Peter in Rome

[Cat]

Will someone please help me?

A friend of mine is questioning whether Peter was ever in Rome.

He claims there is absolutely no evidence, Scriptural or otherwise, that Peter ever went to Rome, and therefore, his “successors” are not legitimate leaders of the Church. He thinks that Peter was appointed by Jesus to lead the Church, but after that, God did not select just one leader, but allowed all the different churches to run themselves according to the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks!

 

[Apologia100]

In his first papal encyclical he designated Rome under a symbolic name well understood by his fellow Jews: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings” (1 Pet. 5:13). Jews would readily recognize their ancient persecutor, Babylon, largely in ruins, the allusion to their contemporary ruler, Rome. Recognition became easier when St. John gave them a broad hint; “Babylon the great . . . seven hills” (Apoc. 17:5-9) an allusion to Rome’s famous seven hills. But if explicit identification be required, Clement of Alexandria gives it about 200 A.D. Clement, who would be well aware of the existence of another small town near Alexandria, Egypt, named Babylon, yet asserts: “Peter makes mention of Mark in his first Epistle which they report he wrote in Rome. as he indicates where he calls the city figuratively Babylon” (Clement, Hypotyposes, cited by Eusebius, History, II, 15).

THE CHURCH AT ROME
But Peter was not merely a visitor in Rome. He was the founder of the church of Rome, that is, the organizer of the Christian hierarchy there, its first bishop. For St. Clement of Rome, a disciple of the Apostles mentioned by St. Paul (Phil. 4:3), affirmed that both Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom “among us,” that is, in Rome, where Clement was writing about 96 A.D.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 A.D.), yet takes Peter’s Roman commitment for granted: “I do not command you as Peter and Paul did; they were Apostles;” (Letter to Romans, 4). St. Denis, Bishop of Corinth, was even more emphatic: writing to a later Pope, St. Soter, he asserted, “By this admonition you have bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth. For they both alike planted in our Corinth and taught us, and both alike taught together in Italy and suffered martyrdom at the same time” (Eusebius, History, II, 25).

St. Irenaeus (about 130-200 A.D.), Bishop of Lyons explicitly affirmed both that St. Peter had founded the church of Rome, that its bishops were his successors, and that to this church all other churches ought to be subordinate. His assertion, issued as a challenge to contemporary gnostic heretics who pretended to “inside knowledge” from the Apostles, is this: “By indicating the 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, and the faith preached to men which comes down to our time, by means of the succession of bishops, we refute all persons . . . for to this church, on account of its more potent principality, it is necessary that every other church agree, that is, those of the faithful everywhere, because in it is preserved by those (who preside) that tradition received from the Apostles. The blessed Apostles, then, founded and reared up this church and afterward committed unto Linus the office of the episcopate” (Against Heresies, III, 3, written by St. Irenaeus).

(more)

 

[Apologia100]

PETER’S TOMB

In a work issued in 1959, Father Kirschbaum, a member of the archeological commission excavating under the basilica during the 1940’s, has given a summary of the findings. These are in brief that it is reasonably certain that the place where St. Peter was buried has been discovered. According to historical records, supplemented by these new discoveries, this is the “history” of the tomb. The Christians buried the Apostle’s body in a simple grave on the southern slope of Vatican Hill and covered it with a few brick slabs. Soon other graves were made near that of St. Peter, and these have been recently discovered. Their existence and inscriptions on the wall make clear that from the very first St. Peter’s tomb was a place of pilgrimage so that there was uninterrupted Christian veneration and observation of this spot.

About the middle of the second century the grave was marked by a simple monumental slab, the “trophy” mentioned by Father Gaius about 200. During Valerian’s persecution, when Christian cemeteries were closed for the first time, St. Peter’s relics, but probably only the skull, were moved to a more secure place on the Via Appia. They were returned in the fourth century when Constantine began the first basilica over St. Peter’s tomb. To this end he went to great labor and expense to fill up piles on the sloping Vatican Hill to provide a level foundation. This is why St. Peter’s tomb is at a considerably lower level than the floor of the Basilica of Constantine and its modern replacement.

St. Gregory the Great carried out extensive alterations between 594 and 604, placing an altar over the tomb, but leaving a shaft through which objects might be lowered to touch the tomb for the veneration of pilgrims. During a Saracen raid in 846 much of the basilica and tomb were plundered, although the actual grave was not penetrated. It was soon after, probably, that the skull was removed and placed, together with that of St. Paul, in the Lateran, where they still remain. To prevent further vandalism the tomb shaft was filled up and the crypt sealed.

 

[jaralenio]

Better yet have him prove that he wasnt.

 

[mercygate]

Have a look at John Evangelist Walsh’s book *The Bones of St. Peter. * This is a non-stop page-turner – the detective story of how the bones of Peter were found.

 

[Maccabees]

Here is what cracks me up.

Anti-catholics accuse Peter of never being in Rome. Which any church historian would tell you is hogwash. Yet at the sametime the church becuase whe is located near Rome is for sure the Whore of Babylon. Yet Peter give us greetings from Babylon and suddenly Babylon is not Rome it is Babylon. THis is some really inconsistent exegesis and futehr proves extreme protestnat prejudice in regards to scriptural interpretation.

 

[asteroid]

Apologia100:

In his first papal encyclical he designated Rome under a symbolic name well understood by his fellow Jews: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings” (1 Pet. 5:13). Jews would readily recognize their ancient persecutor, Babylon, largely in ruins, the allusion to their contemporary ruler, Rome. Recognition became easier when St. John gave them a broad hint; “Babylon the great . . . seven hills” (Apoc. 17:5-9) an allusion to Rome’s famous seven hills. But if explicit identification be required, Clement of Alexandria gives it about 200 A.D. Clement, who would be well aware of the existence of another small town near Alexandria, Egypt, named Babylon, yet asserts: “Peter makes mention of Mark in his first Epistle which they report he wrote in Rome. as he indicates where he calls the city figuratively Babylon” (Clement, Hypotyposes, cited by Eusebius, History, II, 15).

Was all this and the rest copied & pasted from somewhere? If so, where? I want to check it out - it was easy to read, clear, concise and I didn’t get a headache having to follow some convoluted arguments.

If it wasn’t copied & pasted or anything then give yourself a gold star for your answer to the question.

Blessings

Asteroid