Protestant theology often challenges the Catholic Church’s foundation, questioning whether Christ appointed Peter as the head of the Church on Earth. A central argument revolves around the assertion that Peter never actually set foot in Rome. This claim suggests that if Peter wasn’t in Rome, he couldn’t have been its first bishop, undermining the lineage of papal succession. Therefore, the question, Why Did Peter Go To Rome?, becomes crucial in understanding this historical and theological debate.
At first glance, the location of Peter’s ministry might seem secondary to the larger question of papal authority. After all, Peter’s presence in Rome alone wouldn’t automatically establish the papacy. It’s a logical fallacy to assume that because Peter was in Rome and later popes ruled from there, he must have been the first pope. Following that logic, Paul, also an apostle who visited Rome, could equally be considered the first pope.
However, the question of Peter’s Roman sojourn gains significance when we consider the arguments against it. If Peter indeed never reached Rome, it would weaken the historical narrative supporting the papacy’s direct link to Peter through the Roman See. Even if the papacy was divinely established by Christ, as Catholics believe, there would have been a period before it became associated with Rome.
Despite not being the core issue of the papacy’s divine origin, the question of Peter’s presence in Rome is heavily debated, especially by anti-Catholic groups. They believe disproving Peter’s Roman presence can discredit the Catholic Church’s broader claims about the papacy. The reasoning is, “If they are wrong about this historical fact, they might be wrong about the papacy itself.”
Examining the Claims Against Peter’s Roman Sojourn
Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, succinctly presents the common Protestant argument: “The remarkable thing, however, about Peter’s alleged bishopric in Rome is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it… There is in fact no New Testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, that Peter ever was in Rome. All rests on legend.”
While it’s true the Bible doesn’t explicitly state, “Peter went to Rome,” it also doesn’t say he didn’t. The New Testament offers limited details about the apostles’ travels after the Ascension, except for Paul’s journeys. Therefore, relying solely on the Bible to determine Peter’s whereabouts is insufficient. Dismissing extra-biblical historical documents as mere “legend,” as Boettner does, is a flawed approach for any historian. These early texts are valuable historical evidence.
Furthermore, Boettner’s claim that there’s “no allusion to Rome” in Peter’s epistles is inaccurate. The greeting in 1 Peter 5:13 reads, “The church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark.” “Babylon” in this context, and in other early Christian writings, is widely understood as a code word for Rome. This symbolic usage is found in texts like the Sibylline Oracles, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 4 Esdras. Even Eusebius Pamphilius, in his Chronicle (c. A.D. 303), noted that Peter’s first epistle was believed to be written in Rome, with “Babylon” as a figurative reference to the city.
The Book of Revelation also uses “Babylon” symbolically, consistently depicting it as a corrupt and persecuting power: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great” (Rev. 14:8, 18:2, 18:10, 18:21). Given the historical context of early Christianity, where Rome was the center of persecution, it’s highly plausible that “Babylon” in these passages refers to Rome, not the long-fallen ancient city.
St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City, Rome, traditionally believed to be built over the tomb of St. Peter.
Opponents might argue against “Babylon” equating to “Rome,” but the context of persecution provides a compelling reason for this symbolic language. Openly stating Peter’s presence in Rome, the seat of imperial power that viewed the early Church as a subversive sect, would have been imprudent and dangerous. Symbolic language protected Peter and the early Christian community. Apostles using symbolic city names is also seen in Revelation 11:8.
While relying solely on the Bible might lead one to question Peter’s Roman journey, a comprehensive inquiry requires considering external historical evidence.
The Overwhelming Testimony of Early Christian Writers
William A. Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers, a comprehensive collection of early Christian writings, lists numerous references to Peter’s presence and death in Rome. These references are consistently divided between statements affirming “Peter came to Rome and died there” and “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” These early sources collectively demonstrate a universal and ancient belief that Peter indeed ended his life in Rome, the empire’s capital.
Tertullian, writing around A.D. 200 in The Demurrer Against the Heretics, speaks of the Roman church: “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s.” He equates Peter’s martyrdom in Rome with Paul’s, which even Protestants acknowledge occurred in Rome.
In the same work, Tertullian mentions the apostolic succession lists, stating, “…like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, St. Clement of Rome, later became the fourth pope. Clement himself, in his Letter to the Corinthians (c. 70 AD), written shortly after Peter and Paul’s deaths, alludes to Peter ending his life in the same location as Paul.
Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), remarks that he cannot command the Roman Christians as Peter and Paul once did. This statement only makes sense if Peter held a leadership role in the Roman church.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), notes that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” He further mentions Linus as Peter’s successor, followed by Anacletus and Clement of Rome, establishing a clear line of succession from Peter in Rome.
Clement of Alexandria, writing around the third century, in his Sketches (preserved in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History), recounts, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark…should write down what had been proclaimed,” referring to the Gospel of Mark’s origin from Peter’s preaching in Rome.
Lactantius, in The Death of the Persecutors (c. 318), writes, “When Nero was already reigning…Peter came to Rome, where…he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”
These are just a few examples from a multitude of early Christian writings consistently placing Peter in Rome. No ancient writer suggests Peter concluded his ministry anywhere else.
Archaeological Evidence: The Tomb of St. Peter
Boettner and other critics dismiss archaeological evidence, claiming that searches for inscriptions in Roman catacombs and ruins have yielded nothing conclusive, only “some bones of uncertain origin.” This statement, however, ignores significant archaeological discoveries, particularly those beneath St. Peter’s Basilica.
Archaeological excavations under St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City, revealing layers of history.
Boettner’s 1962 statement predates crucial findings from excavations under the Basilica’s high altar. What he dismisses as “some bones of uncertain origin” were found in a tomb on Vatican Hill, covered with early inscriptions attesting to it being Peter’s resting place.
Following further evidence, Pope Paul VI officially announced the conclusive identification of St. Peter’s tomb. John Evangelist Walsh’s The Bones of St. Peter details the historical and scientific process of this determination. Objective examination of the evidence leaves little doubt about Peter’s presence in Rome and the discovery of his tomb.
Why Rome? Peter’s Mission and the Heart of the Empire
So, why did Peter go to Rome? The answer lies in understanding Rome’s pivotal role in the ancient world and Peter’s mission as an apostle. Rome was the undisputed center of the Roman Empire, the largest and most influential empire of its time. As the capital, it was a hub of communication, culture, and power, reaching every corner of the known world.
For Peter, tasked by Christ to “feed my sheep” and spread the Gospel to all nations, Rome presented an unparalleled strategic location. Establishing a strong Christian presence in Rome meant influencing the very heart of the empire, facilitating the spread of Christianity throughout the vast Roman territories and beyond. It was the most effective way to reach the widest possible audience with the message of Christ.
Furthermore, as the recognized leader among the apostles, Peter’s presence in Rome, the imperial capital, would have provided central leadership and direction to the burgeoning early Church. It was a natural progression for the Church’s leadership to gravitate towards the center of the world, mirroring the administrative structure of the Roman Empire itself.
In conclusion, the question of why did Peter go to Rome is answered by both historical necessity and strategic mission. The overwhelming historical testimony, coupled with archaeological evidence, confirms Peter’s presence and martyrdom in Rome. While the Bible may not explicitly state his Roman journey, contextual understanding and extra-biblical sources provide a robust and compelling narrative. Peter went to Rome because Rome was the center of the world, and from Rome, the message of Christ could reach the ends of the earth. The evidence robustly supports that Peter did indeed go to Rome, fulfilling his apostolic mission at the heart of the Roman Empire.
