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.

[Uncle Chip]

The Webster's dictionary tells us that the word "magisterium" comes from the Latin "magister" which means "a master". And remember Simon Magus didn't want to be a lowly disciple but a Master or Magister of this Christianity that he saw. When he was denied it by Peter, he started a counterfeit Christianity of which he became the Magister right there on his sacerdotal chair in Rome for 25 years from which the magisterial Papacy grew. The magisterium there in Rome does trace its roots to that person sitting on that magisterial sacerdotal chair in Rome for 25 years under Claudius and Nero, doesn't it?

Simon Magus used magic not the logic of words and reason to magister his followers. His followers worshipped his image while he was alive and long after he was gone. From him came the imaginative[allegorical] interpretation of Scripture that was used change its meaning, like making the words "Babylon" or "another place" mean "Rome", and "Israel" mean "the Church".

And from him grew a magisterium of "interpreters" who claimed that their magical skills were necessary to divine the true meaning of the Scripture, since the words didn't mean what they said or say what they meant. This magisterium, with its secret code book claimed that the"Imago Dei" [Image of God] was superior to the "Verbum Dei" [Word of God]. And it was their image of Christianity that Simon Magus's followers hid behind, pretending to be something that they were not, calling and being called Christians, when they were actually phonies and counterfeits just like him.

This magisterium isn't "in the gall of bitterness" about what we are exposing here, are they? None of their followers are "in the gall of bitterness" about what the evidence has uncovered, are they? They're not "in the gall of bitterness" because the true root of their counterfeit Christianity is being uncovered right before their eyes, are they?

Perhaps they should instead follow those sound words of Simon Peter to Simon Magus, the words that he chose not to receive to his eternal regret:

"Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent, therefore of this thine wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee."[Acts 8:21-22]

[Uncle Chip]

Does Irenaeus sound like he is accusing the Catholic Church, the one established by Peter and Paul, to be one with the heretics, such as Simon the Magician?

Clearly there was a sound Christian Church in Rome that Peter may have visited and preached to when Paul was there and out of prison between 62 AD and 66 AD. That is a possibility given the words of Ignatius and gleaning what we can from Irenaeus. But that is a far cry from the pontifications of the RCC for 1500 years upon which the whole thing rests. After all, Irenaeus tells us that Linus was the first bishop of Rome not Peter and not Paul, if he can be believed on that point.

Is it possible that a counterfeit Christian Church founded by Simon Magus grew up there in Rome along with the true church to which Paul wrote and Peter merely paid a short visit. And that counterfeit Christian Church of Simon Magus grew to persecute and dominate the true church?

Is it possible that Irenaeus could not see the forest through the trees. He identified the history and teachings of Simon Magus and his followers but was unable to see that the Church of Rome that he claimed all others should bow down to was, in fact being filled with pretenders, carefully disguised heretics, followers of the disciples of Simon Magus, so-called Christians? Is it possible that he did not see the connection between the sorcerers that he was writing about and those right in front of him in the Church of Rome? Listen to these words of Father Irenaeus pontificating here:

"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

Says who? Just where is it written in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans that the Church of Rome was to be the "pre-eminent authority"? Where is it written in Peter's Epistles that the Church of Rome was to be the "pre-eminent authority"?

Where did Irenaeus get this pontification from. He doesn't cite his source. He just plucks it out of the thin air there in Rome, the same thin air that the magisterium was breathing. This clearly is a pontification without substance, something that one would expect to issue forth from the mouths and pens of the magisterium of Simon Magus, and recognizable by those of us looking back on history with the benefit of the Scriptures.

Note that he cites a thing called "tradition" instead. Whose "tradition" was it to aspire to dominate and master others, whether churches or people: the "tradition" of Paul and the apostles or the "tradition" of Simon the Magician?

Irenaeus is the last person you will find your pet theory! He clearly states that the Roman Church is the center of Christian teaching Tradition, a Tradition given by St. Peter and Paul themselves! The substance of the writing merely proves you incorrect. I already told you that I cannot tell you without doubt that Peter was bishop for 25 years. But without doubt, Peter taught at Rome, Peter died at Rome, and Rome was considered the center of orthodox teaching for 1000 years by the ENTIRE Church, including the Eastern Fathers. Simon of Samaria, the magician, holds no commonality of doctrines with the Catholic Church. The smoke and mirrors of trying to associate Simon Peter with Simon the Magician is dead on arrival.

I am merely clearing away the smoke and breaking through the mirrors so that we may all see more clearly the identity of the man behind the curtains, and cloaks, and images, and pretentions of that magisterium descended from his tradition that came to dominate the Church in Rome, and churches elsewhere.

[jo kus]

Continue reading the Church Fathers of the Apostolic Era. You will be surprised on what doctrines they believed and how they differ from your notions of the faith - first of all, the idea that ALL truth of the faith is found in the Scriptures.

I would take seriously your tagline. God is Truth. Don't let your bias get in the way. Search the Fathers to find the Truth, not to prop up preconceived notions. In other words, read with an open mind and heart, rather than seraching for the one verse to back up a pet-project.

Regards

[jo kus]

And remember Simon Magus didn't want to be a lowly disciple but a Master or Magister of this Christianity that he saw. When he was denied it by Peter, he started a counterfeit Christianity of which he became the Magister right there on his sacerdotal chair in Rome for 25 years from which the magisterial Papacy grew. The magisterium there in Rome does trace its roots to that person sitting on that magisterial sacerdotal chair in Rome for 25 years under Claudius and Nero, doesn't it?

Do you have ANY BASIS for such a wild claim? ANY whatsoever? Any evidence besides your wishful thinking? If not, all you are doing is being divisive among the Body of Christ.

Regards

[wagglebee]

When he was denied it by Peter, he started a counterfeit Christianity of which he became the Magister right there on his sacerdotal chair in Rome for 25 years from which the magisterial Papacy grew. The magisterium there in Rome does trace its roots to that person sitting on that magisterial sacerdotal chair in Rome for 25 years under Claudius and Nero, doesn't it?

Let's pretend for a minute that this preposterous idea is true. We are then presented with the documented fact that the Catholic Church comprised nearly all of Christianity for the next thousand years and European Christianity for the next fourteen centuries.

If as you contend the Catholic Church was built upon a farce such as this, would they not have removed all negative mention of Simon Magus? Your theory makes no sense in light of the fact that nothing was done to cover-up Simon Magus' movement. In fact your entire theory is based upon the letters M, A and G.

You should right novels, because this garbage is easily as absurd as "The Da Vinci Code."

[Uncle Chip]

If as you contend the Catholic Church was built upon a farce such as this, would they not have removed all negative mention of Simon Magus? Your theory makes no sense in light of the fact that nothing was done to cover-up Simon Magus' movement. In fact your entire theory is based upon the letters M, A and G.

The coverup was done by several including that vaunted historian of the Roman Catholic Church himself: Eusebius. He would have us to believe that Simon Magus died in 42 AD when he was taken on by Simon Peter there in Rome. But historians tell us that Simon Magus was there in Rome all during the reign of Claudius and the reign of Nero.

So here is Father Eusebius trying to whitewash Simon Magus out of the picture and try to put Simon Peter there for 25 years instead. Why, pray tell, would such a big lie be so carefully propagated and protected all these years?

[Iscool]

Are you actually that naive about the availability of books prior to the invention of the printing press?

Don't be silly...I never said every Christian carried a bible in 800 A.D....How many "Heretics" were there up thru the 16 century (that didn't get murdered)??? And how did the heretics get saved??? By 'hearing' the word...They didn't for the most part have to be literate...I have no idea how many there were but they had well over 1000 years to copy manuscripts as fast as they could...And many of them survived to this day...

Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[wagglebee]

So, your entire contention is that the "bad guys" had control of the Church, but they still allowed portions of scripture to remain that showed that they were the "bad guys" even though they could have just as easily removed it and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has been aware of this for two thousand years?

You should really pitch this idea to Hollyweird, it would go great with a Scientology movie about how we are really descended from aliens from outer space.

[wagglebee]

Thanks for the nonanswer.

[annalex]

"Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" is the doctrine at least as old as pope Boniface VIII in its precise idiomatic form. It is, of cours,e scripturally resting on John 3:5 and similar verses elsewhere.

Vatican II confirmed it.

The boundary of the Church is determined by valid baptism of her members, as the unbaptized cannot ordinarily be saved. When a baptized Christian is saved and goes to heaven he does so on the merits of his baptism and his Christian life. He goes to heaven, therefore, as Catholic. It is true that often better examples of Christian life are found in the Orthodox Church, where we see very commendable adherence to the Church life. As I like to repeat, there are probably more Catholics who call themselves Orthodox that who call themeselves Catholic.

Likewise the Protestants who adhere to the Protestant communities of faith due to their cultural background and do not make a career out of attacking the Church, stand a good chance of dying Catholic and be pardoned for not partaking of the true sacraments of the Church in their lifetime.

The danger is great for those who are reasonably well informed of the Church's teachings, but persist with their "protesting".

[annalex]

Yes, Christians will be well advised to steer clear of superstition. Why do you think I struggle so much to free some of them from the superstition of Sola Scriptura?

[Iscool]

Yes, Christians will be well advised to steer clear of superstition. Why do you think I struggle so much to free some of them from the superstition of Sola Scriptura?

The word of God is superstition...

Answer this one...Did the Holy Spirit teach you that the word of God is superstition???

[Uncle Chip]

And yet can't be set free from Sola Magisteriuma.

[William Terrell]

LOL

You would think that if the Catholic church was started, and was destined to be the One True Church, the apostles would have written such clearly in the scriptures, wouldn't you?

But, at best, you have very laboriously interpreted references, and no appeal to either Old or New Testament customary treatment of the non-exclusivety of the scriptures in either testaments.

If your claim was as intact as you would have it be, clear as you would have it be, there would be no room for argument. But it isn't, and you have millions that argue against RCC claims. And continue to so argue.

God does not bless arrogance, and the RCC is anything but humble.

God bless you, and lead you to truth.

[William Terrell]

Arrogance of a very rich and very powerful artificial entity.

[wagglebee]

You would think that if the Catholic church was started, and was destined to be the One True Church, the apostles would have written such clearly in the scriptures, wouldn't you?

They recorded the Word of the Lord, "On this Rock I will build my Church."

It was very clear to them, Christ founded ONE Church, and it was built upon Peter and his confession.

If the apostles had intended for every dissatisfied group to run off and form their own church with new unscriptural dogmas, then they would have written THAT.

[HarleyD]

Likewise the Protestants who adhere to the Protestant communities of faith due to their cultural background and do not make a career out of attacking the Church,

Then it may please you to know that I don't "attack" the Church. I simply point out the egregiously wrong doctrine and theology the Church purports such as:

When a baptized Christian is saved and goes to heaven he does so on the merits of his baptism and his Christian life.

I will not go to heaven based upon my baptism and my Christian life. I can confirm that if I were to put my life next to many Christians, I would come woefully short.

That being said, I will go to heaven simply because Christ has paid for my sins with His shed blood, He helped me to see my sinful behavior, I have repented of my wretchedness, and I trust Him to keep me in His care and help me to bear the fruit that He would like me to bear. I simply trust His promises.

[annalex]

The word of God is superstition

The belief that the scripture (as redacted by Luther) is alone a perspicuous and sufficient source of Christian spiritual truth in no need of interpretation in the light of Catohlic tradition, -- the belief known as Sola Scriptura, -- is a suprstitious belief.

Why? Because any metaphysical belief not grounded in reason or Divine revelation is a supersittion.

[William Terrell]

They recorded the Word of the Lord, "On this Rock I will build my Church."

Extremely vaporous foundation. Why? If, as you contend, the Roman Catholic Church was deliberately formed to become the Mother, then why were the apostles not careful to present such unambiguously in scripture? Why necessitate the peripheral and multi-interpretational references?

[annalex]

You would think that if the Catholic church was started, and was destined to be the One True Church, the apostles would have written such clearly in the scriptures, wouldn't you?

The Apostles did better: they started One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on the rock of Peter.

One: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16)

Holy: "Christ [...] loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. " (Ephesians 5:25-27).

Catholic: "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15)

Apostolic: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." (John 20:21)

Papacy: "thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

Scripture: They also gave you the scripture and told you what it means: "16 [...] we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. 17 For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 18 And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. " (2 Peter 1).