Was Peter In Rome?

Question

Many protestants try to disprove the papacy by saying Peter was never in Rome.

Now, I like a good argument, but it has to be based on facts. Trying to say that Peter didnt go to Rome is just ridiculous, and flies in the face of history.

Tertullian, in "The Demurrer Against the Heretics" (A.D. 200), Ignatius of Antioch, in his "Letter to the Romans" (A.D. 110), Irenaeus, in his "Against Heresies" (A.D. 190), and Lactantius, in his "The Death of the Persecutors" (A.D. 318) all write about Peter being in Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed".

Here is some good reading:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

Comments?
Questions?
Insults?

Answer 1

Pastor Billy says: Quo Vadis

Peter was in Rome regardless whether he was or wasn't doesn't prove or disprove the authority of the Catholic Church.
What many non-Catholics fail to realise is... the Roman Catholic Church has never claimed it originates in the city of Rome. If Peter had been martyred and buried in Antioch they'd still be arguing against me as a Roman Catholic least we forget Christianity was geographically born out of the Roman Empire not the Persian Empire or a Chinese Dynasty.

Answer 2

I would point out that the Gospel writers wrote much closer to the supposed Gospel events than Eusebius did to the supposed ministry of Peter in Rome, and yet the Gospels are full of provable historic errors and conflations and outright fantasies. Let take the supposed slaughter of the first-born in Bethlehem by Herod, a fabrication created to cast Jesus as a new Moses. For centuries Catholics have pointed to Josephus, including what is almost certainly a redaction inserting Jesus where he was not mentioned by Josephus at all, as proof of the historic Jesus. Josephus recounts the injustices and murders of Herod in detail, so he is no apologist for Herod, and yet neither he nor any other historian recounts the supposed slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem because it never happened. The same with a Quirinian census that required returning to one's birthplace for a census. Complete non-historic nonsense invented to place Jesus birth in Bethlehem the city of David.

I don't think there is much point to "disprove" the papacy. The 2000 year history of the depravity of the church and its leadership, which continues to this day, is all the proof any thinking person needs. Simply reading a history of the popes should be enough to convince the most sympathetic religionist that the papacy is utterly a human invention created to accrete power to the Roman empire, and an office more frequently occupied by villains than by saints.

Answer 3

I wondered why people said that about Peter and Rome. I mean does it matter if the first Pope was in Rome or not? That proves absolutly nothing. The real issue is was Peter the first Pope.

Some people are just dumb.

Answer 4

Once again, you are answering your own question most ably.
I am Protestant, and I'm fairly certain Peter was martyred in Rome. Whether the Catholic Church partakes of Apostolic Succession or not, is I think a much tougher question.

Answer 5

St. Peter certainly was in Rome.
St. Peter very well may have been one of the Bishops of Rome.

What of it? The erroneous ecclesiastic notions of some of St. Peter's unfortunate successors are not supported by either of these things.

Rome is a See in schism, whose Patriarch clings to all manner of innovations and errors. Abandon them and return to the bosom of the Mother Church. Return to Orthodoxy.

Answer 6

I've been taught that Peter went to Rome. One thing for sure,
he went to Heaven.
I Cr 13;8a

Answer 7

I don't argue if he was in Rome or not. I argue if he was ever a pope which he wasn't. Or is he was the head of the church. Which he wasn't. Or if he was the rock which once again he wasn't. Jesus is the head of the church and the rock on which it is built. Not any man.

Answer 8

I wondered what happened to you. Deleted I see. Too bad.

How much do you want to bet it was NOT the atheists that targeted you?

You cannot blame the Catholic Church for the hate that defines Christianity today.

Answer 9

we know that some people think that if history doesn't fit in their decided beliefs, they will treat history as BS. so, it's really futile to discuss FACTS to people who buried their heads in the sand.

Answer 10

Yes. He was.

And a star for you for quoting St. Clement. Any question that quotes St. Clement deserves a star!