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.
“Because Jesus may have or may not have trusted Peter does not give Peter higher authority that the living Christ.”
Straw man alert!
No one argues that. Or did you think someone was?
Many people on this thread seem to be.
Yeah, no kidding. Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Paul wrote to the Romans naming many among them and ministered among them and not a word about Peter there.
The rest is all second or worse and conjecture. If Catholics believe it was Rome that was referred to in Peter’s writing than they must also agree that Rome is the Babylon of Revelation.
Where, not one post even suggests that. You see straw men.
>> “Did Jesus trust Peter? Of course, Jesus told Peter to tend his sheep, feed his lambs, feed his sheep.” <<
.
That request had nothing whatsoever to do with trust.
Peter was diverging from Yeshua’s commands, and Yeshua was trying to drag him back on course.
Peter often lost his course, but later became a great preacher. There is hope therein for all of us.
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
We do! The ONLY word of God. For instance. Can you show from scripture proof or teaching about the assumption of Mary? Given we take the Bible as the word of God and not the RCC we would like you to show us that teaching from it.
That would be a real stretch, but to reassure you, no CATHOLIC has any doubt - Our Lord is the Head of the Church He founded and the Way, the Truth and the Light.
Didn’t He also say to Peter “get thee behind me Satan”?
Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
“Jesus was no longer here on earth in case you haven’t heard......what was Christ going to do just let the faith go leaderless?? REALLY??? “
Have you ever heard of the Holy Spirit? Or read the book of Acts?
always good to cite a Catholic to bolster the Catholic view point....but then there was that small thing called the reformation....
I would suggest that you cannot definitively prove that Christ was talking about Peter in that verse. The verse states:
But even if Peter is referred to as a rock (actually "pebble") you don't WHICH rock Christ was referring to. There are other verses which refer to Christ as the rock including one by Peter:
1Co_10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
1Pe_2:8 and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
Isa_51:1 "Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, you who seek the LORD: look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were dug.
Isa_30:29 You shall have a song as in the night when a holy feast is kept, and gladness of heart, as when one sets out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel.
Isa_17:10 For you have forgotten the God of your salvation and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge; therefore, though you plant pleasant plants and sow the vine-branch of a stranger,
Isa_8:14 And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Psa_144:1 Of David. Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle;
Psa_89:26 He shall cry to me, 'You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.'
Psa_92:15 to declare that the LORD is upright; he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.
Psa_94:22 But the LORD has become my stronghold, and my God the rock of my refuge.
Psa_95:1 Oh come, let us sing to the LORD; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation!
and others...
The Early Church Fathers believed Christ was the Rock (and his disciples in the church):
"Christ is the Rock, 'For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,' and He did not refuse to bestow the favour of this title even upon His disciple, so that he, too, might be Peter [or, Rock], in that he has from the Rock a solid constancy, a firm faith." (Expos. in Luc.)-Ambrose
"Let no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for 'On this rock,' He says, 'I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. 'I,' he says, 'as a wise master builder have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' How then can they think of any other foundation, when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build on that which is laid? The divine writer recognises Christ as the foundation, and glories in this title..." Theodoret Bishop of Cyr [Cyrus] (396-466)
"And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built. But the perceptive faculties of flesh and blood cannot attain to the recognition and confession of this truth. It is a mystery, Divinely revealed, that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. (...) The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father's revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth." Hilary of Poitiers (ca. 315-367/368)
"The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built...For the Church was founded upon a rock...upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock (Mt. 16.18)." Jerome (ca. 347-419)
“Catholics have build an entire premise around one tiny word of scripture and what they’ve been told to believe.”
No. 2,100 years of history and practice, starting with the Great Commission - predating the Holy Writ. You need to take off the blinders and actually study the Word and the Truth rather than let itinerant preachers and TV evangelists feed you there snake oil.
Nicely stated, H but alas some hold with the title of this thread.
>>I’ll stick with what God says in the scriptures and ignore the Fairy Tales put out by your religion...<<
What scriptures are you reading?
The New Testament of the Bible did not exist for 300 years after Christ ascended into heaven. And it was assembled by the council of Catholic Bishops under the authority of the Pope in Rome. This was to protect the Truth that Christ taught, and weed out the erroneus teachings and heresies which sprung up almost immediately after Christ ascended.
Christ instructed his disciples to go out and “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:20) He did not tell them to go out and write a book.
The gospel of John concludes with these words: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:24)
These are the reasons that the Catholic Church emphasizes that we must look to both the scriptures and the traditions of the early Christian church to gain a more complete understanding of Christ’s teachings. Read the writings of the early Church Fathers to learn more about these traditions, which included the univeral acceptance of Peter as the Bishop of Rome, and his successors, as the head of His church on earth (all of whom, for the first 300 years, suffered martyrdom for their faith in Christ).
Since the Protestant schism, there are now thousands of contradictary interpretations of the scriptures. This goes against Christ’s prayer that all of His followers would be one, just as He and His Father were one.
So, who is following Christ and who is following “Fairy Tales?” I pray that our Protestant brethren will reconsider the effects of their contrary opinions on the unity Jesus desired for His church.
And there were Jews in Rome to whom Peter preached.
As the "Rock" his seminole declartation of Jesus; "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," was the point of eternal salvation and the "foundation stone" was this declaration, not the elevation of Peter over any other saint.
The whole thing gets off on the wrong foot without this understanding, and therein a diminuation of the reality of Grace and the expanse of anti-semitism evidenced from the beginning of the Catholic church. JMHO
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.