Peter the Rock, But Where Is Rome? A Biblical Examination of Vatican I

Denzinger part 47

Denzinger 1781 – Vatican I (1870), Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (Session III):

"But now, with the bishops of the whole world sitting and judging with Us, gathered together in this Ecumenical Council by Our authority in the Holy Spirit, We, having relied on the Word of God, written and transmitted as We have received it, sacredly guarded and accurately explained by the Catholic Church, from this chair of Peter, in the sight of all, have determined to profess and to declare the salutary doctrine of Christ..."

This statement serves as the formal introduction to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith issued by the First Vatican Council in 1870. It is not yet defining a specific doctrine but establishing the authority by which the council claims to speak. The language is significant because it presents three interconnected sources of authority: the written Word of God, apostolic tradition, and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church exercised "from this chair of Peter." It is this final claim that deserves careful examination.

The most striking feature of the passage is that it assumes rather than demonstrates that the Bishop of Rome occupies the "chair of Peter" in a unique and divinely established sense.

While this assumption had become central to Roman Catholic ecclesiology by the nineteenth century, the question remains whether it is explicitly taught by Christ or His apostles.

The principal biblical text traditionally cited in support of papal authority is Matthew 16:18–19:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 16:18–19, KJV)

There is little reason to deny that Jesus is speaking directly to Peter. In the Aramaic language likely spoken by Jesus, Simon's new name was Kepha, meaning "rock" or "stone." The distinction that exists in Greek between Petros and petra disappears in Aramaic. Christ deliberately gives Simon a new name that signifies his foundational role among the apostles.

However, this observation alone does not establish what Vatican I assumes. The passage says nothing about Rome. It says nothing about a Roman episcopate. It says nothing about successors to Peter occupying a permanent universal office. It says nothing about an infallible bishop governing the entire Church until the end of history.

These are substantial theological conclusions that go far beyond the wording of Matthew 16.

The New Testament never records Christ instructing Peter to establish his ministry in Rome. Neither does Christ command future believers to look to Rome as the visible centre of the Church. The city of Rome is never presented by Jesus as possessing any unique spiritual authority over the churches.

The Book of Acts likewise provides no divine commission directing Peter to Rome. Acts follows Peter's ministry extensively in Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea before its focus shifts largely to Paul's missionary work. Luke never presents Rome as the divinely appointed seat of Peter's authority.

When Paul writes his Epistle to the Romans, he sends greetings to numerous believers throughout the city (Romans 16). Remarkably, Peter is never mentioned. If Peter were already functioning as the supreme bishop of Rome, his absence from Paul's greetings is difficult to explain. Likewise, when Paul eventually arrives in Rome as a prisoner, Acts records no meeting between the two apostles.

The New Testament consistently portrays the Church's foundation more broadly than a single individual. Paul writes, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (Ephesians 2:20)

The foundation is plural. Christ Himself remains the indispensable cornerstone. Peter certainly belongs among the foundation stones, but he is never isolated from the other apostles as the exclusive foundation upon which the Church rests.

Peter himself adopts precisely this imagery in his own epistle:

"To whom coming, as unto a living stone... Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood..." (1 Peter 2:4–5)

This passage is especially significant because it comes from Peter himself. Rather than directing believers toward his own office, Peter points them to Christ as the Living Stone. Those who are united to Christ become "living stones," built together into a spiritual house. The imagery is corporate rather than monarchical.

Peter continues:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation..." (1 Peter 2:9)

Here Peter applies priestly language not to a separate ecclesiastical class but to the whole body of believers. Every Christian born of the Holy Spirit shares in this royal priesthood through union with Christ.

This corresponds closely with the teaching of Paul:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..." (1 Corinthians 12:13)

The unity of the Church is grounded in the indwelling Holy Spirit rather than geographical allegiance to a particular city or episcopal throne.

Likewise:

"There is one body, and one Spirit... One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Ephesians 4:4–5)

The emphasis throughout the New Testament falls upon Christ as the Head of His Church.

"And he is the head of the body, the church." (Colossians 1:18)

No New Testament passage describes Rome as the head of the churches, nor does any apostle instruct believers that communion with the Bishop of Rome is the defining mark of belonging to Christ's Church.

Supporters of Vatican I argue that Peter's authority necessarily continues through successors. Yet this is an inference rather than an explicit biblical teaching. Scripture records apostolic succession in the sense of preserving apostolic doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2), but it never teaches succession to Peter's unique commission through the bishops of Rome.

There is no passage stating that Peter's authority must permanently reside in one city or one episcopal office.

Indeed, the apostles consistently direct believers back to the gospel they received rather than to a future institutional hierarchy.

Paul writes:

"Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you... let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8)

The standard is the apostolic gospel itself, not the authority of a later ecclesiastical office.

Even Peter, writing near the end of his life, does not instruct the churches to submit to a Roman successor. Instead, he points believers toward remembering the words already spoken by Christ and His apostles.

Long before later claims about Roman supremacy emerged, the New Testament already presents Rome as possessing a thriving Christian community. When Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, he addressed an established body of believers whom he had never visited. In explaining why he had not yet come to them, he wrote, "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation" (Romans 15:20). This statement strongly suggests that the gospel had already been firmly established in Rome before Paul's arrival. Yet Paul never identifies Peter as the one who laid that foundation.

Scripture itself offers one possible explanation for how Christianity reached Rome so early. On the Day of Pentecost, among those gathered in Jerusalem were "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes" (Acts 2:10). Having heard Peter proclaim the death and resurrection of Christ, many were converted and received the Holy Spirit. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that some of these believers returned to Rome carrying the gospel with them, although Acts does not explicitly state that they founded the Roman church.

The New Testament also reveals important connections between Rome and Pontus. Acts introduces Aquila as "a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla" (Acts 18:2). His Latin name, Aquila, meaning "eagle," reflects the cultural world of the Roman Empire in which many Jews lived. Aquila and Priscilla became close fellow labourers with Paul, instructing Apollos more perfectly in the faith (Acts 18:26), and opening their homes for Christian worship. Paul greets "the church that is in their house" (Romans 16:5), while writing elsewhere, "Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house" (1 Corinthians 16:19). These references demonstrate that Christianity was spreading through gatherings of believers meeting in homes as the spiritual body of Christ, long before the Roman Empire eventually adopted Christianity as an instrument of imperial unity in the fourth century.

Some later Eastern Christian traditions also honour Aquila as one of the Seventy Apostles sent out by Christ in Luke 10. The official liturgical calendar of the Eastern Orthodox Church commemorates him with the title, "Holy Apostle Aquila of the Seventy." This designation appears in the Church's annual commemoration of Aquila on July 14 and in the Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles. While this reflects a respected and longstanding tradition within Eastern Christianity, it belongs to the Church's later liturgical and historical tradition rather than to the testimony of the New Testament itself. Scripture neither confirms nor denies that Aquila was among the Seventy, but it does unequivocally present him as one of Paul's closest fellow labourers, a teacher of Apollos, and the host of a house church, demonstrating the vital role he and Priscilla played in the spread of the gospel throughout the Roman world.

The existence of Christians in Rome therefore does not, by itself, demonstrate that the city had been divinely appointed as the permanent governing centre of the universal Church. Nor does Paul's statement about avoiding "another man's foundation" identify Peter as the founder of the Roman church. Instead, the New Testament presents multiple avenues through which the gospel may have reached Rome, including the Jewish pilgrims present at Pentecost, travelling believers throughout the Empire, and missionary couples such as Aquila and Priscilla. This picture is one of a living, expanding body of Christ, spreading through the work of the Holy Spirit and the faithful witness of many believers, rather than through the establishment of a single earthly seat of universal authority.

This distinction is crucial. Historical tradition may explain why Rome became influential, but it cannot substitute for explicit apostolic teaching if the claim is that all Christians are bound in conscience to acknowledge Roman supremacy.

The central question raised by Denzinger 1781 is therefore not whether Peter was important. Scripture plainly affirms that he was. Nor is it whether Peter was called a rock/stone. Christ Himself gave him that name. The real question is whether Christ ever transformed Peter's personal apostolic commission into a perpetual Roman office governing the universal Church.

On that point, the New Testament remains silent.

Christ never says, "My Church shall be governed from Rome." He never commands the apostles to establish a Roman see above all others. He never teaches that communion with Rome is the condition of belonging to His Church. Instead, He repeatedly directs His disciples to Himself.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life." (John 14:6)

"Come unto me." (Matthew 11:28)

"Abide in me." (John 15:4)

The apostles likewise point believers to Christ as the cornerstone, the Head of the Church, the sole mediator between God and men, and the One in whom every believer becomes a living stone within God's spiritual house. The Church's unity is presented as the work of the Holy Spirit dwelling within all who are born again, not as dependence upon a particular episcopal throne. For that reason, while Matthew 16 clearly establishes Peter's significance among the apostles, Denzinger 1781 appears to move beyond what the biblical text explicitly teaches by identifying Peter's commission with the enduring authority of the Roman See. The doctrine rests not upon an express statement of Christ, but upon a historical and theological development that extends beyond the direct witness of the New

Testament.

Happy Sabbath