Meanwhile, the church at Rome continued to grow in power, influence and
number. Early in the second century A.D., they began to dictate policy
and doctrine to all other congregations, asserting their Bishopric as "in
authority", since (they claimed) it's lineage was in direct succession
from the apostle Peter, of whom Jesus said: "upon this little rock I will
build my church". Another popular belief is that Peter actually stayed
in Rome for twenty five years.
However neither of these claims are borne out historically
-
As Robert M. Grant in his book "Second-Century Christianity: a collection
of fragments" makes clear -
"...while
Clement [the 3rd Bishop of Rome] regards the Roman church as apostolic,
it is not clear that he bases it's succession on Peter. To be sure
he mentions Paul and Peter as the great modern examples of endurance; but
he refers only to Paul as a martyr or as having been to Rome." (page
12)
In "The Early Church", by Henry Chadwick, Chadwick who seems to accept
the popular belief that Peter was in Rome at some point in time, even concedes
that -
"...We have no
information whatever about his [Peter's] activity or the length of his
stay there. That he was in Rome for twenty five years is third century
legend." (page 18)
Another interesting take on this, is that Paul's epistle to the Romans
was written during the years when Peter was supposed to be residing in
Rome. Yet, in his salutation to the bretheren there, he greets Prisca,
Aquila, Mary, Ampilatus, Urbanis, Stachys, Apelles and many more - but
nowhere does he mention Peter.
The only way this could be so - is if Peter wasn't there. |
