Peter, Rome, and the Roman Church [Commentary on Browne: Article XXXVII (2)]

It is worthwhile to address a few words to Browne’s discussion of the historical evidence pertaining to St. Peter’s alleged presence and bishopric in Rome, not concerning the evidence itself (whether for or against the traditional Roman claims), but with respect to the conclusions that may be drawn on the basis of this evidence. Browne begins by stating that the authority of the Roman papacy rests on the following grounds: “I. That St. Peter had a supremacy given him over the universal Church. II. That St. Peter was Bishop of Rome. III. That this supremacy is inherited by his successors; those successors being the Bishops of Rome.” After presenting arguments to undermine the first two points, he ends, logically enough, by concluding that the third point is thereby defeated:

If we have seen that St. Peter had no proper supremacy, and that he was not Bishop of Rome; then, the premises being gone, the consequence must fall with them. If St. Peter had no supremacy, it could not be inherited. If he was not Bishop of Rome, the Popes could not inherit from him.

We may note here that scholars more recent than Browne concur with his conclusion that while Peter likely lived in Rome for a time^[1] (although some argue he was never in Rome at all)^[2], it is unlikely he was ever the Bishop of Rome.^[3] If this is so, it would appear the Roman claim to papal supremacy has collapsed.

To be sure, it has commonly been taught among Romanists that, in the words of Bellarmine, “the right of succession of the Popes is founded on this, that Peter established his seat in Rome by Divine command, and occupied it till his death.”^[4] Thus, as another Roman divine puts it,

None but an apostate Catholic could assert that Peter was not at Rome; for the reason of that fact is that the coming of St. Peter at Rome, and the seat there established by him, is connected with an article of our faith—that is, the Primacy or Order and Jurisdiction belonging of Divine Right to the Roman Pontiff. Hence it follows that he cannot be a Catholic who does not believe the coming, the episcopate, and the death of St. Peter in Rome.^[5]

However, this sentiment has not been universal. Jean Hardouin, a French Jesuit in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, wrote, “That the Pope is Christ’s substitute and Peter’s successor is clear enough without our being bound to suppose that Peter himself ever came to Rome.”^[6] It has also been remarked of Ignaz von Döllinger, a nineteenth-century German theologian, that while he “contends that St. Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome, yet he appears to shrink from calling him bishop of Rome, and even explains away the story of his twenty-five years’ episcopate.”^[7] Indeed, more recently it has been claimed that “most defenders of the Roman Catholic position emphasize that the Papacy rests upon faith and not upon facts of history.”^[8] The words of one cardinal exemplify this attitude:

Even if in some impossible way history could prove that Peter had never come to Rome, it would still not upset the dogmatic fact of which we are speaking. It would be sufficient for Peter, wherever he happened to be, to have decreed that his transapostolic pontifical authority over the universal Church should be transferred to Rome. That is a spiritual fact which could take place at a distance.^[9]

The same attitude is apparent in these words from a Russian theologian: “We might even admit that St. Peter never went personally to Rome, and yet at the same time from the religious point of view maintain a spiritual and mystical transmission of his sovereign authority to the bishop of the Eternal City.”^[10]

In light of such statements, one could argue that on this subject Browne was laboring under a misapprehension as to the terms of the debate. He evidently believed that if a preponderance of historical evidence could be adduced in favor of the contention that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome, this would be sufficient to show that the Roman claims for papal supremacy are without foundation. Yet as some Romanists would have it, while they claim the historical evidence is on their side, they also maintain that even if it could be proved Peter never set foot in Rome, an ad hoc hypothesis is enough to maintain the dogma of papal succession. In essence, to quote the aforementioned cardinal, the dogma “depends on a certitude higher than that of history.”^[11] As with the Immaculate Conception (and indeed all points of dogma), if the Church of Rome says so, then so it is, one way or another.

Notes

1. See, e.g., George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, 3^rd ed. (London: John Murray, 1899), 348, and Daniel William O’Connor, Jr., Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical, and Archeological Evidence (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 207, 209. ↑
2. See, e.g., Mason Gallagher, Was the Apostle Peter Ever at Rome? (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1894). ↑
3. See, e.g., Salmon, Infallibility, 355, and O’Connor, Jr., Peter in Rome, 207. ↑
4. Robert Bellarmine, quoted in Gallagher, Peter, 4. ↑
5. Giovanni Perrone, quoted in Gallagher, Peter, 4. See also various other Romanists quoted in Gallagher, Peter, v, 1, 3–4. ↑
6. Jean Hardouin, quoted in Gallagher, Peter, 6. ↑
7. Salmon, Infallibility, 357. ↑
8. O’Connor, Jr., Peter in Rome, xiv. ↑
9. Charles Journet, The Primacy of Peter from the Protestant and from the Catholic Point of View, trans. John Chapin (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1954), 106. ↑
10. Vladimir Solovyev, Russia and the Universal Church, trans. Herbert Rees (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1948), 123. ↑
11. Journet, Primacy of Peter, 106. ↑