Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by NYer
Bl. John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” History paints an overwhelming picture of St. Peter’s apostolic ministry in Rome and this is confirmed by a multitude of different sources within the Early Church. Catholic Encyclopedia states, “In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure.” Protestantism as a whole seeks to divorce Christianity from history by rending Gospel message out of its historical context as captured by our Early Church Fathers. One such target of these heresies is to devalue St. Peter and to twist the authority of Rome into a historical mishap within Christianity. To wit, the belief has as its end the ultimate end of all Catholic and Protestant dialogue – who has authority in Christianity?
Why is it important to defend the tradition of St. Peter and Rome?
The importance of establishing St. Peter’s ministry in Rome may be boiled down to authority and more specifically the historic existence and continuance of the Office of Vicar held by St. Peter. To understand why St. Peter was important and what authority was given to him by Christ SPL has composed two lists – 10 Biblical Reasons Christ Founded the Papacy and 13 Reasons St. Peter Was the Prince of the Apostles.
The rest of the list is cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia on St. Peter and represents only a small fraction of the evidence set therein.
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ’s prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — “And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
St. Peter’s First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.
Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5):
“Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory”.
He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us” (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.
In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Epistle to the Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says:
“You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).
Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
In his “Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, Church History IV.14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above).
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Præscriptione 36, he says:
“If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John.”
In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Against Marcion 4.5).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25) directed against the Montanists: “But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church”.
By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there” (i.e. at Rome).
There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment (“Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat”, ed. Preuschen, Tübingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter’s death in Rome.
The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.
Oops, last sentence should be, Do NOT be led astray
#2335 forgot to push send on this a while ago
NOT can be a very big word...sorry
I would say that your “ virtually every Catholic” is not my “actual every Catholic”.
Anyone is free to believe that-—or not.
God is good.
I find it interesting that simply quoting scripture often causes Catholics to apply that immediately to themselves in a negative way.
no there weren't....who would they have followed, these were the 12 hundreds...there were no bibles except those handwritten by the Catholic Church, and they were mostly in libraries....if you were not a Catholic you had probably never even heard of Christianity....there was no Christian "competition" at the time.....if you were Christian, you were Catholic. If you weren't Catholic, you were probably either Jewish or nothing
Catholics believe that Christ is God....and He set in place the Catholic Church to further profess his word....worked well, don’t you think???....its lasted for 2,013 years!
All Catholics are Christians....all who are fully Christian are catholic.
the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth...
I'm ten feet tall and bulletproof...I take no offense to what anyone on a thread like this says....I think that it is so interesting, and educational, that the occasional screw up is almost unnoticed...
I cannot believe that you accuse the Catholic Church of having MANMADE rules etc, when ALL protestant denominations are MANMADE...ever hear of Luther, Zwilgley, Calvin, Henry VIII, et al....the entire denomination was some human beings brainchild....
CALM DOWN!!!!!..please try not to be so harsh on the Catholic clergy until you check out the stats on Protestant clergy, teachers, scout leaders etc...I don't excuse any of them for a moment, but get it straight....all those other groups are FAR more guilty of child molestation than are Catholic clergy.....far more.
No they aren't because none of them pass themselves off as vicars of CHRIST.
Of anybody on the planet, those who claim responsibility for bringing us the Bible, for being the sole voice of Christ on the earth for hundreds or thousands of years, who take the high moral ground are FAR, FAR more responsible in the eyes of God and the world than those who make no such claim to religious and moral superiority.
They are without excuse in the greatest way.
"I don't excuse any of them for a moment, but "...
No *buts*. None at all. That completely negates the first part of the statement you made of *I don't excuse them for a moment....* and it's something we hear all too often from Catholics in their defense of their church.
The only way moral integrity is going to be restored to the Catholic church is to say *I don't excuse them for a moment*.
PERIOD.
No *buts*. None at all.
The appeal of *Hey, we're not as bad as anyone else because more of them do it too*, makes me want to vomit.
Anyone with that attitude is condoning what happened.
The mental, emotional, and SPIRITUAL damage done to those children and their families is inestimable. It is the WORST of the worst kind of betrayal because it absolutely destroys the image of God a child has when someone who claims to represent Him to them victimizes them in that kind of manner.
Until Catholics admit to the seriousness of the situation and renounce it completely and unconditionally, they are part of the problem. Otherwise they come across as being no different than the bishops and cardinals who protected the abusers by shuffling them around to victimize other children.
No they aren't.
The Catholic clergy are far more guilty because they know better.
The issue isn't that it happened. Sadly, stuff like that happens everywhere because there is simply no way of preventing it. Someone bound and determined to molest children WILL find a way.
The real atrocity is the Catholic church turning a blind eye to it, covering it up. protecting the priests, moving them around to molest more unsuspecting boys.
IOW, the RCC enabled the molesters. That makes them just as responsible as if they had done it themselves.
Even in a secular court of law, if someone does not prevent a crime that they know is occurring, they are culpable as well and can be charged and sentenced for the crime.
The Church hierarchy did nothing more than stand outside the door and keep an eye out for witnesses while the crimes were being committed.
And then they have the NERVE to *consecrate* the host, lifting it up in their hands, believing that they are turning the host into the body and blood of Jesus, with those same hands that molested those little boys.
How is that not worse than others doing it? How are teachers and scout leaders far more guilty of crime than that priest?
Thank you for affirming that.
"From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. - Luke 12:48
LOL! So true. Or, in the case of one of ours, when the doorbell rings.
the word "but" followed a comma thereby meaning that it referred to the following statement having to do with the readers understanding of what I was saying. There was NEVER a "but" referring to the first part of my statement concerning excusing the perps.
There is only one Vicar of Christ on Earth and that is the Pope.
Thanks for confirms what was obvious to the objective reader.
The teachers, ministers etc. are not "more guilty" nor did I say that...there were just more of them.
the Catholic church did not handle the situation as well as should have been expected, but they've certainly gotten a handle on it and now have very strict methods concerning future possible situations.
the effecacy of a sacrament does not depend on the state of sin which the minister of that sacrament is in....it probably effects his own soul, but not the sacrament. Consecration, even by a man who is not in the state of grace is no less effective than by a man in perfect harmony with God.
Thanks you for your necessary superintendence. You have been busy.
You’re welcome. Thanks for your support.
Sorry, anyone who truly believes that is deluded because, if the Roman Catholic Church WERE the same one begun in the first century they would have stayed true to the Gospel and remained faithful to the truth established by Jesus and enscripturated by the Apostles and their disciples. What calls itself the Catholic Church today only vaguely resembles what Christ established and that's ONLY because of some of the doctrines that they still teach but which MANY other churches also teach. It is obvious to me that Scripture defines the church as the ENTIRE Body of Christ for all time and it certainly would not be confined to the one that not only ceased to proclaim the message of salvation by grace through faith to the world, but also persecuted those who did and which continues to this day to exclude from fellowship those who are genuinely in Christ.
All the talk of "Ecumenicalism" and restoring Christian unity is no more than a trick for everyone having to agree to bow the knee to Rome and accept the Pope as the leader of Christendom. For nearly one thousand years, the Eastern Orthodox have not been bribed or cajoled into this Faustian bargain and if they will not, it's a good bet the rest of Christianity won't be either. I certainly will not.
You can often find quotes for both sides among CFs, but as regards 1st c. literacy rates, these are very speculative, yet they were higher among Jews than slaves for instance.
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/were-people-literate-in-the-time-of-jesus-r/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Literacy
I need to be more appreciative that i can both read and hear the Word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.