The Church at Rome, who started it?

[Ormly]

Who is responsible for starting the Church at Rome?

Tradition has it that Peter did, but is that so? Is there any account or referrences to support Peter ever having been there? Who really started it?

 

[simonthezealot]

Who is responsible for starting the Church at Rome?

Tradition has it that Peter did, but is that so? Is there any account or referrences to support Peter ever having been there? Who really started it?

I can tell you that within the writings of the ANF's upto and including Ireneaus (chronologically) any references of Peter and Rome all include the connector or qualifier AND Paul.
So at the very least if it were Peter it would also have been Paul...Likewise Antioch is the ONLY place Peter alone transferred bishopric.

 

[Ormly]

I can tell you that within the writings of the ANF's upto and including Ireneaus (chronologically) any references of Peter and Rome all include the connector or qualifier AND Paul.
So at the very least if it were Peter it would also have been Paul...Likewise Antioch is the ONLY place Peter alone transferred bishopric.

If the Apostle Peter [not some guy named Simon Peter who was purported to have been in Rome at around that time] began a church in Rome how is it he never wrote them a letter? He did write letters, ya know.

 

[simonthezealot]

If the Apostle Peter [not some guy named Simon Peter who was purported to have been in Rome at around that time] began a church in Rome how is it he never wrote them a letter? He did write letters, ya know.

I'm with ya friend, my point is looking at anf's doesn't even help their cause...

 

[SeraphimSarov]

If the Apostle Peter [not some guy named Simon Peter who was purported to have been in Rome at around that time] began a church in Rome how is it he never wrote them a letter? He did write letters, ya know.

Prove that he didn't. I'm not even Roman Catholic and I find this to be ridiculous.

 

[Ormly]

Prove that he didn't. I'm not even Roman Catholic and I find this to be ridiculous.

Why?


Here is paul's salutations to the Roman Church. Note the absence of any referrences to Peter while reading of the several to himself as the establisher-teacher.

" Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you. I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord. Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Romans 16:17-25 (KJV)

 

[Macarius]

It can be somewhat amazing how... maximalist... protestants are with regards to certain elements of history and how quickly they turn to using the tools of minimalist historiography when they decide to engage in apologetics against the traditional churches.

Let me ask you this - do you believe that Abraham is from Ur of the Chaldeans? Can you provide me with one drop of evidence of this, outside of the mythic, legendary account of a few Hebrews living 1000+ years after the fact? You'd probably say the biblical testimony is sufficient, and take it on faith.

Well, for those who believe in the tradition of the Church - who place their faith in the Church (as per the Nicene Creed), the testimony of the Church that Peter died in Rome is sufficient. Certainly Peter and Paul are both attested to having been there quite early on (as one poster already noted).

So your minimalism depends entirely on sola-scriptura, which is a very different debate than the one you've brought up, so I won't engage in it except to point out the underlying assumption that unless we can produce some evidence that we lack rational grounds for belief. I'm not certain that criterion (evidentialism) is a valid one.

That said - there is testimony by every one of the earliest historians of the Church that Peter died in Rome. It really isn't that disputed by contemporary scholarship, nor is it that big a deal theologically.

For the record, since Peter appointed the first Bishop of Antioch (by tradition) and since he sent Mark (his disciple) to be the first bishop of Alexandria, and since he was one of the founding Apostles of Rome, and since he was among the Apostles who appointed James to be the first bishop of Jerusalem, all FOUR of those seats are considered "successors" of Peter in the Orthodox Church. Indeed, in referance to Matt 16, ALL bishops are successors to Peter if they proclaim the confession of Peter and are successors of the institution of the Church founded by Christ on that confession and on His own grace.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Ormly]

Let me ask you this - do you believe that Abraham is from Ur of the Chaldeans? Can you provide me with one drop of evidence of this, outside of the mythic, legendary account of a few Hebrews living 1000+ years after the fact? You'd probably say the biblical testimony is sufficient, and take it on faith.

My agreement is with the scriptures that testify to that fact. Rightly divided there should be little difficulty in establishing sound doctrine. Now let me give you one:

The Vatican declares Jesus placed Peter as "the greatest" in Matthew 16, yet much later on in Matthew 18 we find this is not so because the Apostles, of which Peter is one, are asking who is the greatest! If Jesus really did install Peter as a Pope, there should be no question! The Apostles never should have asked Jesus "who is the greatest." Is that not so?

 

[prodromos]

The Vatican declares Jesus placed Peter as "the greatest" in Matthew 16, yet much later on in Matthew 18 we find this is not so because the Apostles, of which Peter is one, are asking who is the greatest! If Jesus really did install Peter as a Pope, there should be no question! The Apostles never should have asked Jesus "who is the greatest." Is that not so?

In case you hadn't noticed, your responders have chiefly been Orthodox. What would we care about the claims of the Vatican.

If the Apostle Peter [not some guy named Simon Peter who was purported to have been in Rome at around that time] began a church in Rome how is it he never wrote them a letter? He did write letters, ya know.

Ahem, has it not made an impression on you just how few letters were written by the Apostles? We've got just nine by Paul, one by James, two by Peter and three by John (who outlived all the other apostles by many years). Where are the letters from Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Levi and James the Lesser? What about Simon the Zealot? It should in fact be plainly obvious that the Apostles actually wrote very little, so it is baseless to assume that had Peter been in Rome he must have written letters either from there or to there from elsewhere.

Find another line of reasoning, this one doesn't help you.

John

 

[Ormly]

In case you hadn't noticed, your responders have chiefly been Orthodox. What would we care about the claims of the Vatican.

Ahem, has it not made an impression on you just how few letters were written by the Apostles? We've got just nine by Paul, one by James, two by Peter and three by John (who outlived all the other apostles by many years). Where are the letters from Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Levi and James the Lesser? What about Simon the Zealot? It should in fact be plainly obvious that the Apostles actually wrote very little, so it is baseless to assume that had Peter been in Rome he must have written letters either from there or to there from elsewhere.

Find another line of reasoning, this one doesn't help you.

John

But it does help to understand that Paul established it. I submitted the scripture you have not addressed that certifies it. Paul did not recognize Peter as having established anything outside the Jewish world. That is a fact. To the Jews only was Peter's calling, being chosen for and was, his ministry.

The canon supports what I have stated. Your support comes from the writings rejected as being sufficiently accurate to be included in the canon. That is also a fact. I might add that the canon we have was of the minds of the Apostolic fathers before there was an EO or RCC.

 

[prodromos]

But it does help to understand that Paul established it. I submitted the scripture you have not addressed that certifies it.

Simonthezealot has already given you the answer which history provides. The Church in Rome was established by Peter AND Paul. As a historical fact this has never been in question.

John

 

[SeraphimSarov]

As a historical fact this has never been in question.

There is a lot in ancient Christianity that has never been questioned until now...

 

[Ormly]

Simonthezealot has already given you the answer which history provides. The Church in Rome was established by Peter AND Paul. As a historical fact this has never been in question.

John

Sorry, but you are stating history from subjective sources.

The facts are that Peter was an Apostle to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. Will you argue with that?
You all act like the Church started in Rome. It didn't. It started in Jerusalem with ALL the Apostles at the head of it, Peter being most notably recognized, though he never asserted himself to be recognized. Even your referrence to the varied ones you refer to as Father's, the most notable, were of John.

Investigate your sources to see that I am correct in this. All of them, perhaps with acception, are of documents noted as untrustworthy except by those with agenda; needed to establish a man made, church government.

 

[Ormly]

There is a lot in ancient Christianity that has never been questioned until now...

It needs to be questioned because few lived in the past who did. Death is no longer something to be feared if you do.

 

[Thekla]

Sorry, but you are stating history from subjective sources.

The facts are that Peter was an Apostle to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. Will you argue with that?
You all act like the Church started in Rome. It didn't. It started in Jerusalem with ALL the Apostles at the head of it, Peter being most notably recognized, though he never asserted himself to be recognized. Even your referrence to the varied ones you refer to as Father's, the most notable, were of John.

Investigate your sources to see that I am correct in this. All of them, perhaps with acception, are of documents noted as untrustworthy except by those with agenda; needed to establish a man made, church government.

Prodromos is not arguing that the Church started in Rome.

 

[Ormly]

Prodromos is not arguing that the Church started in Rome.

His whole argument what have it that way as you, no doubt, believe it started in Turkey, correct?

The Roman Catholic tradition has that Peter was the First Pope is a fiction pure and simple. There is no historical evidence whatever that he was ever bishop of Rome. Nor did he ever claim for himself such Authority as his “Successors” have claimed, it seems that Peter had a divine foreboding that his “Successors” would be mainly concerned with “Lording it over God’s flock, rather than showing them selves examples.” (I Peter 5:3)

Here is list of Roman bishops long before the EO or RCC:

Linus, 67-79 A b ?. Cletus, 79-91, ?.
Clement, 9 wrote a letter to the Corinthian church, in the name of the Roman church, not in his own name, and it has no hint of papal authority such as later popes assumed.
Evaristus,’ 100-09. Alexander I, 109-19. Sixths I, I 79-28. telesphorus, 128-39. Hyginus, 139-42. Pius I, 142-54.

Where's Peter?

 

[prodromos]

Sorry, but you are stating history from subjective sources.

They are the same sources historians use. Of course you're much smarter than they are.

The facts are that Peter was an Apostle to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. Will you argue with that?

So now you are telling us that while there were Jews all over Asia, there were none in Rome? Where's your proof?

You all act like the Church started in Rome.

You apparently have no comprehension of what we are saying then.

It didn't. It started in Jerusalem with ALL the Apostles at the head of it, Peter being most notably recognized, though he never asserted himself to be recognized.

This is what we believe. What on earth causes you suspect otherwise?

John

 

[prodromos]

His whole argument what have it that way as you, no doubt, believe it started in Turkey, correct?

It is plain that you are not responding to our posts, but rather to some gross caricature of them you have created in your own mind.

Have a happy new year!

 

[Trento]

His whole argument what have it that way as you, no doubt, believe it started in Turkey, correct?

The Roman Catholic tradition has that Peter was the First Pope is a fiction pure and simple. There is no historical evidence whatever that he was ever bishop of Rome. Nor did he ever claim for himself such Authority as his “Successors” have claimed, it seems that Peter had a divine foreboding that his “Successors” would be mainly concerned with “Lording it over God’s flock, rather than showing them selves examples.” (I Peter 5:3)

Here is list of Roman bishops long before the EO or RCC:

Linus, 67-79 A b ?. Cletus, 79-91, ?.
Clement, 9 wrote a letter to the Corinthian church, in the name of the Roman church, not in his own name, and it has no hint of papal authority such as later popes assumed.
Evaristus,’ 100-09. Alexander I, 109-19. Sixths I, I 79-28. telesphorus, 128-39. Hyginus, 139-42. Pius I, 142-54.

Where's Peter?

History Of The Christian Church


Volume II. Ante-Nicene Christiainity


by Philip Schaff Protestant Patristic Scholar






The whole number of popes, from the Apostle Peter to Leo XIII. (1878) is two hundred and sixty-three. This would allow about seven years on an average to each papal reign. The traditional twenty-five years of Peter were considered the maximum which none of his successors was permitted to reach, except Pius IX., the first infallible pope, who reigned twenty-seven years (1846-1878).

Do you ignore Christian History by non Catholic Scholars?



About 34AD ( Acts 2:41), we have an early mention of Peter. Some days later, in Acts 5:19, Peter is freed from prison by an angel. He spends four years in Jerusalem (Acts 8:25). St. Paul arrived at the beginning of Peter's fourth year (Acts 9:27-28). In the same year Peter (Acts 9:32) went to Joppe, raised Tabitha, and had the linen vision (Acts 10:11-12). After a few days he went to Caesarea (to visit Cornelius - Acts 10:23). He returned to Jerusalem (Acts 11:18) for a short time. Then he went to Antioch in Syria (as did Barnabas). This is attested to by Anacletus (Ep. iii), Marcellus (Ep. iii), St. Innocent I (Ep. xiv), St. Damasus in the Pontifical Book, St. Jerome in the "De Viris Illustribus" etc.

Peter?s episcopacy in Antioch lasted seven years (St. Leo, Sermon on Sts. Peter and Paul). Eleven years after the Ascension (the second year of Claudius), Peter went to Rome, first visiting Jerusalem (Acts 12, where he is thrown in prison, then rescued by an angel). The Roman Martyrology records the converts he sent to various parts, e.g. to Sicliy he sent Pancras, Marcian, and Berillus; to Verona he sent Exuperius, etc.

In the seventh year of his Roman pontificate, Claudius expelled all the Jews (and the Christians, who were regarded as a Jewish sect) from Rome. St. Peter returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas came for him over the dispute at Antioch (Acts 15:8). This Council took place in the 10th year of Claudius.

(Paul was converted the year after the Ascension, and went to see Peter in Jerualem in the third year of his conversion (Gal. 1:18); fourteen years later he went again to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1) and attended the Council (Acts 15). So there were eighteen years from the Crucifixion to the Council of Jerusalem, which would be the tenth year of Claudius' reign.)

Claudius died after a reign of thirteen years, and his four-year edict of expulsion against the Jews died with him. It was during this four-year spell that Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans. Nero succeeded, and Christians began returning to Rome (including Aquila and Priscilla). Peter returned to Rome in the first year of Nero's reign. Two years later Paul joined Peter in Rome as a prisoner. (So how come Paul found the Jews in Rome knew the Christian religiononly by report, if Peter had been there? The solution is that the Jews who had been banished did not return.)

Two years later (fourth year of Nero's reign), Paul, now set free, spent some time in Rome, then left for Spain.

In the tenth year of Nero (22nd year of Peter's pontificate, 64 AD), Rome was set on fire. Nero blamed the Christians and began a persecution against them the following year.

In the twelfth year of Nero (68AD), Peter, who had been absent for a while, came back to Rome to revive the Church. In this year Peter wrote his second Epistle, in which he foretells his own death (1:14). Nero cast Peter and Paul into the Mamertine prison for nine months. From here Paul wrote his Second Letter to Timothy, requesting he come to Rome to witness his (Paul's) martyrdom. It was at this tme that Process and Martinian were converted, along with 47 others.
In ~68-69AD, in the 25th year of Peter's pontificate in Rome, Peter and Paul were sentenced to death.
This simple sketch should explain any difficulties which arise, e.g., how Peter could have been seven years at Antioch and twenty-five years Bishop of Rome, and yet be in Jerusalem in the 4th, 11th and 18th year after Our Lord's Ascension, as inferred from the Epistle to the Galatians and the Acts of the Apostles.



That St. Peter was Bishop of Rome is testified by:

• Eusebius, Chronicon, 74
• St. Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 3.
• Dorotheus, In Synopsis.
• St. Augustine, Epistola 53 and Contra Epistolam Fundamenti, ch. 4, title 8; in chapter 5 he writes: "I am kept in the church by the succession of Bishops from St. Peter, to whom the Lord committed the care of His sheep down to the present Bishop."

That St. Peter died in Rome is testifed by:

• St. Augustine, de Consense Evangelistarum, Book 1.
• Eusebius, Chronicon 71, a Christo nato.
• Paul Orosius, History, Book VIII.
• St. Maximus, Sermon v on the Birthday of the Apostles.
• Origen, Book III on Genesis, as stated by eusebius, HIstory, Book III, ch. 2.
• St. Jerome, Book of Illustrious Men.

Calvin: "I cannot withstand the consent of those writers who prove that Peter died at Rome." Institutes, Book IV.

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)."

 

[Ormly]

They are the same sources historians use. Of course you're much smarter than they are.
So now you are telling us that while there were Jews all over Asia, there were none in Rome? Where's your proof?
You apparently have no comprehension of what we are saying then.
This is what we believe. What on earth causes you suspect otherwise?

John

Subjective statements like this:

They are the same sources historians use. Of course you're much smarter than they are.