground for the hypothesis of a first visit by St. Peter to Rome after his liberation from prison (about 42). We can therefore admit only the possibility of such an early visit to the capital."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm {Peter, Prince of the Apostles - Catholic Encylopedia}

No --- Not a contradiction between Justin Martyr and the Catholic Encyclopedia on this matter, but an admission by the Catholic Encyclopedia that Eusebius's, Jerome's, and all subsequent pontifications of a 25 year Roman Bishopric for Saint Peter is without foundation.

So let us summarize as to where we are at this point:

1] There is no evidence in Scripture, or the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, or historians of that period for a Roman Bishopric of Simon Peter of any length of time.

2] But there is evidence in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers [Justin Martyr . . . ] for a 25 year Roman Bishopric of Simon the Magician whose followers were called Christians.

Is that a fair summary thus far? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If so, present it.

If not, then should we now turn to the writings of other Ante-Nicene Fathers to see what else they can add to Justin Martyr's statements regarding that 25 year Roman Bishopric of Simon Magus whose followers were called Christians?

[HarleyD]

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

Step back from this statement for a minute. Do you actually suppose that every Protestant just simply pick and choose their beliefs like some kind of Protestant smorgasbord? It's all based upon the writings of the church fathers and the creeds. The only difference is Protestants do not believe the creeds of some "group" of people to be infallible. Everything must be checked through the scriptures and if the scriptures are silent, then we better be silent. To be sure the creeds and confessions are great guides in understanding what other saintly people have handed down to us but it is quite easy to invent things that are simply not there. Creeds that are solidly rooted in scriptural references are far more believable in my mind than those that are not.

A complaint of mine is that Catholics have subtly redefined their creeds and confessions over time to conform with their evolving doctrine. At least the Orthodox are up front about evolving their doctrine. Catholics would like to say, "All of this is based upon what the Fathers agreed to since the beginning of the Church." This is nonsense and rubbish in my mind and an objective analysis of history doesn't support it.

Each individual, not the Church, will have to answer to God for their own beliefs. I'm sorry but a person can't tell God, "The priest beguiled me and I ate." You and I are individually responsible for the doctrine we hold.

[wagglebee]

A complaint of mine is that Catholics have subtly redefined their creeds and confessions over time to conform with their evolving doctrine.

Can you cite examples of "evolving doctrine" and when the "evolution" occurred. Many Protestants confuse the Catholic Church's DEFINING of dogma with its origination.

Just because something was not defined until much later, does not mean that it didn't exist. This holds true throughout all of God's Creation. Take gravity, Newton didn't define it until the 17th Century, but mankind had long "understood" the concept of falling.

[HarleyD]

Well to give you a bit of my background I'm not a theologian but a trained senior analyst. I look at fact, figures and historical data formulating objective analysis based upon all the information at hand. This is my job and one in which I make a comfortable living at. I tend to be emotionally detached from the information which is what I prefer for sound analysis and I see things in black and white-not shades of gray.

In my 30-plus years of being a Christian, I have reviewed the beliefs of Catholics, Orthodox, Pentacostal, and a host of different Protestant denominations. I have attended many different churches (and the Church) but I find little satisfaction in unexplained scripture. Most denominations simply pull out their favorite text while ignoring others. Based upon my individual studies, I found most believers cannot reconciled what is written in the Old Testament with what is written in the New. They reduce it down to mere stories, myths, legends, or moral values issues and they argue as such to their shame. Never do they treat it as the way God deals with man; exacting wrath and judgment, choosing this nation over that, treating this person with grace and mercy and not this other. There is no reconciliation of these scripture with the "God loves all men" mentality.

It was only in the last three years that I stumbled upon the Reformed belief. Intrigued and suspicious at this "new" gospel, I did an analysis of church and secular history and completely reread the scriptures from a Reformed perspective for verification. I did not read any Reformed works but simply stuck with the early church fathers. At the same time I went out to various opposing sites and read all the arguments against Reformed theology. Surprisingly, most of the arguments centered around how well constructed the Reformed theology was (the ol' "They have all their ducks in a row" argument). The person who convinced me wasn't Calvin but was Augustine in his A Treatise on the Predestination of Man with the blessed Cyprian question:

For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou hast not received? Now, if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou receivedst it not?

I came to the exact same conclusion as Augustine when he states:

And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves.

As you should know, this sums up Reformed theology in a nutshell and Augustine recognized the grave error. Grace precedes faith and both are given to us individually according to God's will. We don't consent to it. There is nothing that we have that hasn't been given to us. It becomes God's will when we are brought to repentence, not our own:

2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

I don't attend a Reformed church and I have no Reformed friend in the vincinity so I hardly can consider myself in some sort of "cult". The Reformed belief is the gospel of God and I have based my decision upon careful analysis that God gives us everything; grace, faith, everything. This is the simple truth. Given that you have rejected this simple truth (along with about 95% of Christians today) I would say there is confusion. Many believe that we "cooperate" or "step out on faith" with God. This is not the conclusion of Augustine's or my reasoning. Grace and faith are gifts from God, lest any man should boast.

[Iscool]

Isn't the kingdom of Heaven within us?

The Kingdom of God is within us...

The Kingdom of Heaven is a physical Kingdom as was David's Kingdom...And the next person to sit on that Throne will be the Anti-Christ...And that will be right after the Jewish people in Israel build the temple again...

There's not a Catholic dead, or alive who's been near that Throne, yet...

[adiaireton8]

But Augustine was a Catholic. And Aquinas taught predestination. The fundamental point of division between Catholicism and Reformed theology is not predestination, election, or even justification. The fundamental point of difference on which all the others rest is 'sola scriptura'. No one, in all of Church history up until the Reformation (possibly with the execption of Wycliff) taught 'sola scriptura'. It is an historical novelty. The Church has always taught, right from the beginning, that Christ gave authority to His Apostles, and that they gave authority to the bishops. This is very clear in all the letters of Ignatius, and you know how early he is, being an auditor of the Apostle John, and said to have been ordained by Peter in Antioch. Ignatius says over and over and over that the churches should obey their bishop, and that where the bishop is there the Church is, and do nothing apart from the bishop, and so on. That is what Luther and Calvin abandoned, i.e. the authority of the bishops, and the other disagreements are consequent on that error.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

and if the scriptures are silent, then we better be silent.

But this itself is not a claim made in Scripture. Therefore, in making this claim, you contradict yourself.

-A8

[HarleyD]

Can you cite examples of "evolving doctrine" and when the "evolution" occurred.

IT seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification was given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our free will; as if though grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spake concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said: "Without me ye can do nothing," and not "Without me ye could do it but with difficulty." - The Council of Carthage (417-418)

along with...

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13). - Council of Orange

Verses...

CANON IV. If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!

CANON V.- If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man’s freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed"! - Council of Trent

It seems plain to me these are contradictory statements.

[Iscool]

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.

No, do't be saddened...Be burdened...

What's important is that we don't just have doctrinal or religious differences...

There's a lot of elderly FReepers and as time goes on, some of the FReepers pass on...

It is clear that Catholic and non-Catholics have different routes they pursue to attain Salvation...There's only one route that will get you there and the rest of the religious folks are going to spend eternity in Hell...This is more than a life and death situation...

Either I am going spend eternity in Hell, or someone like, for example, Wagglebee will spend eternity in Hell...And I only pick Wagglebee because that's the post above yours...

The most important question a person will encounter in his/her lifetime is:

Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

And it looks like we have it narrowed down to getting baptized, taking the Eucharist, living a good life, doing good works, etc., OR believe on the name, and call on the Lord Jesus Christ with nothing else because we don't have anything worth trading for salvation...

Some of us are going to Hell and that's why I'm in this dogfight...I'm convinced it is not I that will spend eternity in Hell...

[adiaireton8]

I don't see the supposed contradiction. Where is it? The statements look fully compatible to me.

-A8

[Iscool]

Just because something was not defined until much later, does not mean that it didn't exist.

You do understand that the same argument can be against you when it comes to the Reformation churches...

[adiaireton8]

Being absence and implicit are not the same.

-A8

[wagglebee]

The basic problem with most of the Protestant doctrines is the "alone" part. It cannot be supported by scripture, whereas all Catholic dogma can.

[HarleyD]

But Augustine was a Catholic.

He was a Presbyterian of the old school. They just didn't have the Presbyterian church at that time.

The fundamental point of difference on which all the others rest is 'sola scriptura'.

I would disagree. The fundamental point rest upon who saves us-God (monergism) or man (synergism). The rest of the arguments are peripheral.

The Church has always taught, right from the beginning, that Christ gave authority to His Apostles, and that they gave authority to the bishops. This is very clear in all the letters of Ignatius...

Of course the Church taught this, and properly so. But the fathers recognized the corruption that could seep into the Church. That is why they sealed the Bible. The Pelagius issue was a wake up call. I remember reading one of the church fathers (either Ignatius or Iraeneus) who said that if a person heard heresy preached from the pulpit, the Holy Spirit would help them to recognize it and they would plug there ears and run from the church. Now does that sound like good Church doctrine to you?

That is what Luther and Calvin abandoned, i.e. the authority of the bishops,

Luther and Calvin did no such thing. As a former Presbyterian you should know they have a very vertical hierarchical structure. Luther and Calvin both believed in the authority of church organization. This is something wmfight and I were discussing that we believe is a problem in churches. We believe the original churches were really decentralized and would not agree with Luther and Calvin's approach.

[jo kus]

I've been busy at another forum, where Catholics are very marginally represented. As a result, I have not been able to view your response until now.

by whom is it being widely held? I have asked for citations from Josephus, Tacitus, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and they say nothing. Ignatius tells us something but nothing close to what is claimed here as being widely held.

It is widely held that Peter was in Rome. It is widely held that Peter wrote 1 Peter from Rome. It is widely held that "Babylon" refers to Rome. It is widely held that Peter and Paul died there - as the book of Revelation seems to point out. (the two prophets killed). Regarding the twenty-five year reign of Peter as bishop of Rome, I have given you the background. It is not certain. But we are discussing history, not dogma. The study of history is rife with uncertainties. However, in the study of history, we follow the axiom that "one's witness is accurate until proven otherwise". With Aristotle, we take the historian's view is true - until we find other more reliable sources that prove otherwise.

All you have is your own biases against the THEOLOGY of the church. Because you do not trust the Catholic Church's dogmas are from God, you naturally believe that the history regarding the Church must answer to some higher proof of its claims regarding such miscellaniety as a 25 year reign of Peter as bishop. An unbiased historian will accept what is written unless proven otherwise. You appear to demand more evidence BECAUSE it is something about the Catholic Church. In history, one must leave his religious bias at home.

Didn't he know how to spell "Rome"? If he meant "Rome" why didn't he say "Rome" as he does later when telling about Paul's upcoming visit to "Rome".

Have you ever been on the run before, maybe people trying to toss you to the lions, say? Note that Revelation ALSO conceals a lot through symbology that clearly points to the Roman Empire and the Emperor himself... This is accepted by the majority of Protestant exegesis on the subject.

It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to China about this time either? Shall we assert that since we have no evidence to the contrary?

Because we have other evidence that shows Peter was in Rome and it certainly seems reasonable to presume that the head Apostle of our Lord would EVENTUALLY go to the head city of the Empire. We have evidence of a clash between the Jews and Christians in c. 42 AD. It is NOT unreasonable to presume that Peter was there - since Paul does not claim to have been to Rome yet. And it would make sense to "hide" Peter's destination in case the letter had fallen into Roman hands.

Then why have you been pontificating this myth for 1500 years and claiming that it is true when you know that you have NO EVIDENCE.

Again, you appear ignornant of how historians work. An established theory is upheld until evidence is brought forward to bring about another theory. This is true in science, as well. All you do is demand evidence of "CNN" quality. Your standards are beyond what is available, thus, the Catholic version fails. However, one must question whether ANY evidence would pass your positive acceptance and standards you have set. Until you prove otherwise, this is no "myth".

Regards

[jo kus]

I find it odd when Catholics claim that the Chair of Peter is infallible when there is evidence that it isn't. Indulgences is but one prime example of a major boo-boo.

It has been established previously that the problem was not that Indulgences were a false teaching - but that some abused indulgences. The Papacy spoke out against such abuses long before Luther.

Regards

[adiaireton8]

He [Augustine] was a Presbyterian of the old school. They just didn't have the Presbyterian church at that time.

So, why was he a bishop? Reformed theology has no place for "bishops". Why did he believe in the seven sacraments? Reformed theology does not have seven sacraments. Why did he believe in praying to the saints? Reformed theology does not allow praying to the saints. Why did he believe in purgatory? Why did he believe that Mary remained ever virgin? Why did he believe in Holy Orders through Apostolic succession? Need I go on? Why did he believe that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Christ? Need I go on? The Reformed churches reject all these things.

I said: "The fundamental point of difference on which all the others rest is 'sola scriptura'."

You replied: "I would disagree. The fundamental point rest upon who saves us-God (monergism) or man (synergism). The rest of the arguments are peripheral."

No. If the bishops truly have the authority to determine what the Church teaches, then whatever the sacred Magesterium determines is the correct doctrine viz-a-viz monergism is orthodoxy. Therefore, the fundamental point is not whether monergism is true or not, but whether 'sola scriptura' is true. For if the Magesterium has that authority, then you should submit to their authority, even regarding their teaching on monergism.

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

It is widely held that Peter was in Rome.

Where are these widely held sources?. Present their quotes so we can see them.

It is widely held that Peter wrote 1 Peter from Rome. It is widely held that "Babylon" refers to Rome.

Are you saying now that Peter didn't know how to spell "Rome" either?

It is widely held that Peter and Paul died there - as the book of Revelation seems to point out. (the two prophets killed).

Now that is a real stretch of the imagination as that event has yet to occur.

Regarding the twenty-five year reign of Peter as bishop of Rome, I have given you the background. It is not certain. But we are discussing history, not dogma. The study of history is rife with uncertainties.

But we do know something for certain from the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, and Jerome: That Simon the Magician went to Rome during the reign of Claudius [possibly 42 AD] and founded a religious system whose followers were called Christians.

However, in the study of history, we follow the axiom that "one's witness is accurate until proven otherwise". With Aristotle, we take the historian's view is true - until we find other more reliable sources that prove otherwise.

Good. Then "the witness of Justin Martyr is accurate until proven otherwise". Do you have any evidence to present that Justin Martyr was inaccurate in this matter. Perhaps we should look in Father Irenaeus' writings for that evidence to the contrary, but then again we are likely to find only corroborating evidence, aren't we?