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]

Peter was not called to the Jews in any exclusive sense -- it was Peter who opened the Chruch to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and converted the first Gentile (Acts 11).

Peter was converting Jews and learning to pass this along to Gentiles even tho he was stumbling while Paul was in Arabia learning first hand from God about the mystery of the adoption of the Gentiles, grace thru faith without works, eternal security, etc..

[Theoden]

Here's a good book that dispels many myths about the Papacy as written by Patrick Madrid, one of our greatest contemporary apologetics. He clearly dispels the myth that St. Peter never went to Rome.

[Uncle Chip]

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.

Where is this "documentation from the earliest Christians" on this matter. Please post all that you have. Search the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and send them to me. We are doing a wonderful ecumenical treatise on the Evidence that Saint Peter was in Rome for that 25 year Bishopric as Saint Jerome pontificates and to date we have no evidence from Scripture or the "earliest Christians" or the Ante-Nicene Fathers, other than Jerome and Eusebius, of course, way off in the 4th century. But what were their sources????

They didn't pontificate on this matter without proof, did they? Or were their sources that thin over their heads there on Vatican hill or perhaps that ream of whole cloth down there in the basement that the magisterium have been using for years?

Please post all that you have from the Ante-Nicene Fathers that in the wildest imagination could be construed by the most rhetorical among us to possibly be some shred of evidence of that legendary Petrine Bishopric in Rome followed by upside down crucifixion under Nero. Just the words not the rhetoric.

[ContraryMary]

Good article.

[HarleyD]

No, Peter did not "rule" the Church from Rome. What he and Paul did was to lend their authority to the see of Rome, especially since each man was martyred there.

Well, shucks. I thought Peter was the see of Rome.

[HarleyD]

Paul received his authority from Peter and James.

Nonsense. Paul went preaching for three years before he even met Peter. Paul never states that he was ordained by Peter. Instead he states that God called him.

[HarleyD]

Come on Harley, let's not let facts get in the way of current tradition!

I wondered if we shouldn't ask Myth Busters to do a special on this but then the Catholics would all boycott the show.

[wmfights]

What does it matter whether the Apostle Peter founded the church in Rome or not?

Why is it important that he was the first Bishop of Rome for 27 years?

What part of your dogma is Peter so critical to that without him the dogma becomes meaningless?

[Conservative til I die]

Another consideration is in the same "Was Peter in Rome?" article. It simply should not matter if Peter or a successor of his went to Rome.

Very good point, and one that does not come up much in these types of debates. Even today, the Pope does not have to reside in Rome to be the Pope, though he of course is still the Bishop of Rome.

Take the Avignon Popes, for example.

[wmfights]

"And after denying Christ, we don’t hear about him much."
_____________________________

I agree with your assessment about being skeptical.

Peter was a great Apostle, but his mission field was among the Israelites and if I understand the history correctly there was not a large Jewish or Israelite community in Rome. Jesus did bring Peter back into the fold with the miraculous catch and the meal after wards where he told him to "feed my lambs".

[Bainbridge]

He was on a thread on 10/25, entitled "Fundamentalist" by Peter Kreeft

[Conservative til I die]

Your post is full of so many logical fallacies and strawmen that I don't know where to start. But most specifically the argument that God must be an idiot to rely on the Roman model for anointing (and I'm not clear on whether you refer to the Roman Empire or the Roman Catholic Church when you say "Roman").

[Conservative til I die]

Nope...I'm saying Peter wasn't there...And the bible hints at that as well...

The verse you cited does no such thing. Just because Paul or some other Apostle went to Rome does not logically mean that Peter didn't.

If I write, "CTID posts on FreeRepublic" does that somehow mean that Iscool doesn't?

[Bainbridge]

All of it.
It rides and falls on the contention that "Peter and his successors" have a connection that allows them to be the final say no matter what. Doctrinal development, custom, everything is attached to this claim of essentially absolute authority.
The Pope is the last "absolute" monarch on earth.

[Conservative til I die]

Paul had several journeys to Rome and Irenaeus seems to suggest that Peter had at least one. But Irenaeus does not make Peter the Pope of Rome nor does he say that Peter stay around to oversee it.

The claim to the Papacy does not hinge on how many times or how long Peter was in Rome. The Papacy is based on Christ anointing Peter the Rock. But as you said, Linus was appointed successor, and we recognize him as the second Pope.

The Papacy is similar to the Presidency. The claim is not based on residency or location, it is claimed on authority.

[Conservative til I die]

Good to see that you've stepped into this discussion with humility, charity, and love to your brethren.

[doc1019]

I said that we don’t hear MUCH about Peter after he betrayed Jesus and we don’t. I didn’t say that we never hear about him again. He betrayed Jesus and was forgiven, however, his position within the fold diminished considerably after that.

This still does not answer my original question … were is there physical proof that Peter ever visited Rome?

[doc1019]

Whether he was there, or not, is irrelevant.

?

[wmfights]

"What he and Paul did was to lend their authority to the see of Rome, especially since each man was martyred there. As a result the capital city of the empire became the main focal point of the Church, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem."
_____________________________

What proof is there that Peter was martyred upside down in Rome. We know Paul was because of the books he wrote.

I think your second point is much more on target about why Rome emerged as the dominant power within the early church. They were located where the money and power of the state was.

[Bainbridge]

Are you being sarcastic? That would be an attitude that is condemned in the Bible as " mocking ". If so, isn't that an attitude inconsistent with the characteristics you cited, doing precisely what you are criticizing?