Peter In Rome? What do we know?

[Brennin]

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

Peace

All of those are late. There is a clear presumption in Paul's letters written from Rome that Peter is absent from the city at the very time you claim he was "pope."

 

[Brennin]

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Is this what you were referring to:

I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freed-man of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being a prisoner, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain.

Sorry, but that does not prove your assertion.

 

[Brennin]

Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

Clement's statements, if correct, only prove Peter was martyred in Rome.

 

[Ormly]

Originally Posted by lionroar0
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

So what was Paul, a 'bell hop' while you say Peter was a pope?

 

[lionroar0]

So what was Paul, a 'bell hop' while you say Peter was a pope?

They were both Apostles not all Apostles were Bishops.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Sorry, but that does not prove your assertion.

Yes it does.

Peace

 

[Brennin]

Yes it does.

Peace

No, it does not. Ignatius simply wrote that he does not issue commandments like the apostles. He says nothing about Peter being Bishop of Rome, your papal wishful thinking notwithstanding.

 

[Ormly]

They were both Apostles not all Apostles were Bishops.

Peace

The meaning of the word Apostle means "establisher"; "missionary". In other words, The "head of the organizational movement". Paul did his share of "appointing" in the true Church.

Bishops are appointed. So lets not play with words just to satisfy the need to be right.

 

[Catholic Christian]

I would like to share an MP3 link with everyone:
http://www.bringyou.to/ScottHahnBAM1990.mp3

The reason I am posting this is to try and foster a polite, respectful exchange of ideas. This is a 1990 episode of the Bible Answer Man, a protestant radio show. The guest is Dr. Scott Hahn, a Catholic theolgian. It is a great example of Catholics and protestants exchanging views in a respectful, charitable manner - as it should be. (Eastern Orthodox too: Sorry to leave you out of the mix.) I believe everyone here (including myself) could learn from this. I hope that you will all take an hour out of your day to relax and listen to it.

(*If you like Dr. Hahn, I would suggest one other link for the future:
http://www.bringyou.to/ScottHahnCatholicObjectionsCOMPLETE.mp3
This is Dr. Hahn answering common objections to Catholic teachings.)

God Bless.

 

[lionroar0]

The meaning of the word Apostle means "establisher"; "missionary". In other words, The "head of the organizational movement". Paul did his share of "appointing" in the true Church.

Bishops are appointed. So lets not play with words just to satisfy the need to be right.

And not all Apostles were Bishops. A Bishop is in charge of a Diocese. What diocese was St. Paul in charge of?

St. Peter was in charge of Rome. St. Andrew of Constantinople. St James Jerusalem.

Your post is not a rebuttal. My statement that not all Apostles are Bishops does not negate the fact that they did start churches in cities and appointed Bishops.

Nor does it negate the fact that some of the Apostles were Bishops themselves.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

No, it does not. Ignatius simply wrote that he does not issue commandments like the apostles. He says nothing about Peter being Bishop of Rome, your papal wishful thinking notwithstanding.

Yes it does. Right along with the other historical proof.

Peace

 

[Catholic Christian]

St Irenaeus, (Against Heresies, 3, 3, 3 [A.D. 189]).

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us".

LINK:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

 

[Brennin]

Yes it does. Right along with the other historical proof.

Peace

You can add that fantasy to your stockpile but the fact remains that there is no evidence Peter was ever Bishop of Rome. At most, he was martyred there.

 

[Brennin]

St Irenaeus, (Against Heresies, 3, 3, 3 [A.D. 189]).

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us".

LINK:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

Like I wrote previously, Irenaeus, a cleric in Gallia, wrote several things that have no basis in reality.

 

[Ormly]

And not all Apostles were Bishops. A Bishop is in charge of a Diocese. What diocese was St. Paul in charge of?

St. Peter was in charge of Rome. St. Andrew of Constantinople. St James Jerusalem.

Your post is not a rebuttal. My statement that not all Apostles are Bishops does not negate the fact that they did start churches in cities and appointed Bishops.

Nor does it negate the fact that some of the Apostles were Bishops themselves.

Peace

Peter was the Apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles. Rome was a Gentile church. That should be everyones starting in this discussion. It should be the reason for examining the veracity of all the documents, for objectivity, that support the various points of view.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Like I wrote previously, Irenaeus, a cleric in Gallia, wrote several things that have no basis in reality.

Irenaeus wrote in Greek many works which have secured for him an exceptional place in Christian literature, because in controverted religious questions of capital importance they exhibit the testimony of a contemporary of the heroic age of the Church, of one who had heard St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, and who, in a manner, belonged to the Apostolic Age.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm

 

[Catholic Christian]

Peter was the Apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles. Rome was a Gentile church. That should be everyones starting in this discussion. It should be the reason for examining the veracity of all the documents, for objectivity, that support the various points of view.

Peter was the leader of ALL the apostles. It doesn't matter who went where. Peter was the "Keeper Of The Keys", the fullfiment of the Davidic Prime Minister to the King.

 

[Catholic Christian]

You can add that fantasy to your stockpile....

Thats not very nice

 

[Ormly]

Peter was the leader of ALL the apostles. It doesn't matter who went where. Peter was the "Keeper Of The Keys", the fullfiment of the Davidic Prime Minister to the King.

Thats just good Catholic. . . . However, Peter never saw himself as such anymore than any other Apostle. Who was going to be the greatest was an ongoing argument before Jesus ever left the scene.

 

[Trento]

Peter was the Apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles. Rome was a Gentile church. That should be everyones starting in this discussion. It should be the reason for examining the veracity of all the documents, for objectivity, that support the various points of view.

You had better check out the Jewish Catacombs in Rome. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews buried there.

This is your personal interpretation of this. as we can see by a host of contemporary Protestant scholars and the Unanimous consensus of the Early Church fathers beginning In 90 A D.

Protestant J.N.D. Kelly, distinguished Church historian and Principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford.

"It is certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'BABYLON' is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."EARLY CHRISTIAN CREEDS, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES,

Protestants Shotwell and Loomis. the authors of the massive study THE SEE OF PETER.
"The First Epistle of Peter has been the fundamental text for the contention that Peter was in Rome. Its closing salutation, 'The church that is in Babylon....saluteth you' (1 Peter v,13), refers UNDOUBTEDLY to Rome. Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the STRONGEST in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10)..... "Upon the whole, there seems nothing improbable in the tradition and the belief of Catholic writers in St. Peter's early labors in Rome. His martyrdom there, at a later period, is vouched for by a fairly continuous line of references in the documents from Clement on." NY: Octagon Books, 1965) by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis, p. 56-57, 58-59

Editors of the Evangelical NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY 21st Century Edition (1994).
"In 5:13 the writer sends greetings from 'she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you'. This seems like a reference to the local church in Babylon, but it is unlikely that Peter would have gone to the former capital of Nebuchadnezzar's empire.
"By Peter's time it was a sparsely inhabited ruin (fulfilling Isaiah 14:23). In Rev 16:19 and 17:5 'Babylon' is used as a cryptic name for Rome, and Col 4:10 and Phm 24 (most likely written in Rome) show that Mark was there with Paul. In 2 Tim 4:11 Mark is in Asia Minor, and Paul sends for him to come, most probably to Rome."
"The fact that neither Peter nor Paul mentions the other in the list of those sending greetings from Rome merely suggests that they were not together at the time of writing their letters. All this points to the theory that Peter was writing from Rome, which is supported by the evidence of Tertullian (praescrip haeret, 36) and Eusebius (Eccl History, 2.25.8; 2.15.2 and 3.1.2-3)."

Liberal Protestant scholar Adolph Harnack
"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice."
Adolph Harnack cited in THE SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES by William Stuart McBirnie (Tyndale House, 1988), p. 63

Dr. George Salmon protestant Biblical and Patristic scholar
Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was NEVER at Rome...I think the historic probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period of the history, and not long before his death....[but some] Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was NEVER at Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin."
"For myself, I am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi that Peter suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and NONE but Rome made the claim."
"If this evidence for Peter's Roman martyrdom be not deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate."
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH : A Refutation by George Salmon, D.D. (Baker, 1959, orig 1888), p. 348,349
Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce
"That Peter as well as Paul was put to death at Rome under Nero is the UNANIMOUS testimony of Christian tradition so far as it touches this subject."
"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is CERTAIN; that they were claimed as co-founders of the Roman church and that this, together with their martyrdom there, conferred great religious (as distinct from political) prestige on that church, is likewise CERTAIN...."
NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY (Doubleday and Co, 1971) by F.F. Bruce, p. 403,410

Protestant German historian and archaeologist Hans Lietzmann.
LIETZMANN: "ALL the early sources...clearly suggest to us, namely, that Peter sojourned in Rome and died a martyr there. Any other hypothesis regarding Peter's death piles difficulty upon difficulty, and cannot be supported by a single document."
PETER AND PAUL IN ROME cited in Bruce, p. 404

Protestant Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan.
PELIKAN: "The martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in Rome....belongs to [Christian] tradition. It has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have even contended that Peter was NEVER in Rome. But the archaeological researches of the Protestant historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullmann, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero.
"The account of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."
THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Abingdon Press, 1959) by Jaroslav Pelikan, p. 36-37

Famous anti-Catholic critic of last century Bishop Charles Gore of England.
GORE: "[It is] quite certain that he [Peter] died there [Rome] a martyr's death in the persecution under Nero (about A.D. 65)."
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS (Longmans, Green and Co, 1920 11th ed) by Charles Gore, p. 93-94

If you think you know better than all these Protestant scholars you are living in Fantacy land.