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]

But the Church also recognizes the communal aspect of faith.

So do I, but not having to do with a church. Whenever two or more are gathered. . . Of individual election, a church not being necessary, or the two or more being the generic church.

No question, the Church has always taught that faith is intensely personal, as it culminates in Penance and the Eucharist, both acts demanding an individual movement of soul.

When you have personal faith, a personal communion with God and the power of prayer, you do not need a church, except to commune with others of faith.

A church, such as the RCC, sets itself as a central authority, determining the worthiness of souls to Christ, the rituals necessary to the practice of faith and investment of oneself in the church to insure salvation.

The fact that God adds all things to those who seek first the kingdom makes a church, as a regulating entity, superfluous, because the seeking, finding and the reward are personal and individual things.

No one person in a church who finds the spirit insure the salvation of any other in the church, but the church can be leavened by strange and rootless doctrine and damage individual election unless one separate himself from it.

The only central authority of Christian faith and salvation must be Christ Himself and His Gospels, readable and understandable and the Spirit inside callable by any human being on the face of the Earth at his election and decision.

Any church must and can be only a gossamer net thrown over the whole of like minded individuals seeking to call the Christ by gathering in His name, and investing no authority on the net itself, which can itself receive no inspiration, spirit or salvation.

It's nice to belong to a church, but I don't think it necessary, or perhaps wise in some cases, artificial entities being especially vulnerable to corruption through leavening of only a few.

In my mind, the Body of Christ are spread throughout the world, members, many, of groups that meet together and worship, and many not, but no less saved.

[Uncle Chip]

Why should I answer the same questions again and again? Can't people remember my answers?

[Quix]

My reading of Scripture finds no evidence that Jesus appointed Peter leader of such an edifice.

My reading of Scripture indicates that HAD JESUS DONE SO, subsequent folks in that position would have insured that Jesus would have lifted the anointing long ago.

[HarleyD]

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

Hbr 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hbr 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Hbr 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

Hbr 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Keep in my we're talking about the resurrected Christ. As far as I'm concerned, Christ is already ruling on high. He has sat down with the Father according to Hebrews. What did the resurrected Christ sit down on if not a throne? Why would Christ need an "earthly" throne when He has a most heavenly glorious one?

[Uncle Chip]

Are you trying to tell me that the throne that His Father is sitting on now, with His Son at His right hand, is the throne of David? Did His Father have a throne before David?Where does it say that His Father would sit on the the throne of David? Jesus, Son Of David, is prophesied to sit on that throne? Is His Father the son of David?

[Alex Murphy]

Are you trying to tell me that the throne that His Father is sitting on now, with His Son at His right hand, is the throne of David?

Are you by chance telling us that the actual, literal, physical "Throne of David" survived the diaspora, and will be literally sat upon by Jesus Christ when Christ returns?

[Uncle Chip]

Whether the old one survived or not is irrelevant, because a new one can be reconstructed if necessary. What is important is the right of the one who sits on it to sit on it. Peter says in Acts 15:16-17 that the tabernacle of David which is fallen down will be rebuilt by the one whose right it is to sit on it. What do prophets teach on the matter? Should we allegorize them away?

[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.

How about an answer to this?

BTW for the benefit of our RC friends, let it be known that the Bible that I have had for 40 years is in tatters, its pages are falling out, ripped, and torn, and shredded. I can barely put it back together anymore to lift it up and put it on the table

And an explanation of this

[Alex Murphy]

Peter says in Acts 15:16-17 that the tabernacle of David which is fallen down will be rebuilt by the one whose right it is to sit on it. What do prophets teach on the matter? Should we allegorize them away?

When you speak of "the right of the one who sits on it to sit on it", are you speaking of the second Person of the Trinity, or some other Christ?

[annalex]

I have no desire to explain things to you, Dr. Chick.

[Uncle Chip]

Chip, not Chick.

[annalex]

Again, these are just your opinion.

the two or more being the generic church.

Two or more gathered is Christ's name make Christ present in some sense, yes. But since the passage in Mt 18 distinguishes between two or more and the Church, the Church is not "two or more".

You still need to address the fact that several epistles deal exclusively with the Church organization and priestly formation.

What you described is generic elemental Christianity. It is OK -- it is better than nothing, -- but it cannot lead to any depth. For one thing, you obey the gospels in a very self-serving, selective way, and you interpret them as it pleases you. Especially, you did not point out to anything that would support your anti-clericalism. Matthew 6 is surely not it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Check this out in your reading of Scripture:

Christ is the Rock; and this role of being Rock is not shared by others. For instance, we also read this in Scripture: 1 Peter 2:5 "...you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house..."

Christ is likewise the foundation: 1 Corinthians 3:11 "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ"

And yet Scripture also says: Revelation 21:14 " The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

Clearly these are roles which Christ shares with His Apostles. And who is pre-eminent among Christ's chosen Twelve? Obviously, Peter, whom Christ CALLS "this Rock." Notice that Jesus does not say,"Upon Myself, the Rock" or "upon the rock of your testimony." He says, "Thou art Cephas (Peter), and upon this Rock. The demonstrative article. The one I just named.

The writers of the New Testament agree in this pre-eminence. Peter's prominence is pretty obvious.

Number of times mentioned in the New Testament:

"The Twelve": 25
James (Apostle): 38
John ...(Apostle): 39
John (the Baptist): 100
Peter... ..(Apostle): 173 (and if you include the phrase, "Simon BarJonah") Peter/Simon is mentioned by name 204 times.

(And all the times he's called "Simon Peter" I just counted as once.)

This doesn't prove "everything," but it does illustrate Peter's sheer dominance as someone whom Christ singled out as leader and, often, spokesman for the other Apostles. He's the leader of the "living stones."

"Thou art Cephas (English: Peter; literal translation: Rock)
and upon this Cephas (trans: this Rock, not "some other rock," but this Rock right here, i.e. Peter)
I will build My Church."

If that's not clear enough, I'll get out my big ol' blinking neon arrows...

[William Terrell]

Again, these are just your opinion.

This my understanding of scriptures. The RCC church has also an opinion from various people's understanding of scriptures.

Two or more gathered is Christ's name make Christ present in some sense, yes. But since the passage in Mt 18 distinguishes between two or more and the Church, the Church is not "two or more".

In some sense? Jesus did not say "in some sense". The spirit of Christ is in fact there. Maybe you haven't experienced it, but I have.

A "church" is just a body of like believers. It doesn't have a life, a soul and an existence all its own beyond the gathering of those who congregate together. It is an artificial entity. It is like a fist which is just the mode of a hand, or a lap which vanishes when you stand up.

All power is given to individuals, who may move mountains, need nothing but seeking the kingdom of God to which God will add to them, individually, all they need.

Individuals are sons of God, individuals pray, only two are needed to call Christ's presence, God spoke to individuals, individuals choose to follow God's law or stray, individuals go to Heaven or Hell.

[Quix]

Thanks.

But, not my interpretation of those passages.

[annalex]

The RCC church has also an opinion from various people's understanding of scriptures.

Right, but ours comes from 2000 of tradition and research by people who dedicated their lives to it, who trace their consecration to the apostles, and who were promised the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

A "church" is just a body of like believers. It doesn't have a life, a soul and an existence all its own beyond the gathering of those who congregate together.

It also has authority and structure described in the gospels.

You can bump into a judge on your trip to the market and get in an argument over parking space. He will have no more authority than you in that argument. However, he will have authority over you in court. That would be the power of his office, even though his office has no life or soul or independent existence. Court has authority. So does the Church.

[Diego1618]

Whether the old one survived or not is irrelevant, because a new one can be reconstructed if necessary.What do prophets teach on the matter?

Jeremiah says, "The Throne will last as long as the days and night cycle" [Jeremiah 33:19-26].

Jeremiah, himself, made sure the seed of David was safe by removing the King's daughters from danger after King Zedekiah had his sons slain before him and then blinded by his Babylonian captors [II Kings 25:7]! Jeremiah took these "Daughters".......somewhere! The prophecy was spelled out in [I Kings 2:4][Psalm 89][II Chronicles 6:16]. Zedekiah, of course being the last Biblical King to sit on the throne of David.

Watch out Uncle....they're startin' to call you names again!

[Diego1618]

The writers of the New Testament agree in this pre-eminence. Peter's prominence is pretty obvious. Number of times mentioned in the New Testament: "The Twelve": 25 James (Apostle): 38 John ...(Apostle): 39 John (the Baptist): 100 Peter... ..(Apostle): 173 (and if you include the phrase, "Simon BarJonah") Peter/Simon is mentioned by name 204 times.

Paul is mentioned 240 times!

[HarleyD]

Whether the old one survived or not is irrelevant, because a new one can be reconstructed if necessary.

It is totally relevant. You are trying to say I am reducing this down to an "allegory". I'm not. I'm saying this promise was fulfilled with Christ who now sits on a very physical throne, the throne of David.

Luk 1:31-33 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Isa 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Mar 12:35-37 And answering, teaching in the temple, Jesus said, How do the scribes say that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I place Your enemies as Your footstool." David therefore himself calls Him Lord, and why then is He his son? And the great crowd heard Him gladly.

The throne of David has been looked at, even by David, as that which was to be established by the Messiah-our Lord Jesus. This was physically fulfilled when Christ ascended into heaven where He reigns and makes intercession for us. If you doubt me read Revelation and the description of the throne BEFORE the final count down.

Peter's remarks in Acts 15:

Act 15:16 "After this I will return and will build again the tabernacle of David which has fallen down; and I will build again its ruins, and I will set it up,

is nothing more than a rephrasing of what Christ stated when He said, "tear this temple down and in three days I will rebuild it".

Christ reigns right now. He hasn't been sitting on His hands for 2,000 years waiting for the "right" moment. He doesn't need a cheap, wooden, manmade throne when God the Father has created a beautiful throne surrounded by a rainbow, a symbol of His promise and mercy. He is our King of Kings and Lord of Lords reigning and leading His church victorious to the final days, to the praise and glory of His name.

[Uncle Chip]

Watch out Uncle....they're startin' to call you names again!

Well --- you know what they say: "sticks and stones . . . "

The royal line lept over from Solomon's lineage to Nathan's lineage at Zerubabbel, the son of Shealtiel [Luke 3:27]and [Matthew 1:12] who is in both Mary and Joseph's lineage, and per Zechariah 12:12, it is the House of Nathan that is to receive special honors at the end of the age in Jerusalem.