An Actual Example Of Roman Catholic "Evidence"
Frequently, non-Catholics wonder as to just what kind of 'evidence' does the Roman Church use in attempting to PROVE that the Apostle Peter was ever in Rome, let alone, any 'evidence' as to his becoming the first Pope of Rome.
Obviously, they must assert that he WAS ONCE in Rome, if they stand a chance of making the claim of his being a Pope. In the next few paragraphs, we copy from "A History of the Catholic Church, For the Use of Colleges, Seminaries, and Universities," written by Charles Poulet, a Benedictine Monk, and translated from the French by Sidney A. Raemers. It is published by B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Mo. It carries the required Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating that the required Church officials gave their approval for its publication. On page 31, we copy under the following title:
"The Christian Community At Rome"
"The origins of Christianity at Rome are VEILED IN OBSCURITY. (Emphasis mine, L.W.M.) No doubt it was introduced by Roman proselytes who had heard Peter's preaching in Jerusalem; then by soldiers of the cohorts italics civium romanorum voluntariorum, a body of volunteers who resided at Caesarea within call of the governor of Palestine; and finally, PERHAPS, (My emphasis, L.W.M.) by Cornelius, the centurion, an officer of this legion, and a number of other converts among the military, who, upon returning to Rome, had hastened to spread the 'good news.' It MAY BE (My emphasis, L.W.M.) also, that Peter paid his first visit to Rome in the reign of Claudius, between 41 and 44, and remained there about six years, when an imperial edict banished all Jews. The community gradually made progress in growth and development. In 57, an illustrious recruit, Pomponia Graecina, joined its ranks. In the following year it had already attained sufficient proportions to warrant Paul writing his Epistle to the Romans. In the salutations with which the letter closes, we remark the predominance of Roman names, a positive proof that the community had spread beyond the restricted Jewish quarters. And yet, when St. Paul arrived there in chains, in the year 61, the 'brethren' came to meet him in the Forum of Appius, a proof that their number was still rather small. As yet little prejudice existed against the Christians, who were frequently confused with the Jews. Paul was, no doubt, able to take advantage of the situation, because, although in the continual custody of a Roman soldier. he received many visitors and even preached the gospel abroad. Under his direction (UNDER PAUL'S DIRECTION, L.W.M.) the community must have made rapid progress, for Tacitus avers that in the year 64 the Christians already comprised an immense multitude ('ingens multitude). When these words were penned, Paul had been set free and had left Rome to undertake several journeys.
"No writer to-day raises any doubt concerning this departure of Paul from the Eternal City, and no one contests the fact that the Apostle was put to death after a second arrest in the year 67. His captivity, as described by himself in his Epistle to the Philippians, is very different from that described in his Second Epistle to Timothy. When he wrote the former of these epistles, his quarters were comfortable and he was allowed to receive visitors;when he wrote the latter, he was lying in chains and treated like a criminal. Moreover, the Acts of the Apostles end abruptly with the statement that Paul remained two years in Rome in the custody of a soldier; if he had been put to death soon after, St. Luke would surely have made mention of the fact.
"The Roman community was not without a shepherd during this time, for St. Peter had come to the city about A.D. 63 or 64. The earliest PROOF (Emphasis mine, L.W.M.) of this statement is the testimony of the Apostle himself, who dates his First Epistle from Babylon. Now, IT IS NOT AT ALL LIKELY (My emphasis, L.W.M.) that Peter made a trip to Mesopotamia. The city of Babylon was no longer in existence, hence the name here is used symbolically to designate Rome, which had often been called the Babylon of the West." (pages 31-32.)
An Analysis Of This Pretended Proof!
(1) The origins of Christianity at Rome are VEILED IN OBSCURITY, is the first admission of weakness of their Peter-in-Rome tradition.
(2) Christianity was PERHAPS taken to Rome by Cornelius or other members of the military. The use of the word 'perhaps' is in itself an admission of LACK of FACT!
(3) That Peter made his FIRST visit to Rome . . they say, IT MAY WELL BE. Again this is an admission of lack of actual evidence. "May-be-so" and mebbe' not so!
(4) Please notice the INFERENCE made in the above assertion concerning Peter's 'FIRST' alleged journey to Rome, thus inferring that he made still another trip to Rome.
(5) Notice their inadvertent ADMISSION that the church in Rome grew "UNDER PAUL'S DIRECTION."
(6) In the second paragraph copied, the historian says that IT IS NOT AT ALL LIKELY, that Peter made a trip to the literal city of Babylon.
The foregoing points display the weak structure upon which the Catholic historian rests his assertion that Peter went to Rome. However, we now submit some points in addition to those contained within the historian's own context.
(1) The First Epistle of Peter was directed to Christians and was filled with literal and practical instruction for its readers .... yet IF we are to accept the Catholic assertion that the term 'Babylon' in 1 Peter 5:13, is not to be taken literally with all the rest of the books, but that the word 'Babylon' herein used is symbolic or figurative, then we violate the basic rules of scripture study. Now, IF the book in question was similar to Revelation, wherein we are told that it is written in signs or symbols, then we might consider the Catholic assertion .... but NOT with Peter's epistles!
(2) The introduction to the Kleist-Lilly Translation (Catholic) of the New Testament's 1st Epistle of Peter, states in part .... "IT IS HISTORICALLY UNCERTAIN THAT ST. PETER ALSO WAS IN ROME WHERE HE ENDURED MARTYRDOM, either in A.D. 64 or 67, during the reign of Nero." (Page 603.)
(3) However, if we concede to the Catholic Church that the word 'Babylon' in 1 Peter 5:13, IS symbolic, and does mean 'ROME,' then the Roman Catholic Church MUST ALSO 'CONCEDE that in the Book of Revelation which IS a book of SYMBOLS, that when BABYLON is mentioned, that it actually means ROME!!
"Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." (Rev. 14:8.)
"And great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." (Rev. 16:19.)
"And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." (Rev. 17:5.)
"Thus with all violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all." (Rev. 18:21.) (See also verses 2 and 10 in the 18th chapter.)
This leaves the Catholic scholars impaled upon either or both of the horns of the dilemma. (1) If they insist upon a symbolic usage of the word 'Babylon' in an otherwise totally literal epistle, then they CANNOT AVOID accepting the symbolic meaning of 'Babylon' in the Book of Revelation, which IS a book of symbols. (2) Please note that NOT ONE SINGLE REFERENCE TO 'BABYLON' in the Book of Revelation, is used in a complimentary sense. In EVERY CASE, CONDEMNATION WAS PRONOUNCED! (3) If the Catholic Church, however, denies the use of 'Babylon' in Revelation as referring to ROME, then she throws away her only 'proof' text, that Peter was EVER at Babylon (supposedly Rome).
Conclusion
It is interesting to note that after the 'historian' that we have quoted lays his 'foundation' of assertions, maybes, and not-likelys.... that he goes right ahead as if he had all the proof in the world for teaching that Peter was the first Pope of Rome. Such a procedure would not stand up in any civil court in the world.