SAINT PETER

SAINT PETER

I. Until the Ascension of Christ

II. St. Peter in Jerusalem and Palestine after the Ascension

III. Missionary Journeys in the East; The Council of the Apostles

IV. Activity and Death in Rome; Burial-place

V. Feasts of St. Peter

VI. Representations of St. Peter

I. UNTIL THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST
Bethsaida
St. Peter’s true and original name was Simon, sometimes
occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts 15:14; II Peter 1:1). He was the
son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on
Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with certainty,
although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The
Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town.
Capharnaum
Simon settled in
Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own
house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of
Christ’s public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to
Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children.
The same writer relates the tradition that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom
(ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by
Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxi) from Clement, the ancient Christian
literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum
the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own
boat (Luke 5:3).
Peter meets Our Lord
Like so many of his Jewish contemporaries, he was attracted by the
Baptist’s preaching of penance and was, with his brother Andrew, among
John’s associates in Bethania on the eastern bank of the Jordan. When, after
the High Council had sent envoys for the second time to the
Baptist, the latter pointed to Jesus who was passing, saying, “Behold the Lamb of God”,
Andrew and another disciple followed the Saviour to his residence and remained
with Him one day.
Later, meeting his brother. Simon, Andrew said “We have found the
Messias, and brought him to Jesus, who, looking upon him, said: “Thou art Simon the
son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter”.
Already, at this first meeting, the Saviour foretold the change of Simon’s
name to Cephas (Kephas; Aramaic Kipha, rock), which is translated Petros
(Lat., Petrus) a proof that Christ had already special views with regard
to Simon. Later, probably at the time of his definitive call to the Apostolate
with the eleven other
Apostles, Jesus actually gave Simon the name of Cephas
(Petrus), after which he was usually called Peter, especially by Christ on the
solemn occasion after Peter’s profession of faith (Matthew 16:18; cf. below).
The Evangelists often combine the two names, while St. Paul uses the name Cephas.
Peter becomes a disciple
After the first meeting Peter with the other early disciples remained
with Jesus for some time, accompanying Him to Galilee (Marriage at Cana),
Judaea, and Jerusalem, and through Samaria back to Galilee (John, ii-iv). Here
Peter resumed his occupation of fisherman for a short time, but soon received
the definitive call of the Saviour to become one of His permanent disciples.
Peter and Andrew were engaged at their calling when Jesus met and addressed
them: “Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men”. On the
same occasion the sons of Zebedee were called (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20;
Luke 5:1-11; it is here assumed that Luke refers to the same occasion
as the other Evangelists). Thenceforth Peter remained always in the immediate
neighbourhood of Our Lord. After preaching the Sermon on the Mount and curing
the son of the centurion in Capharnaum, Jesus came to Peter’s house and cured
his wife’s mother, who was sick of a fever (Matthew 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31).
A little later Christ chose His Twelve Apostles as His constant
associates in preaching the kingdom of God.
Growing prominence among the Twelve
Among the Twelve Peter soon became conspicuous. Though of irresolute
character, be clings with the greatest fidelity, firmness of faith, and inward
love to the Saviour; rash alike in word and act, he is full of zeal and
enthusiasm, though momentarily easily accessible to external influences and
intimidated by difficulties. The more prominent the Apostles become in the
Evangelical narrative, the more conspicuous does Peter appear as the first
among them. In the list of the Twelve on the occasion of their solemn call to
the Apostolate, not only does Peter stand always at their head, but the
surname Petrus given him by Christ is especially emphasized
(Matthew 10:2): “Duodecim autem Apostolorum nomina haec: Primus Simon qui
dicitur Petrus. . .”; Mark 3:14-16:
“Et fecit ut essent duodecim cum illo, et ut mitteret
eos praedicare . . . et imposuit Simoni nomen Petrus”; Luke 6:13-14: “Et
cum dies factus esset, vocavit discipulos suos, et elegit duodecim ex ipsis
(quos et Apostolos nominavit): Simonem, quem cognominavit Petrum . . .” On
various occasions Peter speaks in the name of the other Apostles
(Matthew 15:15; 19:27; Luke 12:41, etc.). When Christ’s words are addressed to all the
Apostles, Peter answers in their name (e.g., Matthew 16:16). Frequently the
Saviour turns specially to Peter (Matthew 26:40; Luke 22:31, etc.).
Very characteristic is the expression of true fidelity to Jesus, which Peter
addressed to Him in the name of the other Apostles. Christ, after He had
spoken of the mystery of the reception of His Body and Blood (John 6:22
sqq.) and many of His disciples had left Him, asked the Twelve if they too
should leave Him; Peter’s answer comes immediately: “Lord to whom shall we go?
thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that
thou art the Holy One of God” (Vulg. “thou art the Christ, the Son of God”).
Christ Himself unmistakably accords Peter a special precedence and the first
place among the Apostles, and designates him for such on various occasions.
Peter was one of the three Apostles (with James and John) who were with Christ
on certain special occasions the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the
dead (Mark, v, 37; Luke, viii, 51); the Transfiguration of Christ (Matt.,
xvii, 1; Mark, ix, 1; Luke, ix, 28), the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemani
(Matt. xxvi, 37; Mark, xiv, 33). On several occasions also Christ favoured him
above all the others; He enters Peter’s boat on Lake Genesareth to preach to
the multitude on the shore (Luke, v, 3); when He: was miraculously walking
upon the waters, He called Peter to come to Him across the lake (Matt., xiv,
28 sqq.); He sent him to the lake to catch the fish in whose mouth Peter found
the stater to pay as tribute (Matt., xvii, 24 sqq.).
Peter becomes Head of the Apostles
In especially solemn fashion Christ accentuated Peter’s precedence among the
Apostles, when, after Peter had recognized Him as the Messiah, He promised
that he would be head of His flock. Jesus was then dwelling with His Apostles
in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, engaged on His work of salvation. As
Christ’s coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of
the Messias, many different views concerning Him were current. While
journeying along with His Apostles, Jesus asks them: “Whom do men say that
the Son of man is?” The Apostles answered: “Some
John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets”.
Jesus said to them: “But whom do you say that I am?” Simon said: “Thou art
Christ, the Son of the
living God”. And Jesus answering said to him: “Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father
who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and
upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be
bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be
loosed also in heaven”. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell
no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matt., xvi, 13-20; Mark, viii, 27-30;
Luke, ix, 18-21).
By the word “rock” the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as
is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for
“Peter” and “rock”. His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely,
that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who
believed in Him as the true Messiah; that through this foundation (Peter) the
Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the
faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of
Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the
words “bind” and “loose” are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It
is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the
Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is,
the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles
by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could
not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did
continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its
bishops. Entirely inconsistent and in itself untenable is the position of
Protestants who (like Schnitzer in recent times) assert that the primacy of
the Roman bishops cannot be deduced from the precedence which Peter held among
the Apostles. Just as the essential activity of the Twelve Apostles in
building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear with their
deaths, so surely did the Apostolic Primacy of Peter not completely vanish. As
intended by Christ, it must have continued its existence and development in a
form appropriate to the ecclesiastical organism, just as the office of the
Apostles continued in an appropriate form. Objections have been raised against
the genuineness of the wording of the passage, but the unanimous testimony of
the manuscripts, the parallel passages in the other Gospels, and the fixed
belief of pre-Constantine literature furnish the surest proofs of the
genuineness and untampered state of the text of Matthew (cf. “Stimmen aus
MariaLaach”, I, 1896,129 sqq.; “Theologie und Glaube”, II, 1910,842 sqq.).
His difficulty with Christ’s Passion
In spite of his firm faith in Jesus, Peter had so far no clear knowledge of
the mission and work of the Saviour. The sufferings of Christ especially, as
contradictory to his worldly conception of the Messias, were inconceivable to
him, and his erroneous conception occasionally elicited a sharp reproof from
Jesus (Matt., xvi, 21-23, Mark, viii, 31-33). Peter’s irresolute character,
which continued notwithstanding his enthusiastic fidelity to his Master, was
clearly revealed in connection with the Passion of Christ. The Saviour had
already told him that Satan had desired him that he might sift him as wheat.
But Christ had prayed for him that his faith fail not, and, being once
converted, he confirms his brethren (Luke, xxii, 31-32). Peter’s assurance
that he was ready to accompany his Master to prison and to death, elicited
Christ’s prediction that Peter should deny Him (Matt., xxvi, 30-35; Mark, xiv,
26-31; Luke, xxii, 31-34; John, xiii,3338). When Christ proceeded to wash the
feet of His disciples before the Last Supper, and came first to Peter, the
latter at first protested, but, on Christ’s declaring that otherwise he should
have no part with Him, immediately said: “Lord, not only my feet, but also my
hands and my head” (John, xiii, 1-10). In the Garden of Gethsemani Peter had
to submit to the Saviour’s reproach that he had slept like the others, while
his Master suffered deadly anguish (Mark, xiv 37). At the seizing of Jesus,
Peter in an outburst of anger wished to defend his Master by force, but was
forbidden to do so. He at first took to flight with the other Apostles (John,
xviii, 10-11; Matt., xxvi, 56); then turning he followed his captured Lord to
the courtyard of the High Priest, and there denied Christ, asserting
explicitly and swearing that he knew Him not (Matt., xxvi, 58-75; Mark, xiv,
54-72; Luke, xxii, 54-62; John, xviii, 15-27). This denial was of course due,
not to a lapse of interior faith in Christ, but to exterior fear and
cowardice. His sorrow was thus so much the greater, when, after his Master had
turned His gaze towards him, he clearly recognized what he had done.
The Risen Lord confirms Peter’s precedence
In spite of this weakness, his position as head of the Apostles was later confirmed by
Jesus, and his precedence was not less conspicuous after the Resurrection than before.
The women, who were the first to find Christ’s tomb empty, received from the
angel a special message for Peter (Mark, xvi, 7). To him alone of the Apostles
did Christ appear on the first day after the Resurrection (Luke, xxiv, 34; I
Cor., xv, 5). But, most important of all, when He appeared at the Lake of
Genesareth, Christ renewed to Peter His special commission to feed and defend
His flock, after Peter had thrice affirmed his special love for his Master
(John, xxi, 15-17). In conclusion Christ foretold the violent death Peter
would have to suffer, and thus invited him to follow Him in a special manner
(ibid., 20-23). Thus was Peter called and trained for the Apostleship and
clothed with the primacy of the Apostles, which he exercised in a most
unequivocal manner after Christ’s Ascension into Heaven.
II. ST. PETER IN JERUSALEM AND PALESTINE AFTER THE ASCENSION
Our information concerning the earliest Apostolic activity of St. Peter in
Jerusalem, Judaea, and the districts stretching northwards as far as Syria is
derived mainly from the first portion of the Acts of the Apostles, and is
confirmed by parallel statements incidentally in the Epistles of St. Paul.
Among the crowd of Apostles and disciples who, after Christ’s Ascension into
Heaven from Mount Olivet, returned to Jerusalem to await the fulfilment of His
promise to send the Holy Ghost, Peter is immediately conspicuous as the leader
of all, and is henceforth constantly recognized as the head of the original
Christian community in Jerusalem. He takes the initiative in the appointment
to the Apostolic College of another witness of the life, death and
resurrection of Christ to replace Judas (Acts, i, 15-26). After the descent of
the Holy Ghost on the feast of Pentecost, Peter standing at the head of the
Apostles delivers the first public sermon to proclaim the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus, and wins a large number of Jews as converts to the
Christian community (ibid. ii, 14-41). First of the Apostles he worked a
public miracle, when with John he went up into the temple and cured the lame
man at the Beautiful Gate. To the people crowding in amazement about the two
Apostles, he preaches a long sermon in the Porch of Solomon, and brings new
increase to the flock of believers (ibid., iii, 1-iv, 4).
In the subsequent examinations of the two Apostles before the Jewish High
Council, Peter defends in undismayed and impressive fashion the cause of Jesus
and the obligation and liberty of the Apostles to preach the Gospel (ibid.,
iv, 5-21). When Ananias and Sapphira attempt to deceive the Apostles and the
people Peter appears as judge of their action, and God executes the sentence
of punishment passed by the Apostle by causing the sudden death of the two
guilty parties (ibid., v, 1-11). By numerous miracles God confirms the
Apostolic activity of Christ’s confessors, and here also there is special
mention of Peter, since it is recorded that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and
neighbouring towns carried their sick in their beds into the streets so that
the shadow of Peter might fall on them and they might be thereby healed
(ibid., v 12-16). The ever-increasing number of the faithful caused the Jewish
supreme council to adopt new measures against the Apostles, but “Peter and the
Apostles” answer that they “ought to obey God rather than men” (ibid., v, 29
sqq.). Not only in Jerusalem itself did Peter labour in fulfilling the mission
entrusted to him by his Master. He also retained connection with the other
Christian communities in Palestine, and preached the Gospel both there and in
the lands situated farther north. When Philip the Deacon had won a large
number of believers in Samaria, Peter and John were deputed to proceed thither
from Jerusalem to organize the community and to invoke the Holy Ghost to
descend upon the faithful. Peter appears a second time as judge, in the case
of the magician Simon, who had wished to purchase from the Apostles the power
that he also could invoke the Holy Ghost (ibid., viii, 14-25). On their way
back to Jerusalem, the two Apostles preached the joyous tidings of the Kingdom
of God. Subsequently, after Paul’s departure from Jerusalem and conversion
before Damascus, the Christian communities in Palestine were left at peace by
the Jewish council.
Peter now undertook an extensive missionary tour, which brought him to the
maritime cities, Lydda Joppe, and Caesarea. In Lydda he cured the palsied
Eneas, in Joppe he raised Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead; and at Caesarea,
instructed by a vision which he had in Joppe, he baptized and received into
the Church the first non-Jewish Christians, the centurion Cornelius and his
kinsmen (ibid., ix, 31-x, 48). On Peter’s return to Jerusalem a little later,
the strict Jewish Christians, who regarded the complete observance of the
Jewish law as binding on all, asked him why he had entered and eaten in the
house of the uncircumcised. Peter tells of his vision and defends his action,
which was ratified by the Apostles and the faithful in Jerusalem (ibid., xi,
1-18)
A confirmation of the position accorded to Peter by Luke, in the Acts, is
afforded by the testimony of St. Paul (Gal., i, 18-20). After his conversion
and three years’ residence in Arabia, Paul came to Jerusalem “to see Peter”.
Here the Apostle of the Gentiles clearly designates Peter as the authorized
head of the Apostles and of the early Christian Church. Peter’s long residence
in Jerusalem and Palestine soon came to an end. Herod Agrippa I began (A.D.
42-44) a new persecution of the Church in Jerusalem; after the execution of
James, the son of Zebedee, this ruler had Peter cast into prison, intending to
have him also executed after the Jewish Pasch was over. Peter, however, was
freed in a miraculous manner, and, proceeding to the house of the mother of
John Mark, where many of the faithful were assembled for prayer, informed them
of his liberation from the hands of Herod, commissioned them to communicate
the fact to James and the brethren, and then left Jerusalem to go to “another
place” (Acts 12:1-18). Concerning St. Peter’s subsequent activity we
receive no further connected information from the extant sources, although we
possess short notices of certain individual episodes of his later life.
III. MISSIONARY JOURNEYS IN THE EAST; COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES
St. Luke does not tell us whither Peter went after his liberation from the
prison in Jerusalem. From incidental statements we know that he subsequently
made extensive missionary tours in the East, although we are given no clue to
the chronology of his journeys. It is certain that he remained for a time at
Antioch; he may even have returned thither several times. The Christian
community of Antioch was founded by Christianized Jews who had been driven
from Jerusalem by the persecution (ibid., xi, 19 sqq.). Peter’s residence
among them is proved by the episode concerning the observance of the Jewish
ceremonial law even by Christianized pagans, related by St. Paul (Gal., ii,
11-21). The chief Apostles in Jerusalem–the “pillars”, Peter, James, and
John–had unreservedly approved St. Paul’s Apostolate to the Gentiles, while
they themselves intended to labour principally among the Jews. While Paul was
dwelling in Antioch (the date cannot be accurately determined), St. Peter came
thither and mingled freely with the non-Jewish Christians of the community,
frequenting their houses and sharing their meals. But when the Christianized
Jews arrived in Jerusalem, Peter, fearing lest these rigid observers of the
Jewish ceremonial law should be scandalized thereat, and his influence with
the Jewish Christians be imperilled, avoided thenceforth eating with the
uncircumcised.
His conduct made a great impression on the other Jewish Christians at Antioch,
so that even Barnabas, St. Paul’s companion, now avoided eating with the
Christianized pagans. As this action was entirely opposed to the principles
and practice of Paul, and might lead to confusion among the converted pagans,
this Apostle addressed a public reproach to St. Peter, because his conduct
seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and
accept circumcision and the Jewish law. The whole incident is another proof of
the authoritative position of St. Peter in the early Church, since his example
and conduct was regarded as decisive. But Paul, who rightly saw the
inconsistency in the conduct of Peter and the Jewish Christians, did not
hesitate to defend the immunity of converted pagans from the Jewish Law.
Concerning Peter’s subsequent attitude on this question St. Paul gives us no
explicit information. But it is highly probable that Peter ratified the
contention of the Apostles of the Gentiles, and thenceforth conducted himself
towards the Christianized pagans as at first. As the principal opponents of
his views in this connection, Paul names and combats in all his writings only
the extreme Jewish Christians coming “from James” (i.e., from Jerusalem).
While the date of this occurrence, whether before or after the Council of the
Apostles, cannot be determined, it probably took place after the council (see
below). The later tradition, which existed as early as the end of the second
century (Origen, “Hom. vi in Lucam”; Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, III, xxxvi),
that Peter founded the
Church of Antioch indicates the fact that he laboured
a long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end of
his life and then appointed Evodrius, the first of the line of Antiochian
bishops, head of the community. This latter view would best explain the
tradition referring the foundation of the Church of Antioch to St. Peter.
It is also probable that Peter pursued his Apostolic labours in various districts
of Asia Minor for it can scarcely be supposed that the entire period between
his liberation from prison and the Council of the Apostles was spent
uninterruptedly in one city, whether Antioch, Rome, or elsewhere. And, since
he subsequently addressed the first of his Epistles to the faithful in the
Provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia, one may reasonably assume
that he had laboured personally at least in certain cities of these provinces,
devoting himself chiefly to the Diaspora. The Epistle, however, is of a
general character, and gives little indication of personal relations with the
persons to whom it is addressed. The tradition related by Bishop Dionysius of
Corinth (in Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xxviii) in his letter to the Roman
Church under Pope Soter (165-74), that Peter had (like Paul) dwelt in Corinth
and planted the Church there, cannot be entirely rejected. Even though the
tradition should receive no support from the existence of the “party of
Cephas”, which Paul mentions among the other divisions of the Church of
Corinth (I Cor., i, 12; iii, 22), still Peter’s sojourn in Corinth (even in
connection with the planting and government of the Church by Paul) is not
impossible. That St. Peter undertook various Apostolic journeys (doubtless
about this time, especially when he was no longer permanently residing in
Jerusalem) is clearly established by the general remark of St. Paul in I Cor.,
ix, 5, concerning the “rest of the apostles, and the brethren [cousins] of the
Lord, and Cephas”, who were travelling around in the exercise of their
Apostleship.
Peter returned occasionally to the original Christian Church of Jerusalem, the
guidance of which was entrusted to St. James, the relative of Jesus, after the
departure of the Prince of the Apostles (A.D. 42-44). The last mention of St.
Peter in the Acts (xv, 1-29; cf. Gal., ii, 1-10) occurs in the report of the
Council of the Apostles on the occasion of such a passing visit. In
consequence of the trouble caused by extreme Jewish Christians to Paul and
Barnabas at Antioch, the Church of this city sent these two Apostles with
other envoys to Jerusalem to secure a definitive decision concerning the
obligations of the converted pagans (see
JUDAIZERS ). In addition to James,
Peter and John were then (about A.D. 50-51) in Jerusalem. In the discussion
and decision of this important question, Peter naturally exercised a decisive
influence. When a great divergence of views had manifested itself in the
assembly, Peter spoke the deciding word. Long before, in accordance with God’s
testimony, he had announced the Gospels to the heathen (conversion of
Cornelius and his household); why, therefore, attempt to place the Jewish yoke
on the necks of converted pagans? After Paul and Barnabas had related how God
had wrought among the Gentiles by them, James, the chief representative of the
Jewish Christians, adopted Peter’s view and in agreement therewith made
proposals which were expressed in an encyclical to the converted pagans.
The occurrences in Caesarea and Antioch and the debate at the Council of
Jerusalem show clearly Peter’s attitude towards the converts from paganism.
Like the other eleven original Apostles, he regarded himself as called to
preach the Faith in Jesus first among the Jews (Acts, x, 42), so that the
chosen people of God might share in the salvation in Christ, promised to them
primarily and issuing from their midst. The vision at Joppe and the effusion
of the Holy Ghost over the converted pagan Cornelius and his kinsmen
determined Peter to admit these forthwith into the community of the faithful,
without imposing on them the Jewish Law. During his Apostolic journeys outside
Palestine, he recognized in practice the equality of Gentile and Jewish
converts, as his original conduct at Antioch proves. His aloofness from the
Gentile converts, out of consideration for the Jewish Christians from
Jerusalem, was by no means an official recognition of the views of the extreme
Judaizers, who were so opposed to St. Paul. This is established clearly and
incontestably by his attitude at the Council of Jerusalem. Between Peter and
Paul there was no dogmatic difference in their conception of salvation for
Jewish and Gentile Christians. The recognition of Paul as the Apostle of the
Gentiles (Gal., ii, 1-9) was entirely sincere, and excludes all question of a
fundamental divergence of views. St. Peter and the other Apostles recognized
the converts from paganism as Christian brothers on an equal footing; Jewish
and Gentile Christians formed a single Kingdom of Christ. If therefore Peter
devoted the preponderating portion of his Apostolic activity to the Jews, this
arose chiefly from practical considerations, and from the position of Israel
as the Chosen People. Baur’s hypothesis of opposing currents of “Petrinism”
and “Paulinism” in the early Church is absolutely untenable, and is today
entirely rejected by Protestants.
IV. ACTIVITY AND DEATH IN ROME; BURIAL PLACE
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in
Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course
by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman
capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and
success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these
questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less
well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes
the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic
Primacy of Peter.
St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as
historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of
the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in
widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear
from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ’s
prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not —
“And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John, xxi,
18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth
Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
St. Peter’s First Epistle was
written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads:
“The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so
doth my son Mark” (v, 13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman
capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon
(Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem
cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called
Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Apoc., xvii, 5; xviii, 10;
“Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal
to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles),
we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman
Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by
St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xv; III, xl; VI,
xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). In connection with
this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps
on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon
in his First Epistle.
Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and
Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written
about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): “Through zeal and cunning the
greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution
and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles–St.
Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but
numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has
entered the merited place of glory”. He then mentions Paul and a number of
elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us”
(en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also
bears in chap. Iv). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves,
of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul
to that epoch.
In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117),
while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of
Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from
striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and
Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Ad. Rom., iv). The
meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in
Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.
Bishop Dionysius
of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter
(165-74), says: “You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close
together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted
the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as
they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered
martyrdom” (In Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xxviii).
Irenaeus of Lyons, a
native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St.
John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the
second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he
described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the
Apostolic tradition, as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all,
founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and
Paul” (Adv. haer., III, iii; cf. III, i). He thus makes use of the universally
known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome,
to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
In his “Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, IV, xiv), Clement of
Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190,
says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: “After Peter had
announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of
God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter
on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them”
(see above).
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against
heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in
Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In “De Praescriptione”, xxxv,
he says: “If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever
within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured
out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the
Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John” (scil. the
Baptist).
In “Scorpiace”, xv, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The
budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by
another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was
immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (“On
Baptism”, ch. v) that there is “no difference between that with which John
baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and
against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom
Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Adv.
Marc., IV, v).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the
time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217),
wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II,
xxviii) directed against the Montanists: “But I can show the trophies of the
Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt
find the trophies of those who have founded this Church”. By the trophies
(tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view
is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is
meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the
testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of
execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed
on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the
inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the
present day on the burial-places there” (i.e. at Rome).
There thus existed in
Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles.
The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment (“Lucas optime theofile
conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote
passionem petri evidenter declarat”, ed. Preuschen, Tubingen, 1910, p. 29)
also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter’s death in
Rome.
The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul
likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles
in Rome.

In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom,
some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the
residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have
resulted in complete failure. It was asserted that the tradition concerning
Peter’s residence in Rome first originated in Ebionite circles, and formed
part of the Legend of Simon the Magician, in which Paul is opposed by Peter as
a false Apostle under Simon; just as this fight was transplanted to Rome, 80
also sprang up at an early date the legend of Peter’s activity in that capital
(thus in Baur, “Paulus”, 2nd ed., 245 sqq., followed by Hase and especially
Lipsius, “Die quellen der romischen Petrussage”, Kiel, 1872). But this
hypothesis is proved fundamentally untenable by the whole character and purely
local importance of Ebionitism, and is directly refuted by the above genuine
and entirely independent testimonies, which are at least as ancient. It has
moreover been now entirely abandoned by serious Protestant historians (cf.,
e.g., Harnack’s remarks in “Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur”, II, i, 244, n.
2). A more recent attempt was made by Erbes (Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch.,
1901, pp. 1 sqq., 161 sqq.) to demonstrate that St. Peter was martyred at
Jerusalem. He appeals to the apocryphal Acts of St. Peter, in which two
Romans, Albinus and Agrippa, are mentioned as persecutors of the Apostles.
These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of
Festus and Agrippa II, Prince of Galilee, and thence conciudes that Peter was
condemned to death and sacrificed by this procurator at Jerusalem. The
untenableness of this hypothesis becomes immediately apparent from the mere
fact that our earliest definite testimony concerning Peter’s death in Rome far
antedates the apocryphal Acts; besides, never throughout the whole range of
Christian antiquity has any city other than Rome been designated the place of
martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Although the fact of St. Peter’s activity and death in Rome is so clearly
established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his
Roman sojourn. The narratives contained in the apocryphal literature of the
second century concerning the supposed strife between Peter and Simon Magus
belong to the domain of legend. From the already mentioned statements
regarding the origin of the Gospel of St. Mark we may conclude that Peter
laboured for a long period in Rome. This conclusion is confirmed by the
unanimous voice of tradition which, as early as the second half of the second
century, designates the Prince of the Apostles the. founder of the Roman
Church. It is widely held that Peter paid a first visit to Rome after he had
been miraculously liberated from the prison in Jerusalem; that, by “another
place”, Luke meant Rome, but omitted the name for special reasons. It is not
impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to Rome about this time (after
42 A.D.), but such a journey cannot be established with certainty. At any
rate, we cannot appeal in support of this theory to the chronological notices
in Eusebius and Jerome, since, although these notices extend back to the
chronicles of the third century, they are not old traditions, but the result
of calculations on the basis of episcopal lists. Into the Roman list of
bishops dating from the second century, there was introduced in the third
century (as we learn from Eusebius and the “Chronograph of 354”) the notice of
a twenty-five years’ pontificate for St. Peter, but we are unable to trace its
origin. This entry consequently affords no ground for the hypothesis of a
first visit by St. Peter to Rome after his liberation from prison (about 42).
We can therefore admit only the possibility of such an early visit to the
capital.
The task of determining the year of St. Peter’s death is attended with similar
difficulties. In the fourth century, and even in the chronicles of the third,
we find two different entries. In the “Chronicle” of Eusebius the thirteenth
or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter and Paul
(67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held The year 67 is
also supported by the statement, also accepted by Eusebius and Jerome, that
Peter came to Rome under the Emperor Claudius (according to Jerome, in 42),
and by the above-mentioned tradition of the twenty-five years’ episcopate of
Peter (cf. Bartolini, “Sopra l’anno 67 se fosse quello del martirio dei
gloriosi Apostoli”, Rome, 1868) . A different statement is furnished by the
“Chronograph of 354” (ed. Duchesne, “Liber Pontificalis”, I, 1 sqq.). This
refers St. Peter’s arrival in Rome to the year 30, and his death and that of
St. Paul to 55.
Duchesne has shown that the dates in the “Chronograph” were inserted in a
list of the popes which contains only their names and the duration of their
pontificates, and then, on the chronological supposition that the year of
Christ’s death was 29, the year 30 was inserted as the beginning of Peter’s
pontificate, and his death referred to 55, on the basis of the twenty-five
years’ pontificate (op. cit., introd., vi sqq.). This date has however been
recently defended by Kellner (“Jesus von Nazareth u. seine Apostel im Rahmen
der Zeitgeschichte”, Ratisbon, 1908; “Tradition geschichtl. Bearbeitung u.
Legende in der Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters”, Bonn, 1909). Other
historians have accepted the year 65 (e. g., Bianchini, in his edition of the
“Liber Pontilicalis” in P. L.. CXXVII. 435 sqq.) or 66 (e. g. Foggini, “De
romani b. Petri itinere et episcopatu”, Florence, 1741; also Tillemont).
Harnack endeavoured to establish the year 64 (i . e . the beginning of the
Neronian persecution) as that of Peter’s death (“Gesch. der altchristl. Lit.
bis Eusebius”, pt. II, “Die Chronologie”, I, 240 sqq.). This date, which had
been already supported by Cave, du Pin, and Wieseler, has been accepted by
Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l’eglise, I, 64). Erbes refers St. Peter’s death
to 22 Feb., 63, St. Paul’s to 64 (“Texte u. Untersuchungen”, new series, IV,
i, Leipzig, 1900, “Die Todestage der Apostel Petrus u. Paulus u. ihre rom.
Denkmaeler”). The date of Peter’s death is thus not yet decided; the period
between July, 64 (outbreak of the Neronian persecution), and the beginning of
68 (on 9 July Nero fled from Rome and committed suicide) must be left open for
the date of his death. The day of his martyrdom is also unknown; 29 June, the
accepted day of his feast since the fourth century, cannot be proved to be the
day of his death (see below).Concerning the manner of Peter’s death, we
possess a tradition–attested to by Tertullian at the end of the second
century (see above) and by Origen (in Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, i)–that
he suffered crucifixion. Origen says: “Peter was crucified at Rome with his
head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer”. As the place of
execution may be accepted with great probability the Neronian Gardens on the
Vatican, since there, according to Tacitus, were enacted in general the
gruesome scenes of the Neronian persecution; and in this district, in the
vicinity of the Via Cornelia and at the foot of the Vatican Hills, the Prince
of the Apostles found his burialplace. Of this grave (since the word tropaion
was, as already remarked, rightly understood of the tomb) Caius already
speaks in the third century. For a time the remains of Peter lay with those of
Paul in a vault on the Appian Way at the place ad Catacumbas, where the Church
of St. Sebastian (which on its erection in the fourth century was dedicated to
the two Apostles) now stands. The remains had probably been brought thither at
the beginning of the Valerian persecution in 258, to protect them from the
threatened desecration when the Christian burial-places were confiscated. They
were later restored to their former resting-place, and Constantine the Great
had a magnificent basilica erected over the grave of St. Peter at the foot of
the Vatican Hill. This basilica was replaced by the present St. Peter’s in the
sixteenth century. The vault with the altar built above it (confessio) has
been since the fourth century the most highly venerated martyr’s shrine in the
West. In the substructure of the altar, over the vault which contained the
sarcophagus with the remains of St. Peter, a cavity was made. This was closed
by a small door in front of the altar. By opening this door the pilgrim could
enjoy the great privilege of kneeling directly over the sarcophagus of the
Apostle. Keys of this door were given as previous souvenirs (cf. (Gregory of
Tours, “De gloria martyrum”, I, xxviii).
The memory of St. Peter is also closely associated with the Catacomb of St.
Priscilla on the Via Salaria. According to a tradition, current in later
Christian antiquity, St. Peter here instructed the faithful and administered
baptism. This tradition seems to have been based on still earlier monumental
testimonies. The catacomb is situated under the garden of a villa of the
ancient Christian and senatorial family, the Acilii Glabriones, and its
foundation extends back to the end of the first century; and since Acilius
Glabrio (q. v. ), consul in 91, was condemned to death under Domitian as a
Christian, it is quite possible that the Christian faith of the family
extended back to Apostolic times, and that the Prince of the Apostles had been
given hospitable reception in their house during his residence at Rome. The
relations between Peter and Pudens whose house stood on the site of the
present titular church of Pudens (now Santa Pudentiana) seem to rest rather
on a legend.
Concerning the Epistles of St. Peter, see PETER, EPISTLES OF SAINT; concerning
the various apocrypha bearing the name of Peter, especially the Apocalypse and
the Gospel of St. Peter, see APOCRYPHA. The apocryphal sermon of Peter
(kerygma), dating from the second half of the second century, was
probably a collection of supposed sermons by the Apostle; several fragments
are preserved by Clement of Alexandria (cf. Dobschuts, “Das Kerygma Petri
kritisch untersucht” in “Texte u. Untersuchungen”, XI, i, Leipzig, 1893).
V. FEASTS OF ST. PETER
As early as the fourth century a feast was celebrated in memory of Sts. Peter
and Paul on the same day, although the day was not the same in the East as in
Rome. The Syrian Martyrology of the end of the fourth century, which is an
excerpt from a Greek catalogue of saints from Asia Minor, gives the following
feasts in connexion with Christmas (25 Dec.): 26 Dec., St. Stephen; 27 Dec.,
Sts. James and John; 28 Dec., Sts. Peter and Paul. In St. Gregory of Nyssa’s
panegyric on St. Basil we are also informed that these feasts of the Apostles
and St. Stephen follow immediately after Christmas. The Armenians celebrated
the feast also on 27 Dec.; the Nestorians on the second Friday after the
Epiphany. It is evident that 28 (27) Dec. was (like 26 Dec. for St. Stephen)
arbitrarily selected, no tradition concerning the date of the saints’ death
being forthcoming. The chief feast of Sts. Peter and Paul was kept in Rome on
29 June as early as the third or fourth century. The list of feasts of the
martyrs in the Chronograph of Philocalus appends this notice to the date-
“III. Kal. Jul. Petri in Catacumbas et Pauli Ostiense Tusco et Basso Cose.”
(=the year 258) . The “Martyrologium Hieronyminanum” has, in the Berne MS.,
the following notice for 29 June: “Romae via Aurelia natale sanctorum
Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, Petri in Vaticano, Pauli in via Ostiensi, utrumque
in catacumbas, passi sub Nerone, Basso et Tusco consulibus” (ed. de
Rossi–Duchesne, 84).
The date 258 in the notices shows that from this year the memory of the two
Apostles was celebrated on 29 June in the Via Appia ad Catacumbas (near San
Sebastiano fuori le mura), because on this date the remains of the Apostles
were translated thither (see above). Later, perhaps on the building of the
church over the graves on the Vatican and in the Via Ostiensis, the remains
were restored to their former resting-place: Peter’s to the Vatican Basilica
and Paul’s to the church on the Via Ostiensis. In the place Ad Catacumbas a
church was also built as early as the fourth century in honour of the two
Apostles. From 258 their principal feast was kept on 29 June, on which date
solemn Divine Service was held in the above-mentioned three churches from
ancient times (Duchesne, “Origines du culte chretien”, 5th ed., Paris, 1909,
271 sqq., 283 sqq.; Urbain, “Ein Martyrologium der christl. Gemeinde zu Rom an
Anfang des 5. Jahrh.”, Leipzig, 1901, 169 sqq.; Kellner, “Heortologie”, 3rd
ed., Freiburg, 1911, 210 sqq.). Legend sought to explain the temporary
occupation by the Apostles of the grave Ad Catacumbas by supposing that,
shortly after their death, the Oriental Christians wished to steal their
bodies and bring them to the East. This whole story is evidently A product of
popular legend. (Concerning the Feast of the Chair of Peter, see CHAIR OF
PETER.)
A third Roman feast of the Apostles takes place on 1 August: the feast of St.
Peter’s Chains. This feast was originally the dedication feast of the church
of the Apostle, erected on the Esquiline Hill in the fourth century. A titular
priest of the church, Philippus, was papal legate at the Council of Ephesus in
431. The church was rebuilt by Sixtus III (43240) at the expense of the
Byzantine imperial family. Either the solemn consecration took place on 1
August, or this was the day of dedication of the earlier church. Perhaps this
day was selected to replace the heathen festivities which took place on 1
August. In this church, which is still standing (S. Pietro in Vincoli), were
probably preserved from the fourth century St. Peter’s chains, which were
greatly venerated, small filings from the chains being regarded as precious
relics. The church thus early received the name. in Vinculis, and the feast of
1 August became the feast of St. Peter’s Chains (Duchesne, op. cit., 286
sqq.; Kellner, loc. cit., 216 sqq.). The memory of both Peter and Paul was
later associated also with two places of ancient Rome: the Via Sacra, outside
the Forum, where the magician Simon was said to have been hurled down at the
prayer of Peter and the prison Tullianum, or Carcer Mamertinus, where the
Apostles were supposed to have been kept until their execution. At both these
places, also, shrines of the Apostles were erected, and that of the Mamertine
Prison still remains in almost its original form from the early Roman time.
These local commemorations of the Apostles are based on legends, and no
special celebrations are held in the two churches. It is, however, not
impossible that Peter and Paul were actually confined in the chief prison in
Rome at the fort of the Capitol, of which the present Carcer Mamertinus is a
remnant.
VI. REPRESENTATIONS OF ST. PETER
The oldest extant is the bronze medallion with the heads of the Apostles; this
dates from the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, and is
preserved in the Christian Museum of the Vatican Library. Peter has a strong,
roundish head, prominent jaw-bones, a receding forehead, thick, curly hair and
beard. (See illustration in CATACOMBS.) The features are so individual that it
partakes of the nature of a portrait. This type is also found in two
representations of St. Peter in a chamber of the Catacomb of Peter and
Marcellinus, dating from the second half of the third century (Wilpert, “Die
Malerein der Katakomben Rom”, plates 94 and 96). In the paintings of the
catacombs Sts. Peter and Paul frequently appear as interceders and advocates
for. the dead in the representations of the Last Judgment (Wilpert, 390 sqq.),
and as introducing an Orante (a praying figure representing the dead) into
Paradise.
In the numerous representations of Christ in the midst of His Apostles, which
occur in the paintings of the catacombs and carved on sarcophagi, Peter and
Paul always occupy the places of honour on the right and left of the Saviour.
In the mosaics of the Roman basilicas, dating from the fourth to the ninth
centuries, Christ appears as the central figure, with Sts. Peter and Paul on
His right and left, and besides these the saints especially venerated in the
particular church. On sarcophagi and other memorials appear scenes from the
life of St. Peter: his walking on Lake Genesareth, when Christ summoned him
from the boat; the prophecy of his denial; the washing of his feet; the
raising of Tabitha from the dead; the capture of Peter and the conducting of
him to the place of execution. On two gilt glasses he is represented as Moses
drawing water from the rock with his staff; the name Peter under the scene
shows that he is regarded as the guide of the people of God in the New
Testament.
Particularly frequent in the period between the fourth and sixth centuries is
the scene of the delivery of the Law to Peter, which occurs on various kinds
of monuments. Christ hands St. Peter a folded or open scroll, on which is
often the inscription Lex Domini (Law of the Lord) or Dominus legem dat (The
Lord gives the law). In the mausoleum of Constantina at Rome (S. Costanza, in
the Via Nomentana) this scene is given as a pendant to the delivery of the Law
to Moses. In representations on fifth-century sarcophagi the Lord presents to
Peter (instead of the scroll) the keys. In carvings of the fourth century
Peter often bears a staff in his hand (after the fifth century, a cross with a
long shaft, carried by the Apostle on his shoulder), as a kind of sceptre
indicative of Peter’s office. From the end of the sixth century this is
replaced by the keys (usually two, but sometimes three), which henceforth
became the attribute of Peter. Even the renowned and greatly venerated bronze
statue in St. Peter’s possesses them; this, the best known representation of
the Apostle, dates from the last period of Christian antiquity (Grisar,
“Analecta romana”, I, Rome, 1899, 627 sqq.).

rosary.team