Why did not Paul mention Peter in writing to the Romans, of all people?
No such mention was necessary, and it would have been positively inexpedient. The most ordinary prudence would make St. Paul avoid mentioning St. Peter as Bishop of Rome in written documents which might fall into the hands of the enemies of the Church. The Christians were most careful not to allow the movements and official acts of their Bishops to become known to the authorities of pagan society. Any hint that the head of the Church had taken up his abode in Rome, or was founding his See in the very heart of the Roman Empire would be disastrous if it came into the hands of enemies. St. Paul’s remark that he was not going to build on “another man’s foundation” was sufficient reference for those to whom he was writing. 350. Can you prove that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome? We have a host of early indications that he was, whilst not a single early writer can be quoted as expressing the least doubt on the subject. Heretics and schismatics, as well as Catholics themselves, acknowledged the
