The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1920-06-12
POPULAR APOLOGET|CS
ADAPTED FROM THE GERMAN OF
REV. PETER Mikes, S. j.. BY
REV. JAMES WATCHER.
Is. Peter Not in Rome.

Objections: The Roman Pope is not
the head of the Church, for it cannot
be proved that he is the successor of
Peter not even that Peter was ever
i'm Rome.
Answer: /. Doellinger (f1S9O), the
great church historian, says that the
reason why the death of st. Peter at
Rome is denied is based on other than
historical grounds (Christentum und
Kirche D. 1909; and this ground is
more fully explained by Harnack, the
great Protestant historian of Berlin:
"The martyrdom of Peter in Rome
was once denied on account of Prot
estant tendencies and prejudices. In
both cases the error of the knowledge
of important historical truths has as
sisted and hence has done its service.
That it was an error is clear now, for
every investigator who is not blinded.
The whole critical apparatus with
which Baur (11S60) fhe founder of
the new Protestant Tuebingen School,
which is not only anti-Catholic but
anti-Christian), who contested the old
tradition, is considered now rightly as
worthless" (Chronologic der altChrist-
lichen Literatur l. p. PAD.
The Protestant professor, IIilgenfeld
Ct 1900, one of the greatest modern
representatives of the Tuebingen
School, declares: The presence of
Peter in Rome as a well established
fact of history and the opposite view
(of Baur, Neander, Lipsius, etc. "as
an untenablc negation through which
Protestant Theology lays itself open
to the attacks of Catholic Theology"
Franz X. Kraus G 190D, a very crit
ical Catholic church historian and
arChaGOlogist, writes: THE monument
tai explorations Of the last forty years
have confirmed entirely the assertion
of the Roman Church in her earliest
history, so that the credibility Of the
pontiftcate of Peter in Rome is sup
ported at least indirectly from this
source" NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS., ed.
1896 p SD. Hence the very stones
cry: Peter was in Rome,
2. 1t is sufficient to prove historic
ally that Peter was in Rome. But
there is most probably also a proof
in the first letter of st. Peter. In the
final greeting he writes: THE Church
that is in Babylon, elected together
with you, saluteth you; and so doth
my son Mark" Il Pet. 5:13). Nearly
all Catholic, and also many Protestant
commentators also Luther, understand
Rome by this "BabylOn," being then
the capital Of the heather world. The
old Babylon on the Euphrates was at
that time desOlate (Plinius) and de-
serted by the Jews (Flavius Joseph
us).
5. The whole ecclesiastical antiq-
nifty has always held st. Peter for the
first Roman bishop and the PopeS as
his successors. For example, the holy
bishop IrCneus & 202) gives list of
the Roman bishops starting with st.
Peter
4. eff ever the foot Of the Prince
of the Apostles has stepped into the
Eternal City, then he Peter) GER
tainly did not come there as a sample
traveller, and his martyrdOm under
Nero forms a glorious conclusion of
his official activity among the Rom
ans. And if, as many Protestants
claim, the episcopacy is of immediate
divine institution, then the claim of
the Roman Church is not at all alb
suTd, if she traces back the succession
of her bishops to Peter" This con
clusion is correctly drawn by the Prot
estant Lipsius (f1S92). (Zeitschrift
fuer protestantische Theologie, 1876, p.
1922.