The Epistle to the Romans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Augustine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Augustine3

Guest
This may be a silly question but if St Peter was the Bishop of Rome, then why did St Paul write the Romans an epistle?
 
Augustine3,

The usual answer given is that St.Peter was absent from Rome at the time St.Paul sent his letter, the following article from the Catholic Encyclopedia should help a bit.

newadvent.org/cathen/13156a.htm - Specifically the end of the second paragraph.

All the best

Lincs
 
Augustine3 said:
This may be a silly question but if St Peter was the Bishop of Rome, then why did St Paul write the Romans an epistle?
Click to expand...
Is this relevant?

KJV Romans 2:25-29
25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

KJV Galatians 2:9-14
9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Maybe St. Paul was aware of the division between the Jews and Gentiles and recognized that when Christ died and took away the wall of partition, that salvation was not only to the Jews. But by there tradition, some Jews still did not want anything to do with other people. So perhaps Paul wrote to the Romans to encourage and exhort them to clear this up.
 
Augustine3 said:
This may be a silly question but if St Peter was the Bishop of Rome, then why did St Paul write the Romans an epistle?
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting question. From the very beginning of the letter we see that Paul has never been to Rome and that the Church already existed there. Note the tone of the letter and how different it is than his other letters directed at Churches he started.

I presume he wrote, primarily to tell them he wanted to visit and that he had heard of the Judaizer problem in Rome, which was the crossroads of the world at that time.
 
In my Catholic Study Bible (NAB-based), Romans is described like a “circular” letter, i.e., one which would introduce the complete position and background of someone who would visit the location later. If the references to Rome or Roman could be removed for the letter, it could be an “introductory” letter to almost any location Paul might visit, albeit where Jews are living.

So it is not so much a letter to support those he KNOWS, as it is to those who will know him and his teaching when he arrives.

Today, some priests who give retreats send their “bona fides” in advance, so people are aware of their background and experience. Romans fits this mold.

Peace.
 
the writings of the early father (those who followed the apostles) mentioned abt the position of Peter as the main leader of the christian community. Though not much was written in the Bible abt this( since Bible is not a Historical book), …
 
JRRTFAN said:
That’s an interesting question. From the very beginning of the letter we see that Paul has never been to Rome and that the Church already existed there. Note the tone of the letter and how different it is than his other letters directed at Churches he started.

I presume he wrote, primarily to tell them he wanted to visit and that he had heard of the Judaizer problem in Rome, which was the crossroads of the world at that time.
Click to expand...
Interesting comments. I’m not saying you are wrong but are you sure what Paul writes implies he has not been there. In other words maybe he has already been there but had left and was looking forward to going back. If Paul had not been to Rome then who started the Church there. I was under the impression that Paul was in Rome before Peter.
 
For certain, the 2 great Saints (Peter & Paul) were not the founders of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome. The two of them were late comers. Perhaps it is likely that Paul wrote to the Romans before Peter went to Rome. The other thing is between the two saints, who was the first to go to Rome?

Thanks Akini
 
The Teachings of the early fathers clearly mentioned that Peter was indeed the leader of the church. St. John Chrysostom regarded Peter as the icon of the episcopate.St. Cyprian of Carthage said "Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair’. I could give some more examples but this will be sufficed.Early fathers were the followers of the Apostles of Jesus.so what they wrote and commented on the Early church is true and genuine.Plz read the Book 'The Teachings of the early fathers of the church.U can get from Pauline Book Store. It has got 4 volumes.Its very Interesting !
 
thistle said:
Interesting comments. I’m not saying you are wrong but are you sure what Paul writes implies he has not been there. In other words maybe he has already been there but had left and was looking forward to going back. If Paul had not been to Rome then who started the Church there. I was under the impression that Paul was in Rome before Peter.
Click to expand...
Going on the information of my study Bible (based on NAB), Paul had not been to Rome when he wrote Romans, but wrote it in advance of a planned trip to Rome and to Spain. He may have actually sent a similar letter to folks in Spain, but there is no record of this.

His plans went awry when he was arrested in Jerusalem, and kept there. Altho he was exonerated by the Roman authorities, he had demanded a trial in Rome, and so was sent there. Luke conveys a dramatic journey for Paul to Rome, shipwreck and all, in Acts.

It would appear that Peter and Paul could have arrived in Rome about the same time, about 60 AD. Of course, Paul was put under house arrest, which would have limited his appearances to the followers of The Way, while Peter may have been more actively seen (which eventually got him noticed and crucified).

There are so many interesting stories, but, perhaps, not as much actual data as we would like.

Hope this helps. Peace.
 
JamestheOlder said:
Going on the information of my study Bible (based on NAB), Paul had not been to Rome when he wrote Romans, but wrote it in advance of a planned trip to Rome and to Spain. He may have actually sent a similar letter to folks in Spain, but there is no record of this.

His plans went awry when he was arrested in Jerusalem, and kept there. Altho he was exonerated by the Roman authorities, he had demanded a trial in Rome, and so was sent there. Luke conveys a dramatic journey for Paul to Rome, shipwreck and all, in Acts.

It would appear that Peter and Paul could have arrived in Rome about the same time, about 60 AD. Of course, Paul was put under house arrest, which would have limited his appearances to the followers of The Way, while Peter may have been more actively seen (which eventually got him noticed and crucified).

There are so many interesting stories, but, perhaps, not as much actual data as we would like.

Hope this helps. Peace.
Click to expand...
So if they had not been to Rome at the time Paul was writing his Epistle who had already started the Church in Rome?
 
thistle said:
So if they had not been to Rome at the time Paul was writing his Epistle who had already started the Church in Rome?
Click to expand...
Introduction to Romans in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament says:

“The birth of Christianity in Rome is one of the unsolved puzzles of history. The good news may have first reached the city through Jewish pilgrims returning from Jerusalem (Acts 2:10). Tradition also remembers the Apostle Peter ministering in the capital during the 40’s (see note on Acts 12:17)” (which says, 'The Church historian Eusebius puts him in Rome about A.D. 42)

It also says that “Paul wrote to introduce himself and his teaching to the Roman Christians in preparation for his planned visit.”. As JamestheOlder said in post 6.

🙂
 
thistle said:
Interesting comments. I’m not saying you are wrong but are you sure what Paul writes implies he has not been there. In other words maybe he has already been there but had left and was looking forward to going back. If Paul had not been to Rome then who started the Church there. I was under the impression that Paul was in Rome before Peter.
Click to expand...
I did the Catholic Scripture Study International 28 week program on Romans last year. That study is written by Scott Hahn. I have also done Hahn’s multi talk series on Romans. That does not make me an expert by any means but the supposition that Hahn (and the lecturer, Fr. Patrick WInslow) is that Paul has never been there (Rm. 1:11-15) and that he has no need to infringe on the work of another…

I don’t know that I’ve seen any Catholic exegesis that Paul was in Rome before Peter, which doesn’t mean he wasn’t, I just haven’t seen it.

I do read a whole different tone in Romans than I do in, say, Galatians or Corinthians which are Churches Paul did found.
 
JRRTFAN said:
I did the Catholic Scripture Study International 28 week program on Romans last year. That study is written by Scott Hahn. I have also done Hahn’s multi talk series on Romans. That does not make me an expert by any means but the supposition that Hahn (and the lecturer, Fr. Patrick WInslow) is that Paul has never been there (Rm. 1:11-15) and that he has no need to infringe on the work of another…

I don’t know that I’ve seen any Catholic exegesis that Paul was in Rome before Peter, which doesn’t mean he wasn’t, I just haven’t seen it.

I do read a whole different tone in Romans than I do in, say, Galatians or Corinthians which are Churches Paul did found.
Click to expand...
That’s a great study on Romans, isn’t it? We got in on the end of it when we moved to a new parish. It may not make “experts”, but it sure is informative.
 
JamestheOlder said:
That’s a great study on Romans, isn’t it? We got in on the end of it when we moved to a new parish. It may not make “experts”, but it sure is informative.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s very good. I have done Matt., Exodus, Acts, Romans and am now doing Genesis.

We could only get 20 people in the whole parish to do this year’s study. People don’t know what they’re missing.
 
We do not know for certain who introduced catholicism in Rome. In my earlier post, I said both saints (Peter & Paul) were late comers. In fact, St. Paul was a very late comer to Rome than St. Peter. There is something that we seem to forget about the 2 saints. Both saints were in fact rivals. I suggest you read St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians Chapter 2 verses 11 to 14. St. Paul always stresses the fact that he was the apostle of the gentiles and St. Peter the apostle of the Jews.
Is it possible then that when St. Paul wrote to the Romans he had this in mind, that, he was the rightful apostle of the citizens of Rome even though he had the knowledge that St. Peter was already in Rome? Anyway I suggesting these only from the tone of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

Thanks
Akini
 
Akini said:
We do not know for certain who introduced catholicism in Rome. In my earlier post, I said both saints (Peter & Paul) were late comers. -----Snipped----------Both saints were in fact rivals. I suggest you read St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians Chapter 2 verses 11 to 14. St. Paul always stresses the fact that he was the apostle of the gentiles and St. Peter the apostle of the Jews.
Is it possible then that when St. Paul wrote to the Romans he had this in mind, that, he was the rightful apostle of the citizens of Rome even though he had the knowledge that St. Peter was already in Rome? Anyway I suggesting these only from the tone of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

Thanks
Akini
Click to expand...
Interesting thought. We know Paul was somewhat (?) arrogant. We do know that he prevailed over (almost humiliated) Peter on at least two occasions. But, maybe he had the same attitude as a local Phillipino priest who is an assistant Pastor: The Spanish-speaking parishioners are “his”, but it’s okay for the Irish Pastor to minister to the Anglos.

Maybe Paul thought Peter would have a “more complete” ministry with Paul by his side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top