The fiction of Peter's Roman episcopacy

[Sower]

The Catholic Church teaches that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and thus establishes the supremacy of the pope as the "Vicar of Christ".  However, Church history does not support this. While Eusebius in his Church History speaks about this matter, the footnote to the chapter below tells us that Peter's episcopacy in Rome is a fiction.

Chapter XIV. The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.

153 Upon the historic truth of Peter's visit to Rome, see below, chap. 25, note 7. Although we may accept it as certain that he did visit Rome, and that he met his death there, it is no less certain that he did not reach there until late in the reign of Nero.

The tradition that he was for twenty-five years bishop of Rome is first recorded by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 1), and since his time has been almost universally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though in recent years many more candid scholars of that communion acknowledge that so long an episcopate there is a fiction.

The tradition undoubtedly took its rise from the statement of Justin Martyr (quoted in the previous chapter) that Simon Magus came to Rome during the reign of Claudius. Tradition, in the time of Eusebius, commonly connected the Roman visits of Simon and of Peter; and consequently Eusebius, accepting the earlier date for Simon's arrival in Rome, quite naturally assumed also the same date for Peter's arrival there, although Justin does not mention Peter in connection with Simon in the passage which Eusebius quotes.

The assumption that Peter took up his residence in Rome during the reign of Claudius contradicts all that we know of Peter's later life from the New Testament and from other early writers. In 44 a.d. he was in Jerusalem (according to Acts xii. 3); in 51 he was again there (according to Acts xv.); and a little later in Antioch (according to Gal. i. 11 sq.). Moreover, at some time during his life he labored in various provinces in Asia Minor, as we learn from his first epistle, and probably wrote that epistle from Babylon on the Euphrates (see chap. 15, note 7).

At any rate, he cannot have been in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans (57 or 58 a.d.), for no mention is made of him among the brethren to whom greetings are sent. Nor can he have been there when Paul wrote from Rome during his captivity (61 or 62 to 63 or 64 a.d.).

We have, in fact, no trace of him in Rome, except the extra-Biblical but well-founded tradition (see chap. 25, note 7) that he met his death there.

We may assume, then, that he did not reach Rome at any rate until shortly before his death; that is, shortly before the summer of  64 a.d. As most of the accounts put Simon Magus' visit to Rome in the reign of Nero (see above, chap. 13, note 9), so they make him follow Peter thither (as he had followed him everywhere, opposing and attacking him), instead of precede him, as Eusebius does. Eusebius follows Justin in giving the earlier date for Simon's visit to Rome; but he goes beyond Justin in recording his encounter there with Peter, which neither Justin nor Irenaeus mentions.

The earlier date for Simon's visit is undoubtedly that given by the oldest tradition. Afterward, when Peter and Paul were so prominently connected with the reign of Nero, the visit of Simon was postponed to synchronize with the presence of the two apostles in Rome. A report of Simon's meeting with Peter in Rome is given first by Hippolytus (VI. 15); afterward by Arnobius (II. 12), who does not describe the meeting; by the Ap. Const., the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, and the Acts of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

It is impossible to tell from what source Eusebius drew his information. Neither Justin, Irenaeus, nor Tertullian mentions it. Hippolytus and Arnobius and the App. Const. give too much, as they give accounts of his death, which Eusebius does not follow. As to this, it might, however, be said that these accounts are so conflicting that Eusebius may have omitted them entirely, while yet recording the meeting. Still, if he had read Hippolytus, he could hardly have omitted entirely his interesting account. Arnobius and Tertullian, who wrote in Latin, he did not read, and the Clementines were probably too late for him; at any rate, they cannot have been the source of his account, which differs entirely from theirs. It is highly probable, therefore, that he followed Justin and Irenaeus as far as they go, and that he recorded the meeting with Peter in Rome as a fact commonly accepted in his time, and one for which he needed no written authority; or it is possible that he had another source, unknown to us, as suggested above (note 4).

[michael_legna]

PART 1 OF 2

Of course Peter was in Rome as the following quotes prove.

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. "
Clement of Rome,The First Epistle of Clement,5(c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:6

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans,4(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:75

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter,fragment in Eusebius' Church History,II:25(c.A.D. 178),in NPNF2,I:130

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:1:1(c.A.D. 180),in ANF,I:414

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History,VI:14,6(A.D. 190), in NPNF2,I:261

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another(an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross."
Tertullian, Scorpiace,15:3(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:648

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near(to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood."
Tertullian, Against Marcion,4:5(inter A.D. 207-212),in ANF,III:350

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.' "
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History,2:25(A.D. 198),in NPNF2,I:129-130

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way."
Origen,Third Commentary on Genesis,(A.D. 232) fragment in Eusebius 3:1:1,in NPNF2,X:132

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome."
Peter of Alexandria,The Canonical Epistle,Canon 9(A.D. 306),in ANF,VI:273

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..."
Lactantius,The Divine Institutes,4:21(A.D. 310),in ANF,VII:123

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..."
Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History,II:14,5 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,X:115

"This man[Simon Magus],after he had been cast out by the Apostles,came to Rome...Peter and Paul,a noble pair,chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,6:14-15(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:37-38

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..."
Athanasius,Defence of his Flight,18(c.A.D. 357),in NPNF2,IV:261

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross."
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15 (A.D. 377),in NPNF2,VI:18

"Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, ... what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church."
Chrysostom,Epistle to the Romans,Homily 32 (c.A.D. 391),in NPNFI,XI:561-562

"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him?"
Gregory of Nyssa,To the Church at Nicodemia,Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394),NPNF2,V:535

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of 'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known."
Augustine,To Fortunatus,Epistle 53(A.D. 400),in NPNFI,I:298

"But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city,[ie. Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath, because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encounter with Simon[Magus]."
John Cassian,Institutes,X(ante A.D. 435),in NPNF2,XI:218

"The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries[of Peter & Paul], and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood."
Pope Leo the Great(regn. A.D. 440-461),Sermon LXXXII(ante A.D. 461),in NPNF2,XII:194

END OF PART 1

[michael_legna]

PART 2 OF 2

Of course Peter was in Rome as the following quotes from some prominent non-Catholic historians prove

"Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never in Rome...I think the historical probability is that he was...Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was never in Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin...For myself, I am willing, in absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martrydom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim...If this evidence for Peter's martydom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate"
G. Salmon "Infallibilty of the Church" (Grand Rapids:Baker,1959) pp. 348-9(a critic of the Catholic faith)

"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack

'It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early Church, as a matter of fact which is relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however facts of antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have to strike from our history books a large portion of their contents."
Oscar Cullman "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr" (London:SCM,1962) p. 114

"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain..."
F.F. Bruce "NT History" (New York:Doubleday,1971) p. 410

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome"
JND Kelly "The Oxford Dictionary of Popes" (Oxford:Oxford,1986) p. 6

"The martrydom of both Peter and Paul in Rome...has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have contended that Peter was never in Rome. But the archeaological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martydom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."
Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Catholicism", (New York:Abingdon,1959) p. 36

Finally the final nail in the coffin of this Protestant theory is that archeologists have found the tomb of Peter just where history had always claimed it was - directly under the main altar of st. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

END OF PART 2
END

[michael_legna]

I would be interested to know what book you are quoting this from because the vast majority of it is not from Eusebius' "The History of the Church" and without you having specifically identified quotes as from Eusebius it is difficult to know what is from his writings and what is from the obviously biased author of the book you took it from.

We know it is not Eusebius' work because his book was broken up into 10 books not 25 chapters anyone who wants to see it can find a copy on line at the following site.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/TOC.htm

It is also searchable and I have not been able to find any of the more forceful statements in Eusebius' "The History of the Church" and so I suspect they are commentary by this other author whose book you are really quoting from and did not identify (probably because it was so obviously biased).

If you want to make an appeal to the authority of Eusebius it would only be proper that you actually quote from him and not put forth others works as if it came from a respected author.

[sojourner]

Michael,

When I was a Protestant, it was never the question of whether Peter was in Rome. Whether fictional or not it really does not matter.
The historical data does not ever make him Bishop in Rome. None of the other Apostles were, there is no solid evidence that Peter was either.

Further, historically the Apostolic Church has never had a Pope. It was only after the Roman schism that Rome set up the Bishop of Rome as the Pope of the newly established Roman church. From then on the Roman Church has had a Pope as head of its church.

[michael_legna]

Michael,

When I was a Protestant, it was never the question of whether Peter was in Rome. Whether fictional or not it really does not matter.

It appears to matter to alot of Protestants to the point that they are willing to misquote and misrepresent authorities opinions in order to rewrite history.  This is not an isolated event; Catholics have to answer this false accusation all the time as Protestant attempt any attack to discredit the service of Peter as Bishop of Rome.

The historical data does not ever make him Bishop in Rome. None of the other Apostles were, there is no solid evidence that Peter was either.

This is at least is another issue but it too is a false attack.  It is not clear from your statement whether you are claiming that none of the Apostles were Bishops or none of the Apostles were Bishops of cities or that none of the Apostles were Bishops of Rome.

First lets address the idea that none of the Apostles were Bishops.  We know this is not accurate as Matthias is refered to taking Judas' bishopric so we see that Judas was a bishop and Matthias was one too so it is natural to assume that all the Apostles were bishops.

Now to the issue of whether any of the other Apostles were Bishop of Rome.  I agree none of the others were Bishop of Rome because Peter was followed by Linus, then Cletus and then Clement.

Now finally to show the error in your possible claim that none of the other Apostles were Bishops of other cities.  Well first we have James as Bishop of Jerusalem, and Mark as Bishop of Alexandria who is claimed as the first Patriarch of the Coptic Church who can show an unbroken line of succession all the way to today.  Then we also have Andrew as the Bishop of Constantinople who the Greek Orthodox claim as thier first Patriarch and can show an unbroken line of succession all the way to today.

Further, historically the Apostolic Church has never had a Pope. It was only after the Roman schism that Rome set up the Bishop of Rome as the Pope of the newly established Roman church. From then on the Roman Church has had a Pope as head of its church.

This is claim of yours is beyond even the standard claim of Protestants which usually identify the Pope as coming into power at the time of Constantine.  But you have offered no more proof than they did (and their claim has never been proven) asking people to simply accept your claim on your own word which is never enough.  

If you want to present some independent unbiased historical evidence that the Bishop of Rome was not the leader of the Church until the schism (I assume you mean in 1054 when the Greek Orthodox Church and Rome split) I will be glad to look at it.

[I_Believe]

So which Catholic denomination is right?

[sojourner]

Michael,

Mostly a play on words to shore up the misinformation that the Roman Catholic Church has produced to offset an obvious error on their part. They have done this for hundreds of years.

The Apostles formed and founded many churches. They were given a place of honor when they returned to principle starting points of their apostolic work.  That any were actually in title and practice Bishops of any of these churches is questionable. However, if they can be so founded or assumed then it adds to the argument for Rome to substantiate the whole episode about Peter.

As I had stated earlier, whether Peter was or was not is of no consequence as the Original Church (Orthodox today) never had a supreme head here on earth and still does not to this day.

I am not speaking of using the 'word' pope. That is simply the bishopric title that the Latin See took and retained from about the 4th century on which the church was growing and dioceses were created within local areas and this is also when the term 'priest' again appears in church history as a sub-biship in each diocese.

I am not speaking of the concept of 'primacy' either. Rome as the capital of the Roman Empire at that time, would also have its bishop as primary or 'of primacy'. This is simply a common spokesperson, a front person, for any group, but they would not have any more power than others of same title, in this case, bishops.

Even when Constantine moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople, Rome retained the place of primacy. She, in fact would be given this even today, if the Roman See would renounce the papacy and the power associated with it and join the Apostolic Church.

Rome attempted to so force the concept of 'supremacy, that she even formulated false documents to mislead the other western bishops. These are the well known documents: "Pontiff and Father of the Universe" and :False Isidorian Decretals'. One gave the title of Pope or Pontiff to the Roman Bishop and the second the rules of authority.

She attempted to force these veiws against the other 4 sees at the time and fortunately never succeeded. Because she failed and also would not change their view of the filioque she eventually separated. The separation was for more reasons than these ecclessiatical issues however.

All of these ideas were unknown to the Church Fathers of the early Church. The concept of a conciliar form of organization, a 'catholic' view within the episcopal order.

By having a Pope, a vicar of Christ, the whole concept of unity of the Church is destroyed. Christ is no longer the head. It puts the emphasis on an earthly power structure rather than a heavenly one.

It also makes the Roman Church a assemblage of parts to make up the whole, which is the opposite of catholic.
The East has retained the conciliar, true Catholic and episcopal structure.
The use of Councils is the only external union the Church exercises. We have no central authority but Christ, in fact we have no central organization.

We are unified through the Eucharist, faith and practice. It is was makes us Apostolic, and unified through Christ.

Since I cannot prove a negative, it would be your opportunity  to prove just how far the Roman Church needs to go to prop up false claims.

[sojourner]

I Believe,

So which Catholic denomination is right?

First, neither one is a denomination. That is a term which only describes the protestant mess.

It is your duty to determine which is correct. You won't have a difficult time if you read history which is replete with accurate information about the history of the Church.
It is a nomily of the west that the Roman Church from the Fall of Rome to even present times has controlled history and the perception of history as they recorded it. When you understand that the Roman Church was the only organization that really remained after the fall, in the west and the only people that were educated, it becomes apparent just how history can be manipulated. The middle ages and Rennaisance was no different.
But I'll let you find this out. It is a good read. Enjoy.