|
|
|
Was Peter in Rome?
Like other
Protestants, Fundamentalists say Christ never appointed Peter as the earthly
head for the simple reason that the Church has no earthly head and was never
meant to have one. Christ is the Church�s only foundation, in any possible
sense of that term.
The papacy,
they say, arose out of fifth- or sixth-century politics, both secular and
ecclesiastical; it has no connection with the New Testament. It has not been
established by Christ, even though supposed �successors� to Peter (and their
defenders) claim it was. At best the papacy is a ruse; at worst, a work of the
devil. In any case, it is an institution designed to give the Catholic Church
an authority it doesn�t have.
A key premise
of their argument is the assertion that Peter was never in Rome. It follows
that if Peter were never in Rome, he could not have been Rome�s first bishop
and so could not have had any successors in that office. How can Catholics talk
about the divine origin of the papacy, Fundamentalists argue, when their claim
about Peter�s whereabouts is wrong?
Let�s look at
this last charge, reserving for another tract a look at Peter�s position among
the apostles and in the early Church.
�
How to Understand the Argument
At
first glance, it might seem that the question, of whether Peter went to Rome
and died there, is inconsequential. And in a way it is. After all, his being in
Rome would not itself prove the existence of the papacy. In fact, it would be a
false inference to say he must have been the first pope since he was in Rome
and later popes ruled from Rome. With that logic, Paul would have been the
first pope, too, since he was an apostle and went to Rome.
On the other
hand, if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first
pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that
office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established
by 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 yet
have its connection to Rome.
So, if the
apostle got there only much later, that might have something to say about who
his legitimate successors would be (and it does, since the man elected bishop
of Rome is automatically the new pope on the notion that Peter was the first
bishop of Rome and the pope is merely Peter�s successor), but it would say
nothing about the status of the papal office. It would not establish that the
papacy was instituted by Christ in the first place.
No, somehow
the question, while interesting historically, doesn�t seem to be crucial to the
real issue, whether the papacy was founded by Christ. Still, most anti-Catholic
organizations take up the matter and go to considerable trouble to �prove�
Peter could not have been in Rome. Why? Because they think they can get mileage
out of it.
�Here�s a
point 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 Rome
after heading the Church there. If we could show he never went to Rome, that
would undermine�psychologically if not logically�their assertion that Peter was
the first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on this
historical point, they�ll conclude it�s wrong on the larger one, the supposed
existence of the papacy.� Such is the reasoning of some leading anti-Catholics.
�
The Charges in Brief
The
case is stated perhaps most succinctly, even if not so bluntly, by Loraine
Boettner in his best-known book, Roman Catholicism
(117): �The remarkable thing, however, about Peter�s alleged bishopric in Rome
is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. The word Rome
occurs only nine times in the Bible [actually, ten times in the Old Testament
and 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. Paul�s journey to the
city is recorded in great detail (Acts 27 and 28). There is in fact no New
Testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, that Peter ever was
in Rome. All rests on legend.�
Well, what
about it? Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but,
on the other hand, it doesn�t say he wasn�t. Just as the New Testament never
says, �Peter then went to Rome,� it never says, �Peter did not go to Rome.� In
fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than
Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely
on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to
the apostles, Peter included, in later years. Boettner is wrong to dismiss
these early historical documents as conveyors of mere �legend.� They are
genuine historical evidence, as every professional historian recognizes.
�
What the Bible Says
Boettner
is also wrong when he claims �there is no allusion to Rome in either of
[Peter�s] epistles.� There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle:
�The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God�s election, sends you her
greeting, and so does my son, Mark� (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word
for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline
Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of
Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).
Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle,
composed about A.D. 303, noted that �It is said that Peter�s first epistle, in
which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he
himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.�
Consider now
the other New Testament citations: �Another angel, a second, followed, saying,
�Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine
of her impure passion�� (Rev. 14:8). �The great city was split into three
parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to
make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath� (Rev. 16:19). �[A]nd on her
forehead was written a name of mystery: �Babylon the great, mother of harlots
and of earth�s abominations�� (Rev. 17:5). �And he called out with a mighty
voice, �Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great�� (Rev. 18:2). �[T]hey will stand
far off, in fear of her torment, and say, �Alas! alas! thou great city, thou
mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come�� (Rev. 18:10). �So
shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence� (Rev. 18:21).
These
references can�t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That
Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years,
military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a �great city.� It
played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the
New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the �great city� mentioned
in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
�But there is
no good reason for saying that �Babylon� means �Rome,�� insists Boettner. But
there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter
was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered
organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered
atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by
advertising his presence in the capital�after all, mail service from Rome was
then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman
officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage
a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under
symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).
In any event,
let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to
think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his
conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is
something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.
�
Early Christian Testimony
William
A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The
Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length
everything from the Didache to John
Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index,
about evenly between the statements that �Peter came to Rome and died there�
and that �Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his
successor in the primacy.� A few examples must suffice, but they and other
early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the
universal�and very early�position (one hesitates to use the word �tradition,�
since some people read that as �legend�) was that Peter certainly did end up in
the 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 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.�
These
citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens� books or to the Catholic
Answers tract Peter�s Roman Residency.)
No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On
the question of Peter�s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative
testimony carries enormous weight.
�
What Archaeology Proved
There
is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome, but Boettner, like
other Fundamentalist apologists, must dismiss it, claiming that �exhaustive
research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find
some inscription in the catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome
that would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found
which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin� (118).
Boettner saw Roman Catholicism through the presses in
1962. His original book and the revisions to it since then have failed to
mention the results of the excavations under the high altar of St. Peter�s
Basilica, excavations that had been underway for decades, but which were
undertaken in earnest after World War II.
What Boettner casually dismissed as �some bones of uncertain origin� were the
contents of a tomb on Vatican Hill that was covered with early inscriptions
attesting to the fact that Peter�s remains were inside.
After the
original release of Boettner�s book, evidence had mounted to the point that
Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed
in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the
actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his
remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were
inscriptions identifying the place as Peter�s burial site, meaning early
Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all
this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It
is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh�s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and
scientific 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 let
prejudice 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 the Church History and Church Fathers section of our online Catalogue
(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
|
|
[TOP]
of
