Saint Peter

The life of St. Peter may be conveniently considered under the following heads:

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 2-4). 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 5:37; Luke

8:51); the Transfiguration of Christ (Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:28), the

Agony in the Garden of Gethsemani (Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33). 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 5:3); when He

was miraculously walking upon the waters, He called Peter to come to Him

across the lake (Matthew 14:28 sqq.); He sent him to the lake to catch the fish

in whose mouth Peter found the stater to pay as tribute (Matthew 17:24 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 Messias, 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 (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark

8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).

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 Messias; 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 (Matthew 16:21-23, Mark 8:31-33). 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 22:31-32). 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 (Matthew 26:30-35; Mark 14:26-31; Luke 22:31-34; John 13:33-38). 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 13:1-10). 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 14:37). 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

18:10-11; Matthew 26:56); 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 (Matthew 26:58-75; Mark 14:54-72; Luke

22:54-62; John 18:15-27). 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 16:7). 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 1:15-26). 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 connexion, 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 Corinthians 9:5,

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, 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 EPISTLES OF SAINT PETER; 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 (432-40) 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.).

Bibliography. BIRKS Studies of the Life and character of St. Peter (LONDON, 1887), TAYLOR,

Peter the Apostle, new ed. by BURNET AND ISBISTER (London, 1900); BARNES, St. Peter in

Rome and his Tomb on the Vatican Hill (London, 1900): LIGHTFOOT, Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed.,

pt. 1, VII. (London, 1890), 481sq., St. Peter in Rome; FOUARD Les origines de l'Eglise: St. Pierre et

Les premières années du christianisme (3rd ed., Paris 1893); FILLION, Saint Pierre (2nd ed Paris,

1906); collection Les Saints; RAMBAUD, Histoire de St. Pierre apôtre (Bordeaux, 1900); GUIRAUD,

La venue de St Pierre à Rome in Questions d'hist. et d'archéol. chrét. (Paris, 1906); FOGGINI, De

romano D. Petr; itinere et episcopatu (Florence, 1741); RINIERI, S. Pietro in Roma ed i primi papi

secundo i piu vetusti cataloghi della chiesa Romana (Turin, 19O9); PAGANI, Il cristianesimo in

Roma prima dei gloriosi apostoli Pietro a Paolo, e sulle diverse venute de' principi degli apostoli in

Roma (Rome, 1906); POLIDORI, Apostolato di S. Pietro in Roma in Civiltà Cattolica, series 18, IX

(Rome, 1903), 141 sq.; MARUCCHI, Le memorie degli apostoli Pietro e Paolo in Roma (2nd ed.,

Rome, 1903); LECLER, De Romano S. Petri episcopatu (Louvain, 1888); SCHMID, Petrus in Rome

oder Aufenthalt, Episkopat und Tod in Rom (Breslau, 1889); KNELLER, St. Petrus, Bischof von Rom

in Zeitschrift f. kath. Theol., XXVI (1902), 33 sq., 225sq.; MARQUARDT, Simon Petrus als Mittel und

Ausgangspunkt der christlichen Urkirche (Kempten, 1906); GRISAR, Le tombe apostoliche al

Vaticano ed alla via Ostiense in Analecta Romana, I (Rome, 1899), sq.

J. P. Kirsch

Transcribed by Gerard Haffner

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI

Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org