Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[GaryTaylor]

Fast Google Rev Kev, where did you get that nonsense at? Babylon “is” called Rome. The Ancient City of Babylon is Ruins in this period after Christ. And Rome is Burned also. 2 Timothy talks about Paul and the Christians being killed because of the fire.

Paul and Peter were housed at Mamertine prison before their deaths [its still there], its in Rome. Caius the Roman writes in his letter from 180-190, “I will take you to see the graves of those who started the Christian Religion if you like, their remains are at the Vatican and at Ostia”. And thats were both were killed, Peter at the Vatican and Paul on the Ostian way. Both are buried at the Vatican also.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

First of all, there is no place in the New Testament where there is any hint or any record of any kind that Peter was in Rome. In 1 Peter 5:13, it tells us very plainly that he wrote that epistle from the city of Babylon [In Peters day Babylon was still a city and a territory—See Josephus, Antiquities, Book xv, Ch 2, 2. “The ancient city of Mesopotamia, an area which was then a center of pure and uncompromising Judiasim” p. 65, 1 Peter by A. M. Stibbs. ACT 2:9 tells us they were in the Pentecost crowd. “After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law” Dictionary of the Bible, p. 72, by J. J. Davis]. This is far to the east of the Roman Empire and not in Rome which is in the western part of the Empire. This is where Peter apparently had much of his ministry among the many Jews scattered there from previous centuries. He was there preaching that the Messiah had come, that Jesus Christ was that promised Messiah, and that Jesus Christ was the only hope of salvation. He was there preaching to those people when he wrote the epistles of 1 and 2 Peter. He wrote to those who were in what is now Asia Minor or what is now modern Turkey. All of these districts that he mentions are in a little section of eastern Turkey. The New Testament gives no statement or hint whatever that Peter was ever in the City of Rome, the Capital of the Roman Empire in his day.

There is some groundless tradition that says Peter was in Rome. One problem with the tradition is that the tradition is full of errors, mistakes, things that are incorrect. If read parts of Josephus, all of the Apostolic Fathers, in English translation. The references are there but in the very context in which the references are found the whole thing was full of things that are contradictory to the New Testament. Therefore being contrary to the New Testament their evidence is worthless.

For instance in the Apostolic Fathers, in THE DIDACHE, or TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES we find a paragraph in which many people wish to use a statement there about Baptism. That reference to Baptism is found in a very short paragraph which contains things that are contradictory to the New Testament. Therefore we cannot give any weight to one little statement that people want to use to help them in their false idea of what Baptism is about. Now whether they are intentional or not is beside the point. The errors are there. So it is an unreliable piece of writing. There may be some things there that are interesting and some things that are helpful and there may be some things that are true, but it is unreliable [The Apostolic Fathers, translated by J. B. Lightfoot and edited and completed by J. R. Harmer, 1973 (rpt of 1891 edition), Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Book House. p. 126].

Josephus’ writings contain so much that is fanciful and even just plain ridiculous that a person has to try to pick out what is fact and what is fiction. You cannot just say Josephus said such and such and say that is a fact; that is true. No, you have to weigh the things that he says very carefully. Is it true? Are there other things in the history of that time that corroborates what he says. You cannot just take it because Josephus said it and say, “that’s a fact!” Many times he contradicts what the Bible says. When he gives the “History of the Jews”, the history of Israelite people, time and time again, he contradicts what the Old Testament says concerning the history of the Jewish people. So you have to be very careful when you read these writings. Old? Yes, they are. Josephus wrote around the time shortly after Christ lived. He probably died shortly after 100 AD, himself. So he was living in old times.

rev kev,

Shouldn’t you give the link, or at the very least credit, to the writing you offer?

 

[rev_kevin]

So its your assertion that since there is no specific biblical reference to Peter being in Rome that we should deny the historical evidence that he was actually there and furthermore the roman catholic church is not valid based on these “facts”?

Exactly when Christians first appeared in Rome is difficult to determine, The Acts of the Apostles claims that the Jewish Christian couple Priscilla and Aquila had recently come from Rome to Corinth when, in about the year 50, Paul reached the latter city, indicating that belief in Jesus in Rome had preceded Paul. There is no conclusive evidence, scripturally, historically or chronologically, that Peter was in fact the Bishop of Rome. While the church in Rome was already flourishing when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans to them from Corinth, about 57, he greets some fifty people in Rome by name, but not Peter whom he knew. There is also no mention of Peter in Rome later during Paul’s two year stay there in chapter 28 of Acts, about 60-62. Church historians consistently concider Peter and Paul to have been martyred under the reign of Nero, in 64 such as after the Great Fire of Rome which, according to Tacitus, Nero blamed on the Christians.

Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 16 (c 58) attests to a large Christian community already there but does not mention Peter

Oscar Cullmann sharply rejected the claim that Peter began the papal succession, and concludes that while Peter was the original head of the apostles, Peter was not the founder of any visible church succession.

The original seat of Roman imperial power soon became a center of church authority, grew in power decade by decade, and was recognized during the period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, when the seat of government had been transferred to Constantinople, as the “head” of the church.

 

[Heliotropium]

Rev Kev since you dont believe Peter was in Rome because its not stated in the Bible how it is then that you believe you even have the true Bible since the list of what books make up the Canon are also not listed or stated anywhere in Scritpure? The Tradition you preach against is the very Tradition you depend on.

Its sad to see so many Christians use the Bible to try and condemn the very Catholic Church Christ founded. Especially when it is becase of this very Church that they even have the Bible to begin with. Yet lets do a little test. Since the Bible has not always been a house hold book even after the printing press where do you think you Kevin and I would have gone to hear the word of God if we lived in lets say 800 ad? 1200ad? or anytime before the protestant reformation? The answer is the Catholic Church.

You should come back to The Catholic Church Kevin if you want the fullness of the Gospel and a TRUE personal relationship with Christ.

 

[Publisher]

Exactly when Christians first appeared in Rome is difficult to determine, The Acts of the Apostles claims that the Jewish Christian couple Priscilla and Aquila had recently come from Rome to Corinth when, in about the year 50, Paul reached the latter city, indicating that belief in Jesus in Rome had preceded Paul. There is no conclusive evidence, scripturally, historically or chronologically, that Peter was in fact the Bishop of Rome. While the church in Rome was already flourishing when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans to them from Corinth, about 57, he greets some fifty people in Rome by name, but not Peter whom he knew. There is also no mention of Peter in Rome later during Paul’s two year stay there in chapter 28 of Acts, about 60-62. Church historians consistently concider Peter and Paul to have been martyred under the reign of Nero, in 64 such as after the Great Fire of Rome which, according to Tacitus, Nero blamed on the Christians.

Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 16 (c 58) attests to a large Christian community already there but does not mention Peter

**Friend Kevin,

I do agree with you. Christianity “left the 1st century” with a “whimper”. Except for legends and myths preserved by the early Christian communities, we don’t know what happened to the apostles other than Paul. “Tradition” has it that Peter was executed in Rome…those “proto Catholics” propagated the story.

WIth the advent of the 2nd century after the destruction of Jerusalem, Christianity in all it’s many forms broke into history each claiming the “true” heirs of Jesus of Nazareth and the “apostles”…some claimed Christianity was the as the “sucessor of Judaism”…rabbinical Judaism verses Christianity…we see this tension reflected in the hostility toward the Pharisees…the “sucessors” of “rabbinical Judaism” had with those called “Christians” as reflected “backwards” in the canonical gospels…Pseudo-Clement is very anti-semetic in nature.

With the gathering of those writings called “apostolic” by those who eventually came to form the Catholic/Orthodox groups as the dominant form of Christianity a loose affiliation of like minded congregations through out the various regions came to identify themselves as “orthodox”…Marcionites dominated Asia Minor…in many regions his form of Christianity was the only version known…as well as some of the “Gnostic” groups in Egypt, Greece, Palestine and Rome. WIth Constantine’s conversion, the counsils called by the Emperor decided the “dominant” version fo Christianity.
Oscar Cullmann sharply rejected the claim that Peter began the papal succession, and concludes that while Peter was the original head of the apostles, Peter was not** the founder of any visible church succession.

The original seat of Roman imperial power soon became a center of church authority, grew in power decade by decade, and was recognized during the period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, when the seat of government had been transferred to Constantinople, as the “head” of the church.

 

[rev_kevin]

Fast Google Rev Kev, where did you get that nonsense at? Babylon “is” called Rome. The Ancient City of Babylon is Ruins in this period after Christ. And Rome is Burned also. 2 Timothy talks about Paul and the Christians being killed because of the fire.

Paul and Peter were housed at Mamertine prison before their deaths [its still there], its in Rome. Caius the Roman writes in his letter from 180-190, “I will take you to see the graves of those who started the Christian Religion if you like, their remains are at the Vatican and at Ostia”. And thats were both were killed, Peter at the Vatican and Paul on the Ostian way. Both are buried at the Vatican also.

Babylon could be seen in John’s time as Rome or the Roman Empire, as a type. (The Christians who first read Revelation almost certainly understood it in that way.)

Most commentators believe that Revelation uses “Babylon” as a code word that can refer to the Rome of John’s day. “Like Babylon of old,” says Robert H. Mounce, Rome “had gained a worldwide reputation for luxury, corruption, and power” (The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 310). Mounce then quotes Tacitus, who describes Rome as the place “where all the horrible and shameful things in the world congregate and find a home” (Tacitus, Annals. xv.44).

The Jewish apocalyptic writings of the time also use Babylon as a symbolic name for Rome. The Sibylline Oracles say that a star “will burn the deep sea and Babylon itself and the land of Italy, because of which many holy faithful Hebrews and a true people perished” (5.159-161). It calls Babylon the “city of the Latin land, unclean in all things” (5.168).

There is a good reason why the connection was made between the Babylonian and Roman Empires. Says Norman Perrin, “Rome is called Babylon because her forces, like those of Babylon at an earlier time, destroyed the temple and Jerusalem” (Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, p. 58). The Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in the 580s B.C. and sent its people into captivity (2 Kings 25; Jeremiah 52). The Roman Empire did essentially the same thing in A.D. 66-70. Thus, Rome was Babylon all over again.

Babylon the Great, however, stands for a world system more universal than that of the old Roman Empire. In the words of biblical scholar Robert W. Wall, she is: “The ‘global village’ of godless power, which determines daily life for every person at any time in human history” (Revelation, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 202).

“The great city is every city and no city,” said Leon Morris of this Babylon the Great. “It is civilized man, mankind organized apart from God. It has its embodiment in every age” (Revelation, revised edition, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p. 203).

What does Babylon the Great represent? It is a symbol that stands for all the ungodly religious-political-social-economic systems that humans have created. As John might put it in his letters, Babylon is simply “the world” (1 John 2:15). The world system depicted under this symbol would be that one that does not reflect God’s nature of love, and which in turn enslaves mankind.

Babylon the Great may have represented the mother goddess of the ancient Near East, Athena, or the goddess Roma, or the power structure of Assyria – to mention three ancient examples. She may be state-sponsored religion or ideology in the service of worship of the state at any time in human history. If we extend the metaphor to its limits, Babylon can also be found wherever men and women use religion, ideology or political-economic power to further their ungodly aims in opposition to the things of God. But these are all just types or precursors.

In Old Testament Scripture the ancient city of Babylon stood for the power structure of evil that opposed God. That image is carried over into the book of Revelation. One commentator summarizes the book as “A Tale of Two Cities.” It is Babylon the Great versus the New Jerusalem. Just as the New Jerusalem personifies the perfection and eternal state of the kingdom of God, Babylon the Great personifies the kingdom of humanity, which is to be destroyed.

Revelation’s image of Babylon the Great is a timeless one. While it can be seen in every civilization – no human empire to date has been the Babylon. Its final emergence must be reserved for the close of history. The picture of Babylon the Great’s destruction is seen to occur at the close of history, when God judges the world in Jesus Christ the returning Word of God on the white horse (19:11-13). See Revelation 18-19 for the full story of the “end of the world” and the return of Jesus Christ.

When we see these great universal themes that attach themselves to the symbol of Babylon the Great, it is clearly unscriptural to equate Babylon with any Christian church, including the Catholic Church. The “Catholic” church did not become an organized body with political power until the early 300s A.D. long after Revelation was written. If Babylon was a reference to the Catholic Church, then the book of Revelation would not have been understood by its first readers.

The message of Revelation was sent to real Christians living around A.D. 100, and they must surely have understood its contents. We also know from the apocalyptic literature of the period that people knew the meaning of the symbols used in the book of Revelation. This would have included the metaphor Babylon the Great, which would have been understood as the Roman Empire.

We could probably apply this metaphor by extension to, for example, the corrupt corporate church of the Middle Ages. It did have some characteristics that are described under the “Babylon the Great” symbol. But there is no biblical evidence to back up the 19th century Protestant claim that vilified the Catholic Church as the harlot of Revelation, chapter 17.

 

[Nicea325]

Where in Scripture does it say Peter went to Rome?
Peters ministry: Peter traveled to the ancient crossroads town of Lydda. He traveled to Joppa and Caesarea.

And where does Scripture say Peter did not go to Rome? And where does scripture continually give the whereabouts of the other 11? It does not, however, plenty of historical writings all saying Peter did indeed go to Rome. The problem I always encounter with Protestants is the fact they simply refuse to study history or accept them as historical facts. Why? More than likely conflicts with their novelties.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You seem to missing the fact the Catholic Church is named in the 7-letters of “Ignatius of Antioch” before he is feed to the Lions in 104. And he leaves the church structure in the letters and is a student of the Apostle John. And the letters remain intact today

As does the above mentioned letter for “Caius the Roman” and the Writtings of “Iranaeus, Bishop of Lyons” “Against Heresys” during the 2nd century.

Then the bodies are in the Vatican of Peter and Paul. So the Catholic Church exist before Ignatius writes for sure and by name!

 

[rinnie]

I am starting this thread due to an invitation I extended to Rev Kevin to discuss his claim Jesus did not start the Catholic Church.

To avoid derailing the thread, please avoid discussions on Mary, Eucharist, Confession and other Catholic doctrines that have no bearing on the topic unless you can establish relevance.

It is important to keep to this so that we can have a truly fruitful discussion. We did that on the question of “Is Peter the Rock” and we got somewhere in a fairly short time by keeping the topic in mind.

To keep the opening argument short, I say Jesus started the Catholic Church based on Matthew 16:18, John 21 and Acts.
**
Peace and Joy of Christ to anyone who participates in the discussion and to all those who visit this thread!

May the Holy Spirit enlighten our minds and our hearts!
**

Jesus did not Start the Catholic Church Jesus IS the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

But Jesus did build the visual Church here on earth that he build on Peter. It is the Spiritual Church here on earth led by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said the stone that the builders rejected has become the corner stone. We all know who was rejected and that was Jesus.

Jesus said The Church and I are ONE.

Jesus said I will tear down the temple and rebuild it in 3 days. Jesus died and rose from the dead on the 3rd day.

Jesus Christ is indeed the Living Catholic Church here on earth, being led by his Holy Spirit!!

 

[rev_kevin]

And where does Scripture say Peter did not go to Rome? And where does scripture continually give the whereabouts of the other 11? It does not, however, plenty of historical writings all saying Peter did indeed go to Rome. The problem I always encounter with Protestants is the fact they simply refuse to study history or accept them as historical facts. Why? More than likely conflicts with their novelties.

The same old arguement to counter the arguement “where is it in the Scripture” to “where does Scripture say Peter did not go to Rome.” Come up with a better responce than that.
As far as the other 11. Well Scripture says that Paul went to Rome,found in Acts 27-28. It also says in verse30 that “For the next 2 years, Paul lived in his own rented house.” This house is in Rome. So Scripture actually does say where at least one of them went, now don’t it?

 

[rinnie]

And where does Scripture say Peter did not go to Rome? And where does scripture continually give the whereabouts of the other 11? It does not, however, plenty of historical writings all saying Peter did indeed go to Rome. The problem I always encounter with Protestants is the fact they simply refuse to study history or accept them as historical facts. Why? More than likely conflicts with their novelties.

Here is also a good one, if Peter did not go to Rome how is he buried there to this day?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Publisher:
Another who seems to want to avoid History and context. What about Iranaeus, Ignatius, Athanasius? There writtings actually still exist, and speak on the christain heresy of the gnostics and marcionites. And you can start with “Against Heresys” by Iranaeus Bishop of Lyons.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rev kevin

Why wouldn’t the Bible state that he traveled to Rome, if Peter was the rock?

And are Peter’s exact whereabouts and/or destinations of the utmost importance for salvation? No offense,but you are making the Bible to be something it never was intended to be in the first place: an itinerary.

Funny it mentions that Paul traveled to Rome in Acts 27 and that he arrives in Rome in Acts 28 and he wasn’t even the rock?

And funny how Acts makes no mention of the whereabouts of Thomas? Nonetheless,the works of scholars and Eastern Christian writings state that Christianity was introduced to India by Thomas the Apostle, who visited Muziris in Kerala in 52 CE to spread gospel amongst Kerala’s Jewish settlements. Where is this in the Bible? Is this all a lie?

If Peter did travel to Rome, why didn’t he mention it in his writtings?

Why would he have to mention it? His goal was to spread the Gospel,not mention his every movement.

Wouldn’t it be important seeing he went there to start the church?

Same old redundant question.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Heb 13:24 Salute all your prelates and all the saints. The brethren from Italy salute you. **

Who was the brethren from Italy that saluted the Hebrews in Paul’s letter to the Hebrews?

 

[Erich]

rev kev,

Shouldn’t you give the link, or at the very least credit, to the writing you offer?

That would probably be here. (Not the first time Rev Kevin has copied/pasted without attribution, by the way.)

Clearly, Rev Kevin hasn’t read Was Peter in Rome? Some of the pertinent points are as follows:

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

…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…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Matthew is whats important and what Jesus Christ told Peter, thats whats important. And the fact he is buried in the Vatican is just a consequence of his death.

The Vatican is a consequence of all the blood spilled in St Peters Square. Its a sign of the Cross, as is all the persecutions of Christ in mankind.

 

[lax16]

Hi RevKevin - At the risk of sounding dumb, why does it matter to you about the whereabouts of Peter?

Jesus said to Peter, “Feed my sheep.” Isn’t that enough? Didn’t Peter do that?

As mentioned before, the Church Fathers have recorded that he was there. And, it is believed that when writing from “Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13) it could be a code word for Rome.

Again, I am not sure why this matters - is this a personal hang-up for you or is it a belief widely held among Protestants that Peter was not in Rome, and therefore, was never Bishop of Rome?

 

[rev_kevin]

And are Peter’s exact whereabouts and/or destinations of the utmost importance for salvation? No offense,but you are making the Bible to be something it never was intended to be in the first place: an itinerary.

And funny how Acts makes no mention of the whereabouts of Thomas? Nonetheless,the works of scholars and Eastern Christian writings state that Christianity was introduced to India by Thomas the Apostle, who visited Muziris in Kerala in 52 CE to spread gospel amongst Kerala’s Jewish settlements. Where is this in the Bible? Is this all a lie?

Why would he have to mention it? His goal was to spread the Gospel,not mention his every movement.

Same old redundant question.

This discussion in not about salvation. Its about, and I quote, “Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?”

There was a qiuote by someone here about Scripture not saying where any of the 11 traveled to (or something to that affect) So I pointed out Paul.

Because if the church was started there by him it would be important to know he was actually there.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The same old arguement to counter the arguement “where is it in the Scripture” to “where does Scripture say Peter did not go to Rome.” Come up with a better responce than that.
As far as the other 11. Well Scripture says that Paul went to Rome,found in Acts 27-28. It also says in verse30 that “For the next 2 years, Paul lived in his own rented house.” This house is in Rome. So Scripture actually does say where at least one of them went, now don’t it?

Do you give any validity to anything the early Church fathers wrote?

Dionysius of Corinth

You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

Irenaeus

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. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 

[rev_kevin]

Hi RevKevin - At the risk of sounding dumb, why does it matter to you about the whereabouts of Peter?

Jesus said to Peter, “Feed my sheep.” Isn’t that enough? Didn’t Peter do that?

As mentioned before, the Church Fathers have recorded that he was there. And, it is believed that when writing from “Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13) it could be a code word for Rome.

Again, I am not sure why this matters - is this a personal hang-up for you or is it a belief widely held among Protestants that Peter was not in Rome, and therefore, was never Bishop of Rome?

Because the question of Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church revolve around Peter who is believed to be the one Jesus started his church by.