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.

[William Terrell]

How were people saved before the Bible?

I believe Paul talked about this. Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness. That is to say, Abraham had faith and belief in God. The second covenant that Jesus brought was salvation of faith and belief, as the law could only guide but not save.

Through this faith and belief of Abraham, his seed was given salvation from God and were to bring the law, which was to guide the people until the Messiah would come. Then, there were no distinction among men but only that of faith in the Gospels as brought by the Christ.

Salvation is the promise of those who believe and practice that belief in faith. It was said by Christ that all you need is faith the mass of a mustard seed and you can remove mountains and cast them into the sea. That was the promise to anyone who gained such faith.

It is a private and individual thing, requiring no organization.

[Uncle Chip]

Okay then, what should we call that group of theologians within the Church today that don't believe that Jesus will rule again on the throne of David in Jerusalem for a thousand years?

[Alamo-Girl]

In case you are interested, I'm awaiting a reply to a similar line of questioning over here . The link is to post 453 where I'm waiting for a reply. Note the last few paragraphs which "go to" the point you are making here.

Post 451 and 452 over there - as the above here - seem to indicate that the Sola Scriptura doctrine equates the words of God with the Word of God (John 1 and Rev 19) and more troubling, that the Scriptures are God.

That was an eye-opener for me and I await confirmation. If this is true, IMHO, it is the equivalent of worshipping the Creation which was spoken into being by God rather than God Himself. And it makes me wonder, if the Scriptures are God to these Christians, then why they do not react angrily when when the Bibles are mistreated (like the Islamists do.)

[Running On Empty]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't St. John write this:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the WORD WAS GOD.

So--in receiving Him, are we not receiving the WORD HIMSELF who is God? We are receiving Him, not just his word.

[Uncle Chip]

In receiving His words [Scriptures], the recipient is receiving Him.

[William Terrell]

How can writings possibly be God Himself, even if He Himself wrote them? They are immoble, static, fixed, not dynamic, creating universes as spoken.

[Alamo-Girl]

Exactly. That is why my jaw is still on the floor.

Thank you so much for your reply!

[jo kus]

Can you separate a man from his word? Can you separate Jesus from His word and receive Him without also receiving His word?

First of all, the Bible is NOT the entire Word of God. God is a person, not a book.

Secondly, I gave you Scripture to point out what gives us life. It is God HIMSELF, not the words He spoke.

And finally, those who have not heard the Bible being preached can still partake in the gift of the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit blows where HE wills, not based on your limiting judgment.

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Romans 2:14-16

Accordingly, even some GENTILES have the law (of Love) written on their hearts as a result of the Spirit, Gentiles who had yet to hear (or perhaps never would) hear the formal Gospel proclaimed to them.

Thus, your claim that those without the Bible are without Christ is false. God is not bound to those who ONLY read the Bible.

Regards

[jo kus]

Post 451 and 452 over there - as the above here - seem to indicate that the Sola Scriptura doctrine equates the words of God with the Word of God (John 1 and Rev 19) and more troubling, that the Scriptures are God.

Oh dear... The Scriptures are God. I haven't heard that one before.

Regards

[Alamo-Girl]

I hadn't either, that one really broadsided me. If true, it explains a lot. But I am praying that is not what was meant.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Can you state for certain that the doctrine that we know as replacement theology, which allegorizes away the words of the prophets of the Old Testament, did not come down to us through Marcion?

You haven't proven anything except Marcion was a misguided heretic. He has nothing to do with understanding the Covenant of Grace.

"Theology" doesn't allegorize anything. Scripture does. Paul was very clear. All who call themselves Israel are not Israel. And I do not share the actual blood of Abraham, but I share the blood of Christ with him, and thus I am a child by the Promise, and not by some red corpuscle bloodline.

Marcion believed there was total discontinuity between Israel and the church, and between the Old Testament and the New Testament. He thus rejected the Old Testament as part of the canon of inspired Scripture for the church.

This is the antithesis of an amillennial or postmillennial approach to Scripture. As Van Til explains...

"This doctrine of the total depravity of man makes it plain that the moral consciousness of man as he is today cannot be the source of information about what is ideal good or about what is the standard of the good...It is this point particularly that makes it necessary for the Christian to maintain without any apology and without any concession that it is Scripture, and Scripture alone, in the light of which all moral questions must be answered. Scripture as an external revelation became necessary because of the sin of man. No man living can even put the moral problem as he ought to put it, or ask the moral questions as he ought to ask them, unless he does so in the light of Scripture. Man cannot of himself truly face the moral question, let alone answer it" -- Van Til, "Defense of the Faith" pg. 54

God gave the Jews the Covenant of works. And the Jews could not be saved by works. None of us can. Instead, those Jews who had faith were counted righteous and were saved.

The New Testament unfolds out of the Old to show us that works do not save anyone; that only faith in Jesus Christ saves whom God wills. But the faith He gave to both is exactly the same -- Jesus Christ. The "seed of Abraham" is Christ.

Dispensationalism: A Reformed Perspective

"...The fundamental difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism is this issue of Israel and the church.  Dispensationalism stresses the literal fulfillment of prophecy about Israel and posits an essential difference between physical Israel and the church.   If you have Dipensational friends who are discussing with you how you interpret Old Testament passages, and their fulfillment is seen in the New Covenant, almost always they will tell you something like this, "Well, I take the Bible literally and you are spiritualizing away these passages."  Now what they really mean by that is they take the term Israel, literally.  Now, everybody has to acknowledge symbolic elements in prophecy.  Anybody who has read dispensational interpretations of the book of Revelation will see that it is very clear that dispensationalists also have a very symbolic approach to the meaning of Scripture, but what they mean, whereas you think that these prophesies about Israel and Judah in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the church and in the coming in of the Gentiles into the church, we dispensationalists do not believe that the Church is prophesied about in the Old Testament.  And we believe that the prophesies about Israel and Judah in the Old Testament are to be literally fulfilled in Israel in Judah in the New Covenant...

Now, Covenant Theology on the other hand, sees the Church as the fulfillment of Israel in New Covenant prophecy.  Covenant Theology is happy to acknowledge the uniqueness of the Church, especially in its post Pentecost phase.  But Covenant Theology sees all believers in essential continuity.  There are not two peoples of God. There is one people of God..."

 

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Okay then, what should we call that group of theologians within the Church today that don't believe that Jesus will rule again on the throne of David in Jerusalem for a thousand years?

You call them Bible-believing, redeemed Christians who know for a fact that Christ rules today at the right hand of God in heaven.

[Uncle Chip]

Why do people who neither believe nor understand the Scriptures, quote and cite them as if they did?

[Lil Flower]

You have that backwards, my friend. Before there was ever a King James Bible, there was Christ. Before there was an Old Testament, there was Christ. If I have never seen or read a Bible, and yet I have Christ in my heart, I have His Word. It is written on my heart, the way God intended it. Earlier, some one pointed out to you that, say a mentally handicapped person who cannot read or comprehend what they are reading can still be a Christian, because if Christ is in their heart then so is his word.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"My view of the historical record is that the Roman edifice did not even begin until at least 200 years after Paul died."

The "Roman edifice" --- whatever you mean by that--- is really tangential. There is nothing magical, mystical, or even magisterial about the city of Rome, per se. All that could be put aside, Rome could be nuked to smithereens, and the successor of St. Peter could be a barefoot, blind fellow with a beggar's bowl wandering about Ravenna or Avignon or Aix la Chapelle (or Milwaukee or Rio) and still St. Peter's successor --- the beggar --- would be the pope.

This was determined by Jesus, not geography.

[Uncle Chip]

Did Paul know how to spell the word "church", and "Israel" or was he writing in some kind of secret code that only certain groups of interpreters are privy to?

[Uncle Chip]

And before there was a Jerome Latin Vulgate, there were old Latin Bibles, and Greek Bibles, and Syriac, . . . .

[Dr. Eckleburg]

In receiving His words [Scriptures], the recipient is receiving Him.

Amen. The work of the Holy Spirit is to preach the Redeemer through Scripture.

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name." -- John 20:31

Unlike our RC FRiends who believe objects can by tangibly holy, the Bible is not a mystical relic, and no book and its pages are intrinsically, materialistically holy.

But the words on the page are holy because they are spoken by the Holy Spirit directly to the believer's heart.

And those with ears to hear, given by God alone, will hear and know their Savior.

[Lil Flower]

And before there was a Jerome Latin Vulgate, there were old Latin Bibles, and Greek Bibles, and Syriac, . . . .

Absolutely. Now that we agree on something, how about addressing the rest of my post.

[Uncle Chip]

Amen to that, Doc --- I couldn't have said it better.