medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
The basic answer is that they are the two outstanding leaders of the first generation of the Christian Church. Peter's primary role is evident in the first 11 chapters of Acts of the Apostles and Paul's in the rest of the account (with his conversion in ch. 9 and his cameo appearance at the stoning of Stephen in ch. 7--I'm citing from memory here and hope my references are correct). They both had connections to Antioch, apparently--Paul's is clear from Acts and Peter's is mentioned by the earliest Church historians. Peter plays a key role in opening the Christian vision to embrace non-Jews (Acts 10--Cornelius), Paul carries out that vision. Peter later backed down under pressure from the more strictly Jewish-Christian party at Jerusalem (which is what Paul apparently rebuked him for--mentioned in Paul's Letter ot the Galatians) but seems to have reversed his reversal.
They share a feast day because they both ended up at and were martyred at Rome. Given the significance of martyrdom in the rise of the cult of saints, they are the primary reason why Roman primacy (whether of "honor" or of "jurisdiction") emerged. Roch Kereszty and William Farmer have a little book making this argument. The title escapes me but it's something about Peter and Paul and Roman Primacy. Their shrines were venerated at Rome long before the persecutions ended--the archeological evidence is now clear that the site of Peter 's martyrdom under the Basilica of St. Peter on Vatican Hill was being venerated by the middle 2nd century and probably long before that, probably from the time of his death. St. Peter's is not the cathedral church for Rome but a martyr's basilica. Given Peter's role in Acts, the dominical commissioning not only in Mt. 16 but also in John 21, that alone would perhaps have been enough to propel the Church of Rome to primacy. (The Church there was founded before either Peter or Paul arrived in Rome, so neither is the founder of that city's diocese, but they clearly gave leadership to it when they did arrive.)
The death of St. Paul in Rome underscored the importance of the Church of Rome. It is often asserted that the Church at Rome became the center for unity, gained primacy (primacy primarily is about unity, not administration, if one reads Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ignatius of Antioch etc.--of course administration and unity are closely related to each other) because Rome was the capital of the empire. I do not think this is true, except to the degree that Rome's role as capital was clearly a major factor in bringing Peter and Paul there (for different reasons and by different routes). I Clement is one source indicating that the joint martyrdom of Peter and Paul was a key to Rome's primacy. Paul was never understood to have been the bishop of the church of Rome, but he is celebrated in the liturgy for June 29th as teacher and apostle to the Gentiles; Peter as guardian of the legacy of Judaism and as the head of the apostolic college.
When Jerusalem was destroyed twice (AD 70 and 135) and the two other major eastern Patriarchates (Antioch, Alexandria) were conquered first by Persians and then by Islam, the patriarchate of Rome and the upstart (in church historical terms) patriarchate of New Rome (Constantinople) were left facing each other. The rest, is, as they say, history--the ancient rivalry between Greeks and Latins, cultural resurgence in the 9thc in the East, in the 11th c. in the West etc. led eventually to schism.. Constantinople had apostolic claims in St. Andrew, the apostle to the Scythians, but compared to Peter and Paul at Rome, Constantinople's claims had to rest more heavily on its position as (new) capital of the empire.
If one studies the propers for the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, one realizes that the feast is as much about the governance of the Church as anything else. This is simply a major feast of the Roman Church, and, since nearly all of northern and western Europe was (re) evangelized directly under strong Roman ties (Augustine of Canterbury to England, Boniface to Germany, and since Catholic evangelization in the Americas and Africa and Asia was carried out primarily in the early modern era from Western Europe rather than from Orthodox Constantinople or Moscow (which had other, pressing matters, on its mind) or even from Protestant Western Europe (for theological reasons, Protestants did not begin missionary work until the late 18thc, with a few exceptions; Protestantism did spread, of course, to the Americas by direct immigration), because of this historical pattern, the Roman Rite was carried much more widely around the world than it otherwise might have been. Had these patterns been different, conceivably the unity focused on Peter and Paul at Rome could have been maintained within a variety of liturgical rites or relatively equal size (the Catholic Church today, which is larger than the Roman Rite, includes 21 other liturgical rites among dioceses that see themselves unified around the See of Peter at Rome. but the 21 other rites have numerically very few adherents compared to the adherents of the Roman Rite).
To summarize: The centrality of Rome as a symbol for unity within the early church, firmly established already during the first few centuries, was based primarily on the martyrdom of Peter and Paul at Rome. This predates the development of jurisdictional claims for the Patriarchate of Rome outside that patriarchate, which are developing already in the controversies over the celebration of Easter (2nd century) and the controversies between Cyprian and Stephen {3rd century) but which are elaborated only under Leo I (5th century). The jurisdictional claims grow out of the honor/unity claims; disagreement about the meaning of Roman jurisdiction outside the Roman Patriarchate, eventually became the common explanation for the shattering of that unity (which, of course, always had its loopholes and tattered fringes--unity is a very fragile commodity in any human community), though cultural and poltiical factors underly the disagreement over jurisdiction. That the Roman bishop had a degree of jurisdiction throughout his patriarchate (as did all the ancient patriarchs) was not disputed; the Roman patriarchate, more than any other patriarchate, expanded to cover the entire globe.
Peter and Paul each have a separate day on their own: the conversion of St. Paul, the Chair of Peter elsewhere in the calendar. But June 29th is the feast of their martrydom, followed on June 30 by the commemoration of the rest of the martyrs of the Neronian persecution. Since the calendar of saints days in the Roman Rite grew out of the martyrology of the Roman diocese, it is not surprising that Peter and Paul would be put together. They are named together and at the head of, distinct from the rest of the list of other Roman martyrs in the Canon of the Roman Rite. This indicates a very ancient practice of honoring them in one breath as the protomartyrs of the Church of Rome.
I don't know how ancient the June 30th celebration of the martyrs of the Neronian persecution is. I suspect it is a more modern addition, but perhaps someone else knows.
Dennis Martin
>>> [log in to unmask] 06/28/01 08:28PM >>>
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Today (29. June) is the feast day of:
Peter and Paul (d. c. 64). Most of what we know about both comes from the
New Testament. Both were venerated from very early times. What I want to
know is why they share a feast day.
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|