Historical evedence that Peter lived and died in Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hortenzie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hortenzie

Guest
Any good books or Internet pages examining in depth historical evidence that Peter lived, preached, and was martyred in Rome?
One of the lines of reasoning I like is that no other place disputed the tradition of Peter being Rome’s first bishop. If Peter died somewhere else that town would certainly contradict Rome’s claim.
What convinced you about this issue?
 
Erich - Thank you so much for the link. I already started to read it and it’s great.

asia53 - Thanks for the tip. I will look for the book in the Library and in the bookstore.
 
The Catholic Encyclopedia has evidence for Peter being in Rome.

newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV

See:
Activity and death in Rome; burial place

excerpt:

Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" (Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
 
Hortenzie said:
Any good books or Internet pages examining in depth historical evidence that Peter lived, preached, and was martyred in Rome?
One of the lines of reasoning I like is that no other place disputed the tradition of Peter being Rome’s first bishop. If Peter died somewhere else that town would certainly contradict Rome’s claim.
What convinced you about this issue?
Click to expand...
That’s right. The reason Rome held a place of primacy among all the early Churches was for no reason other than that Peter was it’s first bishop. And they still recognize that fact today, despite subsequent conflicts between east and west.
 
That reference mentioned in my last post:

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

St. Ireneaus of Lyons

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
  1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
 
Hortenzie said:
Erich - Thank you so much for the link. I already started to read it and it’s great.

asia53 - Thanks for the tip. I will look for the book in the Library and in the bookstore.
Click to expand...
Hortenzie,

The book is great, I’ve read it having bought a used copy on amazon. A very easy read but fascinating. It gives the history of Vatican Hill and shows how successive Catholic Churches have been built on top of one another, all built on top of his grave. Before the current St Peters Basilica, the previous Church building stood for nearly one thousand years. Lots more in there …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top