It was the early Brits[British christians]who were taken captive to Rome. Linus our second Pope was tne son of Caratacus the great British chieftan who was betrayed and taken captive and paraded in chains in Rome[see 2 Tim.4:21]and search The Lady Pomponia via search box - Crypt of Lucina[Catholic encyclopaedia] - twinc
Are you referring to the actual building, as in St. Peter’s Basilica? Or are you referring to the Christian community there?
As for the actual building, construction of the one we have there now began in 1506 and ended in 1626 according to wikipedia. If you scroll down and read under the heading “Old St. Peter’s”, you will see that the construction of the original building started in 326. Before that I’m assuming all that was there was a graveyard of some sort, perhaps only his grave. :shrug:
As for the Christian community, it would seem that it was started by both Peter and Paul.
First, Peter’s first letter seems to indicate that he was writing from Rome:
1 Peter 5:13
She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.
I can’t be 100% that I am correct about this, but I don’t believe there is any extra-biblical evidence to suggest that Peter was ever in Babylon, the actual city. But, as I will show you, there is much historical evidence to suggest that he was in Rome. Anyway, it would make sense for Christians to use a “code word” for Rome considering at the time the Roman Empire hated Christians and wanted them all gone. This has led many to the conclusion that Peter is, in fact, using “Babylon” as a code word for “Rome”. While I do buy this argument, I don’t think this should rest the case because history itself is more convincing than this small happening in the Bible.
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 4:3, c. 110 AD
I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.
This quotation, while short, implies that both Paul AND Peter were directing the Christians in Rome. But this still doesn’t really say anything about the foundations of the community.
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3, 1:1, c. 189 AD
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.
Here Irenaeus is telling us directly that both Peter and Paul were laying the foundations of the Church.
These are only two quotations, I believe this Catholic Answers tract will help you. Hope my post helped anyway!
So again who founded the Christian congregation (Church) in Rome before AD 49 ?
And when did the Jewish Christians return to Rome ? They were obviously back in Rome in AD 57 when Paul’s letter arrived. Paul addresses the Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians in Rome, there seems to be a conflict ?
**There was a Christian community at Rome before either Peter or Paul arrived there.
I have so far found two explanations.
Visitors from Rome listened to St. Peters speech in Jerusalem AD 33 (Acts 2:11)
According to the Clementine Epistles, St. Barnabas was the first to preach the Gospel in the Eternal City.
Does anyone have a better explanation, or something to add ? **
The New American Bible states there existed a community before Paul’s letter to the Romans.When it arose,likely within the sizable Jewish population at Rome,and how,we do not know.But ancient tradition states Peter and Paul helped found the church at Rome.
I would not bang my head so much over exactly who founded the church at Rome.I truly believe Peter and Paul did spend considerable time there and the church fathers all claim the same. Why would the church fathers fabricate up something and pass it on as a fact? I find it to believe after nearly 2,000 years such a lie would have not been discovered.
Why do so many non-Catholics believe there current pastors,but refuse to believe the pastors who lived and even knew the Apostles? Pure prejudice.
Well there were certainly Roman Jews and non-Jews in Jerusalem for Pentecost (Acts 2:10). In addition there was a Roman garrison at Jerusalem and at least one centurion who had a very positive faith-experience with the Lord (Matthew 8:5-13) and another who had a life-changing experience on Calvary (Matt. 27:54). So there were probably believers in Rome very early. I think the more difficult question may be when did the believers at Rome first have a resident bishop or presbyter? As has already been pointed out, Paul wrote to an established community at Rome quite some time before he visited there. There are several interesting references in the ECF that indicate that both Peter and Barnabas made early trips to Rome - Peter reportedly in 42, to challenge the false teachings of Simon Magus. I think it would be reasonable to assume that local presbyters would have been ordained at that time.
A really interesting “book” (actually a compilation of a lecture series) on the history of the Church at Rome can be read at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library collection here. Lecture 3 is particularly relevant to this discussion.
Presumably some of the visitors from Rome (Acts 2:10), who heard St. Peter’s discourse in Acts 2:14-41, believed and were baptized and returned to Rome as Christians. So, there was probably a community of lay Christians in Rome from the very beginning.
However, to be considered a complete Church, a local community of Christians needs at its head either an Apostle or a validly ordained episcopacy. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) Unlike his letter to the Philippians (Philippians 1:1), St. Paul, in Romans 1:7, fails to explicitly greet a local episcopacy, which may be an indication that there wasn’t one there yet.
When tradition (Irenaeus, for instance) says that Peter and Paul “founded and organized” the Church at Rome, it may refer to an apostolic visitation and the establishment of a validly ordained episcopacy there.
Maybe Paul didn’t want to make the conflict worse ?
To me it seems there was a “Church of the Gentiles” founded by Gentiles in Rome. That proved more successful than the Churches in Jerusalem and Antioch founded by the Christian Jews headed by Peter.
Therefore there was a fusion of the two Churches (Church of the Circumcised and the Uncircumcised) symbolized by Peter and Paul. Even though Paul wasn’t the founder of the “Church of the Uncircumcised” in Rome
The names of the uncircumcised founders of the Roman Church, simply didn’t make it to the history books.