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.

[stfassisi]

Can you explain something Dear Brother?

How is it that you can bash the Catholic Church,the Church that determined thru the Holy Spirit what books that made up the Bible that you love?

Can you point out what Scripture supports this?
Can you point out Scripture that says Jesus Christ did NOT establish a Church?

[HarleyD]

I'm missing your point.

[adiaireton8]

The Lord specifically states that one should not add to or take away from anything He is commanding us.

Of course, but obviously that does not mean that no new divine commands can be added, otherwise, the Bible would end at Deuteronomy. Thus any inspired scripture clearly falls within those boundaries since, by even Catholic definition, it is directly God-breathed wording.

Of course. The Catholic Church does not claim that the canon is open. The Catholic Church determined that the canon is closed.

So my argument still stand with the backing of the Church. I cannot insert, "And thus Joshua, son of Nunn, ate a ham sandwich at Bethel." without the Lord being rightfully mad at me.

The closing of the canon, and 'sola scriptura' are distinct claims. You are trying to argue for 'sola scriptura' on the grounds of the closing of the canon. But they are not the same.

-A8

[William Terrell]

Thank you. I wish I could claim authorship.

When a person believes a certain interpretation of scripture, he can "understand" and "explain" it. Other, equally valid or even more valid, ways of looking at it are hidden if they don't reinforce the investment he has made, especially if his spiritual salvation depends on the interpretation.

My responses are reasoning, much like Jesus or a disciple "reasoned" over scripture with a rabbi or scribe. Not all things are found in scripture, so implications must be reasoned out in light of the context, tradition and actual words.

This much is very plain to me. If Jesus, who knew things to come, was to award a human run organization the power over the very souls of men, who is accepted and rejected, who is saved or condemned, ways to address the Father that He didn't specifically say, the power and authority of God in judgment of how men think and act, His plan would have made it into scripture clear, unambiguous, and would have said specifically that with the clarity and specificity of ". . .kingdom of God is within."

I don't see how you've shown me that. You've shown me a Rube Goldberg device where there ought to be a hammer.

[stfassisi]

""The Lord specifically states that one should not add to or take away from anything He is commanding us."

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek,thus in doing so Luther added to words and eluded to his idea that works mean nothing,thus NOT trusting in the Lord that selfless works belong to the Lord and not man.

Dangerous theology my friend.

Have a good night Dear Bother.

[Uncle Chip]

Are you missing the apostle Paul's point too? Then maybe you're missing the Gospel in its entirety.

[annalex]

This is a very interesting post and I wanted to comment at some length tomorrow. Among other things, I wanted to check if indeed the Kingdom of Heaven being inside us is as inambiguous as you claim. Well, as I was doing my daily Gospel post, I came across this:

Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God (Luke 14:15)

How does one eat bread inside of himself?

[William Terrell]

How is it that you can bash the Catholic Church,the Church that determined thru the Holy Spirit what books that made up the Bible that you love?

The parchments and scrolls didn't come from the Catholic church, and other translation have been made that shows the church's translation to be reasonably accurate.

Can you point out Scripture that says Jesus Christ did NOT establish a Church?

Neither can I point out the scripture that says Jesus did not say to wiggle the ears and spit before praying.

[William Terrell]

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

[HarleyD]

Of course, but obviously that does not mean that no new divine commands can be added, otherwise, the Bible would end at Deuteronomy.

Wasn't it our Lord Jesus who said, "A new commandment I give to you..."?

The scriptures weren't complete. Now if you want to say the Church has a right to interpret and refine the interpretation of the scriptures then that is a different matter. Otherwise you're into Orthodoxy which believes that the Church has been granted the authority to modify scriptures as appropriate and under serious consideration.

[adiaireton8]

The point is that 'sola scriptura' is not found in Scripture. And therefore those who make use of 'sola scriptura' are contradicting themselves.

-A8

[HarleyD]

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek,...Dangerous theology my friend.

I'm not an expert here but but it sounds like you're saying what Luther did was OK and that my saying people shouldn't add to the writings is wrong. I would say what Luther did was wrong in itself. Fortunately history (God) has recorded this indiscretion.

[HarleyD]

Are you missing the apostle Paul's point too? Then maybe you're missing the Gospel in its entirety.

No, Paul writes very clearly. I can understand what he is saying simply because the Holy Spirit helps me interprets it. Unfortunately, I have no such guidance with your post.

[Uncle Chip]

When does Paul say the Scriptures first preached the Gospel and to whom was it preached? It's right there in Galatians 3:8.

[annalex]

Every now and then you make posts that smash the Sola Scriptura superstition to pieces. This is one of them.

Other, equally valid or even more valid, ways of looking at it are hidden if they don't reinforce the investment he has made

Yes. Absolutely correct. This is why we don't read the scripture alone: we read it with the Fathers of the Church. Otherwise we are just reinforcing our prejudices, something routinely happening at sectarian Bible studies.

Not all things are found in scripture

Another one right out of the park. Veneration of saints, for example, is not there. One can reason about it based on what is there, -- but one cannot dismiss it simply because it is not in the Bible.

His plan would have made [the authority of the Church] into scripture clear, unambiguous, and would have said specifically that with the clarity and specificity of ". . .kingdom of God is within."

Bind and loose, two times, keys to the Kingdom, feed my sheep, disobedient to the church are worse than tax collectors, -- you want a bigger hammer?

This brings us to the inambiguousness of Luke 14:15. I agree, this makes it very clear that following His ascension we are too look for the Kingdom, and for His continuing presence, internally. However, to conclude from this that no external organization can hold the key to that kingdom, -- despite that clearly foretold by Mt. 16:19 -- is to disregard all the scripture except this one that you like. There are over 150 occurences of "kingdom" in the New Testament. Let me start with two obvious ones: St. Peter is given keys to it; we are to pray for its coming. None of this is suggestive of the idea that the kingdom is entirely internal to the believer. Likewise, if the kingdom is solely a metaphore for a disposition of the soul, then eating bread and drinking wine in it kind of makes no sense, does it?

More examples. Routinely, "entering" the kingdom is mentioned. Hardly consistent with an internal condition. Different people enter is at different times if at all; and some are lesser in it than others. In Mt 25 it is described as something prepared from the foundation of the world; but the individual is not from the foundation of the world. The apostles are promised judgeship in the kingdom, consistent with the actual kingdom as a social organization, not consistent with an internal state.

In Romans 14 the kingdom is defined in terms of joy, peace and justice. The former is an internal condition, the other two social. In 1 Cor 4 Paul directly speaks of his "rod" with which the power of the kingdom be manifest to the disobedient. In Colossians 4 St. Paul refers to his helpers in the kingdom; are they inside Paul?

In the Apocalypse the kingdom is only consistent with the social metaphore, especially when its power over thekings of the earth is proclaimed.

None of this is to invalidate the theological fact that it is the human soul that is the sole determinant of eternal life; but at the same time the entirety of the scripture supports the existence of a social structure of the Church. As Catholic, I have to look at the whole scripture, not only the verses I like.

[Cvengr]

My life is by the law of His grace. Through faith in Him we walk in fellowship with God, by His grace. Such fellowship with Him is more primary than a fellowship with a brother or any brotherhood. There is no need for us to pray for you, which you are not able to pray yourself. Some who degenerate in their walk with Him believe by praying for one another they can avoid liability for attempting to exalt themselves. But a true believer in faith may pray unceasingly for all things by His will.

[annalex]

We spoke of monasticism before.

How inambiguous is this:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

(Lk 14:26)

[Uncle Chip]

He can't find the answer. Is it because the so-called Holy Spirit that he has is asleep and won't wake up? Or perhaps this Holy Spirit of his is on a pilgrimage somewhere this time of year and forgot his cell phone? Or maybe this HS of his is too busy allegorizing and interpreting those all-too-straight-forward Bible passages to try his prefabricative sorcery on this one?

Or perhaps this HS of his has Alzheimer's Disease and can't remember what he wrote, much less the meaning of it? Or maybe just maybe, he has the same so-called Holy Spirit that Marcion the Apostate had.

One would think that, by now, with all these so called HS's around, they could have put their collective HS heads together and come up with something magical from that wild blue yonder around them.

If I had a so-called Holy Spirit that was so deaf, dumb, blind, literary-challenged, and obviously suffering from ADD/ADHD that he couldn't answer such a simple question, then I would trade him in on a new model, or maybe just dump him and find myself a 10 year old child somewhere, one who could just read words with honesty and simplicity, without the need of any Holy Spirit at all, to explain what these simple words mean.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"There is no need for us to pray for you, which you are not able to pray yourself."

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow you here. Are you saying that I am not able to pray? And/or are you saying that intercessory prayer is, in general, useless? And/or are you saying that praying for me is, in particular, useless?

I need some clarification.

[William Terrell]

None of this is to invalidate the theological fact that it is the human soul that is the sole determinant of eternal life; but at the same time the entirety of the scripture supports the existence of a social structure of the Church. As Catholic, I have to look at the whole scripture, not only the verses I like.

The can be no authority of any organization to judge souls of men, determine who is acceptable or rejectable by Christ and the Kingdom, write scripture from scratch and make any decision left to Christ and God when each human being can and has the power and sovereignty to, by himself and himself alone, submit to the law of God and His commandments and be saved.

And this is quite beside the point that God clearly, by the scriptures, has each to be saved written in the Book of Life since the foundation of the world, and no human organization can have the authority to add to or delete from that book.

Great is the arrogance of any that think they can.

No matter what great work you build upon a foundation of straw, that work falls, as does the Catholic church, for being other than a humble helpmeet for those who work for and in the Kingdom.