| 
|
Was Peter in Rome?
Like otherProtestants, Fundamentalists say Christ never appointed Peter as the earthlyhead for the simple reason that the Church has no earthly head and was nevermeant to have one. Christ is the Churchs only foundation, in any possiblesense of that term.
The papacy,they say, arose out of fifth- or sixth-century politics, both secular andecclesiastical; it has no connection with the New Testament. It has not beenestablished by Christ, even though supposed successors to Peter (and theirdefenders) claim it was. At best the papacy is a ruse; at worst, a work of thedevil. In any case, it is an institution designed to give the Catholic Churchan authority it doesnt have.
A key premiseof their argument is the assertion that Peter was never in Rome. It followsthat if Peter were never in Rome, he could not have been Romes first bishopand so could not have had any successors in that office. How can Catholics talkabout the divine origin of the papacy, Fundamentalists argue, when their claimabout Peters whereabouts is wrong?
Lets look atthis last charge, reserving for another tract a look at Peters position amongthe apostles and in the early Church.
How to Understand the Argument
Atfirst glance, it might seem that the question, of whether Peter went to Romeand died there, is inconsequential. And in a way it is. After all, his being inRome would not itself prove the existence of the papacy. In fact, it would be afalse inference to say he must have been the first pope since he was in Romeand later popes ruled from Rome. With that logic, Paul would have been thefirst pope, too, since he was an apostle and went to Rome.
On the otherhand, if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the firstpope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of thatoffice to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was establishedby Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome.There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yethave its connection to Rome.
So, if theapostle got there only much later, that might have something to say about whohis legitimate successors would be (and it does, since the man elected bishopof Rome is automatically the new pope on the notion that Peter was the firstbishop of Rome and the pope is merely Peters successor), but it would saynothing about the status of the papal office. It would not establish that thepapacy was instituted by Christ in the first place.
No, somehowthe question, while interesting historically, doesnt seem to be crucial to thereal issue, whether the papacy was founded by Christ. Still, most anti-Catholicorganizations take up the matter and go to considerable trouble to provePeter could not have been in Rome. Why? Because they think they can get mileageout of it.
Heres apoint on which we can point to the lies of Catholic claims, they say.Catholics trace the papacy to Peter, and they say he was martyred in Romeafter heading the Church there. If we could show he never went to Rome, thatwould underminepsychologically if not logicallytheir assertion that Peter wasthe first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on thishistorical point, theyll conclude its wrong on the larger one, the supposedexistence of the papacy. Such is the reasoning of some leading anti-Catholics.
The Charges in Brief
Thecase is stated perhaps most succinctly, even if not so bluntly, by LoraineBoettner in his best-known book,Roman Catholicism(117): The remarkable thing, however, about Peters alleged bishopric in Romeis that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. The word Romeoccurs only nine times in the Bible [actually, ten times in the Old Testamentand ten times in the New], and never is Peter mentioned in connection with it.There is no allusion to Rome in either of his epistles. Pauls journey to thecity is recorded in great detail (Acts 27 and 28). There is in fact no NewTestament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, that Peter ever wasin Rome. All rests on legend.
Well, whatabout it? Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but,on the other hand, it doesnt say he wasnt. Just as the New Testament neversays, Peter then went to Rome, it never says, Peter did not go to Rome. Infact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other thanPaul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to relyon books other than the New Testament for information about what happened tothe apostles, Peter included, in later years. Boettner is wrong to dismissthese early historical documents as conveyors of mere legend. They aregenuine historical evidence, as every professional historian recognizes.
What the Bible Says
Boettneris also wrong when he claims there is no allusion to Rome in either of[Peters] epistles. There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle:The Church here in Babylon, united with you by Gods election, sends you hergreeting, and so does my son, Mark (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-wordfor Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like theSibyllineOracles (5:159f), theApocalypse ofBaruch (2:1), and4 Esdras (3:1).Eusebius Pamphilius, inThe Chronicle,composed about A.D. 303, noted that It is said that Peters first epistle, inwhich he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that hehimself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.
Consider nowthe other New Testament citations: Another angel, a second, followed, saying,Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wineof her impure passion (Rev. 14:8). The great city was split into threeparts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, tomake her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath (Rev. 16:19). [A]nd on herforehead was written a name of mystery: Babylon the great, mother of harlotsand of earths abominations (Rev. 17:5). And he called out with a mightyvoice, Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great (Rev. 18:2). [T]hey will standfar off, in fear of her torment, and say, Alas! alas! thou great city, thoumighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come (Rev. 18:10). Soshall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence (Rev. 18:21).
Thesereferences cant be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. ThatBabylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years,military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a great city. Itplayed no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From theNew Testament perspective, the only candidates for the great city mentionedin Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
But there isno good reason for saying that Babylon means Rome, insists Boettner. Butthere is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peterwas a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was consideredorganized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was consideredatheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service byadvertising his presence in the capitalafter all, mail service from Rome wasthen even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Romanofficials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encouragea manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities undersymbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).
In any event,let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism tothink, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases hisconclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible issomething he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.
Early Christian Testimony
WilliamA. Jurgens, in his three-volume setTheFaith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at lengtheverything from theDidache to JohnDamascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index,about evenly between the statements that Peter came to Rome and died thereand that Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome hissuccessor in the primacy. A few examples must suffice, but they and otherearly references demonstrate that there can be no question that theuniversaland very earlyposition (one hesitates to use the word tradition,since some people read that as legend) was that Peter certainly did end up inthe capital of the Empire.
A Very Early Reference
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 crownedin a death like Johns [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul beingbeheaded]. Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication fromTertullian 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, probablyin the Neronian persecution in the 60s.
In the samebook, Tertullian wrote that this is the way in which the apostolic churchestransmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records thatPolycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clementwas ordained by Peter. This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would bethe fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didnt say Peter consecrated Clement aspope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesnt consecrate his ownsuccessor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote hisLetter to the Corinthians perhaps beforethe year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he madereference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.
In hisLetter to the Romans (A.D. 110),Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians theway Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had beena leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus, inAgainst Heresies (A.D. 190), said thatMatthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome andlaying the foundation of the Church. A few lines later henotes that Linus was named as Peters successor, that is, the second pope, andthat next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement ofRome.
Clement ofAlexandria wrote at the turn of the third century.A fragment of his workSketches is preserved in Eusebius ofCaesareasEcclesiastical History,the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, When Peter preached the wordpublicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were presentrequested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and whoremembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.
Lactantius,in a treatise calledThe Death of thePersecutors, written around 318, noted that When Nero was already reigning(Nero reigned from 5468), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of theperformance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which hadbeen given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firmand steadfast temple to God.
Thesecitations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens books or to the CatholicAnswers tractPeters Roman Residency.)No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. Onthe question of Peters whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulativetestimony carries enormous weight.
What Archaeology Proved
Thereis much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome, but Boettner, likeother Fundamentalist apologists, must dismiss it, claiming that exhaustiveresearch by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to findsome inscription in the catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Romethat would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things foundwhich gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin (118).
Boettner sawRoman Catholicism through the presses in1962. His original book and the revisions to it since then have failed tomention the results of the excavations under the high altar of St. PetersBasilica, excavations that had been underway for decades, but which wereundertaken in earnest after World War II.What Boettner casually dismissed as some bones of uncertain origin were thecontents of a tomb on Vatican Hill that was covered with early inscriptionsattesting to the fact that Peters remains were inside.
After theoriginal release of Boettners book, evidence had mounted to the point thatPope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussedin archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that theactual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that hisremains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb wereinscriptions identifying the place as Peters burial site, meaning earlyChristians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how allthis was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. Itis discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walshs book,The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical andscientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to letprejudice override reason.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004 |
Interested in reading more about Peter and the Papacy?Check out these wonderful titles from theChurch History and Church Fathers section of our onlineCatalogue(links open in a new window):
Peter and the Papacy Pope Fiction, Patrick Madrid One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, Kenneth D. Whitehead The Fathers Of The Church, Mike Aquilina Early Christian Writings, Maxwell Staniforth Peter: Keeper Of The Keys, Stephen Ray Jesus, Peter & the Keys, Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess Faith of the Early Fathers, William A. Jurgens Papacy Learning Guide, Stephen Ray, Dennis Walters Papacy Evangelization Guide, Stephen Ray, Dennis Walters Tract Pak A, Catholic Answers
|
|
of
