REFUTING AN ANONYMOUS IRISH ANTI-CATHOLIC ON PETER'S STAY IN ROME

St. Peter by El Greco 1610-14 Oil on Canvas, Museo de El Greco, Toledo, Spain

A friend of mine sent me these arguments from an Irish anti-Catholic trying to prove to him that Peter was never in Rome thus debunking the claim of the Catholic Church. The guy is upholding the recently invented opinion that Peter died and buried in Rome. I present his position in Red while mine is in purple.

*******

1) Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Pauls arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts.

But he says nothing of Peters meeting with Paul.

Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!

The text of Acts 28:15 simply doesn't mention Peter and the eleven other apostles [including Judas' replacement St. Matthias]. It means that the goal of St. Luke on that Chapter is to present the mission and activities of Paul and not on Peter of which he focused on the first half of the Acts of the Apostles.

It is delusional on the part of this guy to claim that Peter is not in Rome by proving it via Acts 28:15 since that text doesn't state his position that "PETER IS NOT IN ROME". I think he should read that text again and again, a thousand time for him to see that there is no statement there that Peter is not in Rome. There are a lot of probable reasons why Peter was not present during Paul's arrival. First, he could be somewhere else when Paul arrived because the Apostles agreed to separate ways so that the Gospel could spread rapidly. Second, Peter could be in chains too like Paul, or under house arrest as the pagan Romans did to Paul or he could be in prison already. Being the most prominent of the Apostles since the time of Jesus Peter is a greater target of pagan persecutions than the other apostles. If Paul was arrested and so did Peter and this was attested by historical records.

That guy is using speculation with the bias of his stand and he doesn't try to reason things out based on Acts 28:15 with the point of view supportive of Peter's presence in Rome.

2) When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22).

These chief of the Jews are non-Christians, that is why St. Paul gathered them and he TESTIFIED to them, and he EXPOUNDED the Kingdom to them. Why? Because they are not yet aware of the true Christian Faith. But, in Acts 28:15 it is said that there was already a CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY in Rome prior to the coming of Paul. It was a Community of Believers not established by Paul but by another. And the history of Christianity points to Peter as the founder of the Roman Church. Only with the coming of the Protestants and the newly invented Evangelicals and Anti-Catholic groups did that fact denied.

Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didnt.

Rome is the biggest, the greatest city in the world that time. Even if Peter is in Rome it is practically impossible for him to have spoken the faith to all Jewish leaders and their people in Rome. Even now that there is a Mass Media such as Radio and Television, not all people are watching the same religious programs or are listening to a single preacher. For instance, I've been to Metro Manila several times but I never had the chance to see and hear personally the preachings of Bishop Soc Villegas who served as a rector of EDSA Shrine despite the fact that he was one of the most popular speakers and authors of books in the country. And on my part, I am a Catholic priest who is also occasionally invited to speak in different places.

Failure to meet a person in a certain place and on a specific occasion is not a solid argument for the denial of that person's residency or living in the same Metropolitan City.

Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D.

It means that Luke simply focused his report on the activities of Paul and decided not to mention Peter and the other apostles. And it is practically probable that these group didn't hear the Word of God from Peter. For instance, I've been preaching and teaching here in Sorsogon City for 10 years already. I am the station manager of a local TV station, a college professor and a radio co-host, yet from time to time I also encounter a group of people who have not heard or seen me. Even among popular persons. When my Filipino friends living in New York came to visit the Philippines, I greeted them in the airport and asked in jest: "And so, how is Kofi Annan?" Well, as any well-educated person know, that time he was the Secretary General of the United Nations. The two guys looked at me and said: "Do you want to take some coffee?" They do not know who Kofi Annan is and haven't met or heard of him.

To claim that because some Jews didn't hear the Gospel in Rome it means that Peter was not there is a piece of junk. Peter established the Roman Church but definitely he was not able to talk to all Romans during his stay there and not to all Jews. That guy must go to Washington and inquire among its millions of citizens if how many are aware and not aware of the speeches of Pres. Clinton, Bush or Obama and he will be surprised that a good number are not aware at all of what their politicians were preaching in public. Does it mean that Clinton, Bush or Obama haven't been in Washington?

No Mention of Peter in Pauls Letters

THERE IS A MENTION OF PETER IN PAUL'S LETTERS. At least in one. Peter is mentioned more than once in Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 2. So, your claim of NO MENTION is an outright lie. Also, he has forgotten that St. Peter on his part mentioned Paul in his Second Epistle [cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16]. Peter cautions the believers of failing to understand the Letters of Paul because some parts are difficult to understand. It think it is appropriate for this guy because he is having hallucinations that Peter was not in Rome based on Acts 28.

3) After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasnt there!

Paul never stated that PETER IS NOT IN ROME. So, stop making conclusion that Paul himself didn't give. It simply means that Paul mentioned those people who were with him. Peter is not staying with Paul because he has his own missionary activities and when he was imprisoned he was not put in the same cell as Paul.

The Epistles of Paul are written to answer the practical situations of the churches which Paul visited or established. There is no reason for Paul to mention Peter in those epistles as there was no reason for Paul to mention John, James, Andrew, Philip, Bartolomew, Jude, Simon the Zealot, etc. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke also didn't mention Lazarus and Joseph of Arimathea and Zaccheus and other prominent believers.

Building an argument based on Paul's SILENCE smacks of ignorance for this guy because it doesn't prove his assertion. The Pauline texts are NEUTRAL pros and cons.

4) With the expiration of Pauls two years imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted.

Ha, ha, ha... I think this is one of the most stupid argument I've ever heard about the history of the Church in Rome.

St. Paul refers to the Christians who became traitors to the faith. Definitely he was not referring to Christians who remained faithful until the end. What is the proof of that? PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS! Therein Paul praised the Roman Christians whose faith is proclaimed all over the world. It means that the faith of the Roman Christians was well praised in the universal Church during the Apostolic Time:

Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Look, the Christians of Rome are BELOVED OF GOD. Yet, you crazily interpret that all forsook Paul. If all Roman Christians forsook Paul then the entire Epistle to the Romans is a farce. It is a mockery of the believers who turned traitors en masse, collectively as a church. That is too much ignorance of Scriptures and of history.

Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

The Roman believers were model Christians. They were well praised by Paul and by other believers as well. Definitely not all abandoned Paul.

Rom 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

Paul CONSTANTLY PRAYED for the Roman Christians. If ALL of them became TRAITORS it means that the prayers of Paul were for nothing. But, James 5:16 states that "THE PRAYER OF A RIGHTEOUS PERSON IS EFFECTIVE". Definitely, the prayer of Paul for the Roman Christians became effective.

Indeed it was. History attests that the Roman Christians were fed to the lions in Roman Colliseum yet they were singing praises to God while being devoured by the beasts. Some were beheaded and others crucified and others burned a live to serve as torches on Emperor Nero's Garden.

Paul mentioned those who forsook him. He was referring to those who apostasized. But the faithful Christians, the Catholics of Rome were also in prison and were being fed to the lions. Peter was also in prison then. If Peter forsook Paul Paul would have declared it as he did when he corrected Peter about his conduct. Paul never stated that Peter abandoned the faith and the early Christians testified that Peter died in Rome by crucifixion upside down at the Vatical Hill and was buried in a cave nearby which is now the site of the Basilica of St. Peter.

To believe that Peter was in Rome during Pauls trial, is untenable!

Your so called proof that Peter is not in Rome is based on ILLUSIONS. Any other Biblical text to prove your point?