Was Peter Ever in Rome?
Some non-Catholics shun the papacy because they believe it’s based on whether Peter was in Rome or not. They will go on to pose the question, “Where does it say in the Bible that Peter was in Rome?” As Catholic’s we need to listen to the question. The first implication is that if it’s not in the Bible they don’t believe it, which is the unbiblical doctrine of Sola-Scriptura. Then we need to ask the question… (being aw-fensive without being uh-fensive…) “Where in Scripture does it say he wasn’t?” But at the same time, whether Peter went to Rome and died there is not evidence to prove the existence of the Papacy. If that were the case Paul would have had equal claim. Even if Peter never made it to Rome, one of his successors could have settled there and maintained the Office.
Now let’s go back to Scripture to show how Peter was in Rome. In 1 Pet. 5:13, Peter writes from “the Church here in Babylon, united with you by Gods election.” This verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from “Babylon,” which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. Image your self in hiding, the last thing your going to do is send a letter with your return address. This code name Babylon is used six times in the book of Revelation to mean Rome, and also in many extra biblical sources. The “Didache” in 60 AD refers to Peter being in Rome several times. Most importantly the Churches basis for the Papacy is not based on whether Peter was in Rome, but on the Scriptural fact that Christ established an authoritative office on earth based on Matt 16:16-19, and many other passages, where Christ gave over to Peter the authoritative keys of the Church. Verse 18 says, “And I tell you, you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” Verse 19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
And Jesus also bestowed upon St. Peter the office of chief shepherd of the Church in John 21:16. Speaking to Peter alone, He said, “Tend my sheep!” Verse 17 says, “He said to him the third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ And he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.’ ” This tending means governing, and feeding means to spiritually nourish his flock. So when you see those wrist bands W.W.J.D., do what Scripture tells us. Go to Papa, which means Pope, to the successor of Peter the Bishop of Rome. Pope Benedict XVI.
You said, “But at the same time, whether Peter went to Rome and died there is not evidence to prove the existence of the Papacy.”
John Paul II, at a general audience, Jan. 27, 1993 said:
“In truth, Jesus did not specify the role of Rome in Peter’s succession. Doubtless he wanted Peter to have successors, but the New Testament does not state his specific desire to choose Rome as the primatial See. He preferred to entrust that to historical events in which the divine plan for the Church, the determination of the concrete conditions of Peter’s succession, would appear. The decisive historical event is that the fisherman of Bethsaida came to Rome and suffered martyrdom in this city.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930127en.html
Stevo,
There is no incompatibility between those statements. The fact that Peter died in Rome is not sufficient to prove the Papacy, but it is still of decisive importance in causing Rome to be regarded as the place where his successors would succeed him.