St Peter ~ Fact vs Faith

St Peter as Pope by Rubens

Happy Easter everyone! I hope you're all having a lovely weekend and eating lots of chocolate. Given the theme of the day and my love of Papal history, I thought I'd do a piece on the supposed first Pope of Rome - St. Peter. Just a warning, given who he is this post will inevitably have to contain some very religious imagery and bible quotes - however it is my aim to provide a post that concentrates more on who he was, and the theories over both how he died, and whether or not he was actually in Rome. It should be said also that there are many more questions than answers when it comes to St Peter - however the theories that surround his life and death are incredibly fascinating.

Religious tradition dictates that Peter, or Simon as he was known before Jesus gave him the name of Peter, was one of Jesus' 12 apostles. He was the first apostle to be chosen by Jesus, and pretty much his best friend and right hand man. Tradition also tells us that Peter was a fisherman from Galilee and introduced to Jesus through his brother Andrew. According to Roman Catholic tradition, Peter ended up coming to Rome after the crucifixion of Jesus and founding the Catholic church that we know today - indeed there are portraits of him everywhere, and the seat of Christendom in Rome is even named after him. But why is this? 

Who was Peter? Did he really go to Rome? Was he the first Pope? 

So why does the Catholic faith consider Peter to be their first Pope? The answer is really very simple here - In the gospel of Matthew (XVI, 18-9), Jesus says to Peter:

"Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church...I give unto thee the keys to the kingdom of Heaven"

These few words, inscribed around the top of St Peter's basilica in Rome, have been the subject of much debate over the centuries. When these words were uttered, Peter was not a name at all but the Aramaic word kephas translated into Greek as Petros - whick means rock or stone. However, there are differences between the gospels about whether this was uttered at all - Mark and John both mention it, however John's is mentioned much later, suggesting that it was added in at a much later date. Matthew is the only one who puts a particular reason into the words stated while the other gospels disagree about whether this actually happened or not. 

It seems then, that the tradition that the church was founded on a rock (aka Peter) is pretty unlikely. Or is it? Tradition (I'm mentioning this word a lot, but there are reasons for it) states that Peter founded the church and so the Popes we know today are an infinite line of his successors. 

In the New Testament, Peter becomes somewhat of an enigma after the death of Jesus. Indeed it mentions relatively little of either his fate or the fate of St Paul. Early tradition states that they were both in Rome when the Great Fire raged through the city in AD64. Following the fire, Nero wanted to find someone to blame, and so blamed the Christians - he was well known for his hatred and persecution of Christians, and is particularly famous for his special human candles. Tacitus tells us that after the great fire, Christian's were covered with animal skins and torn apart by dogs, nailed to crosses or set on fire. It is said that both Peter and Paul were killed during these persecutions but the Acts of the Apostles are really quiet on this subject. St Luke, who we know went with Paul to Rome, doesn't even mention Paul's martyrdom. Surely he would have done if they were working together? All Luke mentions, in the last few lines, is that he stayed in Rome for two years. Peter disappears from the story half way through chapter XII when we are told that he "departed, and went to another place". So if both Peter and Paul were martyred, why doesn't Luke mention it. Yet again, more questions than answers come out of this. 

So Peter and Rome, then. Peter certainly had good reason to go to Rome, having been given his mission to spread the word of Jesus to the Jews. At the time he would have been in Rome, the majority of the Roman church was made up of Jews with 30-40,000 Jewish people living in the city at the time. But yet again, there is no evidence that Peter even went to Rome in the New Testament. When Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans in AD58, he didn't mention Peter at all and when, at the end he writes a list of names to who he's giving his greetings there's no mention of Peter. At all. So if he was in Rome, he can't have been there for very long. And those few years, if he was there, means that he wasn't there long enough to found the Roman Church which in any case has already existed for a good few years! As well as this, there is no contemporary reference to Peter being a bishop, or indeed of there being any bishop in Rome before the second century AD.

The Denial of St Peter by Caravaggio

What evidence is there though, that Peter was in Rome and met his fate at the hands of Nero's persecutors? The two most compelling pieces come from both Peter's own epistle, and a letter written by Clement (normally third or fourth in the list of Popes). In Peter's epistle, the penultimate verse states:

"She (the church) that is in Babylon...saluteth you."

But what does it mean? At the time, Babylon was a symbolic name for Rome and was used no less than four times in the Book of Revelation. The second piece of evidence comes from the letter written by Pope Clement in AD96 to the Church of Corinth. It seems that Clement knew Peter personally:

"Let us set before our eyes our good apostle Peter, who because of unrighteous jealousy suffered not one or two but many trials, and having thus given his testimony went to the glorious place which was his due."

Whilst written in a very roundabout way, this points to the fact that Peter suffered; that he was martyred - it doesn't mention the way it happened. Was he crucified? That's certainly what tradition (there's that word again) states that he was crucified upside down due to believing he wasn't worthy to die in the same way as Jesus. Clement then goes on to mention Paul in almost the same breath, and mentions Paul's martyrdom (beheading) which suggests that they met a similar fate. Alas, we will never be certain of how this happened. All we can be sure of is that by the middle of the second century AD, it was accepted that both Peter and Paul had been martyred in Rome. There were even two sites connected with their martyrdom. The one we are interested in is Vatican Hill, where Peter was said to have been martyred.

The Liberation of St Peter by Honthorst

In around 320AD, Emperor Constantine built the first St Peter's basilica upon Vatican Hill. Why? He was determined to build it there, on the site of an open cemetery that was full of bodies and ancient catacombs. As the basilica was being built, these graves and necropolis were destroyed. And all because Constantine wanted to build over the site where he was sure St Peter's bones lay. There is evidence too that suggests he was right! This is a piece of contemporary evidence from about AD200 in which the Roman historian Eusebius (quoting a Roman priest by the name of Gaius):

"If you go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, there you find the trophies (tropaia) of those who founded this church."

"Those who founded this church" is quite clear really, and it is the Vatican part of it we are interested in. We know Paul was executed on the Ostian Way so for the intents of this piece we can ignore it. The word tropaia refers to some sort of memorial to Peter that would have been visible on Vatican Hill. Excavations that took place after the Second World War at the Vatican actually found a two tiered three nieched construction known as an aedicula (normally used to hold sarcophagi), in front of which were earlier burials. This is actually incredibly significant. No sarcophagi were held in the aedicula so we have no way of knowing whether the burials were christian or pagan - what we do know is that bodies in Rome at that point were normally cremated, something which Christians did not do at the time. The aedicula held interred burials, human remains; in a corner of the cemetery which points to the fact it was an area of the cemetery reserved for those with different beliefs - probably Christians. There were also an unusually large number of votive coins found there, suggesting that this was a significant pilgrimage site. This is now believed to be the trophy mentioned by Gaius, and in the 1950's Pope Pius XII announced with confidence that this was the site of St Peter's burial. However there are some significant objections to this too:

• Peter was an uneducated fisherman from Galilee - and special burial was saved for important prisoners. As a man, not a member of the gentry, his body would have been thrown into the Tiber along with the other common criminals. Thus his body would have been very difficult to get hold of.
• If he did indeed meet his death during Nero's persecutions; given how Christians were executed at that time, his remains were even less likely to have survived.

So, does that mean this aedicula was more of a memorial than a mausoleum? Or were some of the human remains found actually the bones of Peter? And if so, was he buried there because of his work with Jesus even though he wasn't exactly highly sophisticated? If the remains did belong to Peter, then Matthew's testimony was correct - Peter really was a foundation stone of the church. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church believes it so wholeheartedly that they insist the line of Popes represent an uninterrupted line from St Peter even though, as we have already seen, Peter wasn't in Rome long enough to found the church and there's no evidence that says he was even a bishop.

The Crucifixion of St Peter by Caravaggio

It really is difficult to come to any sort of solid conclusions with the information that we have. We can be fairly certain that he went to Rome and that he was probably martyred upon Vatican Hill and buried there somewhere. It can also be concluded that the site of his burial was marked by the shrine that grew into the massively lavish basilica that we know today. We can also be certain that Peter did not found the Roman church and nor could he have possibly been a bishop - at least in the sense that we think of the bishop of Rome today. Given the evidence, Peter seems to have been in Rome for a very short time before his execution. It seems too that the reason the Church calls him the first Pope is when, in the second century AD the Roman church took primacy over the rest of the other churches, it looked for justification for its position of the head church. And sitting right there was Matthew XVI, 18 stating that Peter would be the rock upon which the church was built. And the church never looked back.

Peter himself seems to have lead an interesting life. It can be deduced from the gospels that he wasn't exactly hugely sure of himself, and he was rather inclined for violence, being the one who cut the ear off a guard during the arrest of his Master. It's also recorded that he often rowed with his fellow apostles. His denial of his Master could have been the end of his career, and even after this he remained unsure of himself. However, Peter was the main apostle, one of the first that Jesus chose and he was even the acknowledged leader of the disciples. His name is indeed always mentioned first out of all the group. He doesn't seem to have been hugely educated, no more educated than his colleagues and it is said that he had great difficulty in learning Greek later on in his life. He began his life as a simple fisherman from Galilee and was chosen by one of the most charismatic men history has ever known (Son of God or not, Jesus of Nazareth would have been an astonishing teacher ~ and it's generally accepted these days by historians that he did exist). It was Peter who first took Christianity to the gentiles, baptising them without forcing them to convert to Judaism. He was also imprisoned by Herod, although this was never properly explained. After he escaped, he left leadership of the church to James and took his mission to Asia Minor, ending up in Rome at some stage between AD60-65, where he is said to have been martyred by being executed upside down upon Vatican Hill. Why upside down? He didn't believe himself worthy to die in the same way as his Master. 

I'm not religious in the slightest, however I find the life of St Peter hugely fascinating. Whilst the theories over his life and death give more questions than answers, it's so interesting to compare fact and faith. Peter seems to have been an incredibly charismatic man, a man who was unsure of himself and lacked self belief, yet he overcame it and did great things for a man he considered his best friend. That best friend being Jesus, who whether he was the Son of God and a miracle worker or not, was one of the most charismatic teachers of his time. I didn't write this blog to spark religious debate, but I hope I've at least gone into some of the theories over St Peter's life and his death and I hope you find it as interesting as I do.

Further Reading

The Popes: A History - John Julius Norwich

The Pope Resigned? He's Not The First!

A few days ago it was announced that our current Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, will be retiring at the end of this month. As I'm sure you're all aware, I have a huge interest in the history of the Roman Catholic church so I found this really interesting. Mainly because tradition dictates that once elected as Pope, you're Pope until you die - and the last Pope to resign was back in the 1400's. And so, I thought for a bit of perspective, I'd do a post on the previous Pope's who have retired! This list ranges from the very early papacy up until the mid 1400's, so I'll split it up into different Popes and provide a bit of information on the main Popes who have resigned (either by force, or by their own choice) in history ~ there are a few more, but I've taken 4 examples here, the four latest Popes to resign before our current one.

Benedict IX ~ Theophylactus III (1045-1046)

The nephew of John XIX, he was elected in 1032 due to the bribery of his father. He is traditionally believes to have ascended to the throne of St. Peter's at the age of 8 or 9 but recent research has suggested that he was in fact in his early 20's. A shameless, corrupt debauchee; the citizens of Rome rose up against him after just 12 years of rule and in January 1045 he was forced to abandon the city. He was replaced by Sylvester III who lasted just 2 months when Benedict excommunicated Sylvester and took his throne back. He was back in the chair of St. Peter by the March. It seems as though he couldn't really be bothered with it though, and in the May resigned his post. The result was utter chaos, resulting in loads of pretenders and the situation had to be sorted out by Henry III, King of Germany. There were three contestants for the throne, and Henry knew the best thing would be to depose all of them. Only Benedict started causing trouble, all of a sudden wanting his throne back and refusing to lay down. Henry made choices over who the next Pope would be. The first was Clement II (1046-7) was on the throne for just 10 months before he died suspiciously, many said he was poisoned by Benedict who then spent the next 8 months re-establishing himself at St. Peter's. In 1048, Damascus II took the throne bus lasted only 23 days before dying. Many whispered he had died due to the heat in Rome, whilst others spoke that Benedict had killed another pontiff. In 1048, Henry decided that the Bishop of Toul was told he was going to be the next pope, but he really didn't want it. He wasn't confirmed as Pope until January 1049 and he reigned as Pope Leo IX for 6 years until his death in 1054. In 1049, Benedict was charged with simony and summoned to a council which he failed to attend. He was duly excommunicated. Following his excommunication, not much is known on him or his fate.

Gregory VI ~  Johannes Gratianus (1045-1046)

It isn't hugely clear whether Pope Gregory abdicated, or whether he was deposed. Every source I can find says something different. At any rate, he was accused of Simony in 1046 at the council of Sutri. From what I can find about him, the majority of sources state it was an abdication due to these accusations. He lost the chair of St Peter's in December 1046.

St Celestine V ~  Pietro da Morrone (1294)

In April 1292, following the death of Nicholas IV, a group of Cardinal's met at Perugia. They had escaped there to escape the plague which had once more overtaken Rome. They took twenty seven months to chose their new pontiff, finally settling on a compromise on Pietro del Morrone. Pietro was an 85 year old peasant who lived in seclusion in the hills of Albruzzi as a hermit. His one qualification was a very brief appearance at the court of Gregory X, nothing more. It is said that a group of five cardinals went on a trip to his little cell to tell him the news When they arrived, they found that King Charles II of Naples had got there first. Pietro was in a state of panic and he refused to accept the Throne until he had prayed. After praying, he agreed, and started on the journey to L'Aquila. Many believed Celestine would be the "Angel Pope" prophecies but in all honesty, Celestine was too old, and too malleable to keep the papacy in safe hands. Indeed, he ended up being little more than a puppet of Charles II - he even took up residence in the Castel Nuovo in Naples. Within the Castel, he ordered a tiny wooden cell to be built and there he spent most of his time as he felt more at home. He refused to see his cardinals as their sophistication terrified him. When he did grant them an audience they were made to abandon their Latin and use the crude Vernacular that Celestine was used to and the only language he could understand. He ignored all papal duties, and favours were given to anyone who asked for them. He lasted just five months before formally announcing his abdication - the only one in history to do so, until now.

Gregory XII ~ Angelo Correr (1406-1415)

1406, part way way through the Great Schism which saw the Papacy moving to Avignon and a huge number of Anti-Popes come into power. The new Pope, Gregory XII had long said he wished to see the end of the Schism although he knew that it was unlikely, given that he was already in his eighties. He was in office for 9 years, and very nearly saw it come to pass! It was agreed once he became Pope that if the current Anti-Pope Benedict VIII stepped down in Avignon (Gregory was chosen in Rome0, then Gregory would step down too so that a fresh claimant could be chosen. That didn't happen. Instead the two pontiff's met to discuss options, and negotiations dragged on, and on. Both of them were called in front of a Council, inn which they were both condemned as schismatics and heretics (despite the fact many wondered what heresies had been committed and both were formally deposed. A conclave was then formed, and Pietro Philarghi (who started life as an orphaned beggar) was elected as Alexander V. The problem was that neither of the other Popes wanted to take no for an answer, they refused to listen to the council and so there were three Popes. In 1415, another council was called at Constance and this one finally went some way to resolving the situation. Gregory announced Carlo Malatesta ad Giovanni Dominici as his proxies and on 4th July 1415 they announced that Gregory was formally stepping down from the Papacy. They then set aside John XXIII (Alexander's successor), but a new pope was not elected before Gregory died in 1417 - Pope Martin V was elected in the November of the year that Gregory died, and it was his election that effectively ended the Western Schism.

Further Reading 

The Popes: A History - John Julius Norwich
The Bad Popes - Russell Chamberlin

Review - The Bad Popes by Russell Chamberlin

Each of the Popes considered in this book, from the gentle hermit pope Celestine V to the degenerate Rodrigo Borgia and the emperor pope Boniface VIII shared one heavy burden. They were not only the spiritual leaders of Europe but, through an audacious forgery (the so called Donation of Constantine), they were also territorial princes - 'papal monarchs' - struggling to maintain control over an enormous section of Italy. The careers of these popes demonstrate the disastrous effect of combining religion and politics and led at last to the event which ends this book - the Sack of Rome in 1527. Brought about by the inept attempts of Pope Clement VIV against his rival the King of France, the culmination was the sacking of the Eternal City by 20,000 starving, pitiless mercenaries. It was the end of an era.

Ever since I first started reading about the Borgia family, I have found myself becoming more and more interested in the history of the Roman Catholic church. And more so the history of the corrupt Popes from history. So when I saw this book I knew I just had to have it. And I'm glad I did. 

This book starts with an introduction to Rome and the Papacy and describes briefly the Donation of Constantine, which was a forged document giving the Pope of Rome the principality of the Papal states. I won't go too much into what it is and what it did here as it would have to be a whole other blog post. Once the introduction is out of the way Chamberlin then goes on to describe in detail the lives and careers of Rome's most corrupt and decadent popes. Of course Chamberlin does not tell us about each and every Pope as that would just be a bit too much but rather has picked out a selection of those Popes with probably the worst reputations in the history of the Catholic Church. The thing I liked about this though was that Chamberlin doesn't bash the Popes for their behaviour, far from it. Instead he gives an incredibly balanced view of things, and tells the reader of each Popes pluses and minuses, showing how they can go from quite pious and agreeable men, to sheer corruption and it really allows you to draw your own conclusions.

The book itself runs from the early popes in the Theophylact family, who reigned from 926-1046 right up until the sack of Rome in 1527. That is a huge amount of ground to cover yet Chamberlin does a great job in giving the reader the information that they need about each Pope being looked at. Of course, not every aspect can be written about, as that would end up as an entire library. But Chamberlin makes his point, expands on it and covers it in a brilliantly snappy manner that doesn't leave you feeling as if you've swallowed an encyclopedia. And it works.

Of course, my favourite section of the book was on the infamous Rodrigo Borgia who is often seen as the most corrupt Pope in history. Yet the section on him retains a balanced view, and you really get a sense that Rodrigo Borgia wasn't really all that bad. Chamberlin also gives Cesare Borgia the benefit of the doubt too, and while he admits that Cesare wasn't the nicest man in the world, he says he was "probably innocent" of his brothers murder. And this made me smile quite a lot. I must admit that I found the later sections of the book more interesting than the earlier Popes, probably because my area of interest is from the 15th Century onwards, so I did really enjoy the chapters on Alexander VI (Borgia), Julius II (Della Rovere) and the Medici popes. And whilst the chapters give you a fantastic overview of their good points and bad points, it has also given me a thirst to know more about these other Papal monarchs too. And so, I feel incredibly sorry for both my purse and my bookcase!

All in all a fantastic book and highly recommended, especially if you are interested in the history of the Roman Catholic Church and learning a bit more about those Popes who have gone down in history as the worst of the worst.