PETER IN ROME.
(1) Roman Catholic Teaching. The teaching of the Roman Catholic church is as follows: "If any one should deny that it is by the institution of Christ, the Lord, or by Divine Right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of suc cessors in the primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in the Primacy, let him be anathe ma I" Decree of Vatican Council, 187o: "He that acknowledgeth not himself to be under the Bishop of Rome, and that the Bishop of Ronte is or dained of God to have Primacy over all the world, is a heretic and cannot be saved, nor is of the flock of Christ." Carton Law Church of Rome.
Creed of Pope Pius IV, 1564: "I acknowledge the holy catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, for the mother and mistress of all Churches and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome —successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ." Catechisnzus Romanus II, VII, XVII: "The Roman Bishop . . . occupying as he does the chair of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, who most assuredly himself occupied it till his death, is, in it, entitled to the highest honors, the most unbounded jurisdiction, as having been conferred on him, not by the decrees of any coun cil or any other human authority, but by God himself." Decree of Boniface VIII ed. Gregory XII, 1648: "There are one Body, one Head of the one and sole church, viz., Christ and Christ's vicar, Peter and the successors of Peter . . . Moreover we say, determine and pronounce, that every human creature is subject to the Ro man Pontiff, as of absolute necessity to salva tion." "After the death of St. Peter, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, has always been taken as the visible head of Christ's church, because St. Peter established his Sec at Rome and consecrated it with his blood.' Fam. E.r. Cath. Doctrine, p. 1888.
Imprimatur; Cardinal Gibbons : "Whoever would seek salvation must adhere to this unity ; to this authority of St. Peter and his successors." Barras, Gen. Hist. Cath. Church, i, 24. im primatur; Archbishops McCloskey, Spalding, and Purcell.
Cardinal Perroul in the year 1864 says: "None but an apostate Catholic could assert that Peter was not at Rome; for the reason of that fact is the coming of St. Peter to Rome, and the seat
there established by him connected with an article of our faith—that is, the Primacy of Order and Justification belonging of Divine Right to the Roman Pontiff. Hence it follows that he cannot be a Catholic who does not believe in the coming to, and the episcopate and death of St. Peter in Rome." The whole fabric of the Roman Catholic Church and its foundations are therefore over thrown unless this statement concerning St. Peter at Rome can be established. The most thorough investigation of noted scholars has shown—that there is not even a remote tradition (after Pe ter's death) for the first century—to prove that he was ever in Rome. In fact there are no such assertions until after the beginning of the third century, in any document of authentiz note.
(2) Roman Catholic Admissions. Charles Du Moulin, the great ecclesiastical lawyer (A. D. 1566), whom Father Calmet speaks of as a stead fast Ronzan Catlzolic, has unequivocally stated it as his opinion there never was even a vague tradi tion among the ancients about Peter's having been in Rome. Du NI ouim also says: "Even when, after the breaking up of the emnire, the Bishops of Rome began to extend their authority over other Churches, they never alleged or put forth this story of Peter's being at Rome; the story, I suppose, not having yet been invented." Mis sion and Martyrdom of St. Peter (Vol. iv. p. 46o.) Father Hardouin, a French Jesuit (A. D. 1729), likewise in very high repute in Rome, says : "We Roman Catholics hold that at least Peter's head was brought to Rome after his crucifixion, and that it ought to be worshiped there; but 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." De Cormeniu, a Roman Catholic, Hist. Poles, pp. 17, 18, says "There is no proof that Peter's blood was shed in Rome.' Ellendorf, Roman Catholic professor at Berlin, Bib. Sae., Jan. 185p, io5, says : "Peter's abode at Rome can never be proved." Frances Turretin, Op., p. 144, and many other Roman Catholics deny the visit of Peter to Rome.