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.
It's very confusing, and difficult to understand.
She once posted to me with italics around a statement that she made, so it lookes like I said it.
LOL, I would NEVER say the things she says.
Pinging terycarl, feel free to c/p everything and post it back to me all squished together if you wish to.
I'll be washing my hair.
How did that answer the question I asked? That post just reinforces my contention that Catholics believe that salvation is contingent on works. Those whose eyes are opened to the disastrous errors of the RCC through these threads will understand the love we who warn against what the RCC teaches have.
According to researchers at Israel's Bar-Ilan University first century literacy was less than 3%.
Peae be with you
Read THAT a couple of times and feel the love...but NOT the worship. NEVER the worship...
I see this post as a very personal one towards terycarl.
I hope that it is noted by the Relgion Moderator.
That should be Religion Moderator.
Didn’t preview as I should have.
Yeah, that’s the one I was thinking of. Can you imagine? Not totally belonging to Jesus but replacing Him with Mary. And still Catholics don’t see the error. Blinded indeed.
You may be right.
Being as it is rather innocuous and an attempt to help her, I won’t push abuse or ping the Religion Moderator.
I’m sure eventually he/she will get to it.
Feel free to ping the RM or hit abuse, I have no problem with that.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention
Yes. And I'm sure people just didn't pick up a scroll down at their local Barnes and Papyrus store. Nevertheless, the early church fathers must have been talking about someone who could read and there must have been mechanisms for studying when they penned their words. Otherwise it would make no sense in who they were talking about. It's almost be like Peter writing letters to people who couldn't read.
Yes, it was the Sacred Tradition and the liturgy that sustained the Church until the advent of the printing press and widespread literacy.
I have never prophesied in His name. I have never cast out devils. I certainly haven’t done any wonderful works.
I am his handiwork, I am His new creation. I know that He will be my Shepherd and give me the grace not to “work iniquity”. I have, like all of us, sinned, but I do not know that I have done “works of iniquity”.
I have never addressed the Lord in the way you have Scripturally quoted Him to me here.
It can be unfortunate to apply certain Biblical verses in the wrong scenario.
I think the details are irrelevant. The main point is that one needs to have a heart for Jesus and His all sufficient atonement only with no “in betweens” or “stand in”. Also that works or efforts on our part are irrelevant until after salvation.
One cannot make a personal judgment about anyone else’s salvation.
That belongs to God alone.
St. Paul said he didn’t judge even himself.
Neither you nor I can or should evaluate the way of another’s heart for Jesus. Jesus, as God Incarnate, deals with each of us on a strictly personal level, as He alone understands how we are made, what graces we need from Him, what is best for us as the unique creation He made.
When offering Scriptural quotes to someone, supposedly for their enlightenment, the details are always relevant.
I think I have expressed myself clearly about this and don’t need to say anymore.
“Now you are the body and individually members of it”Amen yes you are!That being the case, and knowing that as a person who has given myself totally to Jesus Christ, I am a part of His Body.
Jesus also said that He would not cast out any who come to Him. I cannot be cast out for I have come to Him.
True. When you are born again (from above) and believe on Jesus, you are saved and no one can take you out of His hand or Kingdom.
What is to be done with people like me? Say it isn’t true that I am “saved”? No—there is no way that can be said.
No need for that.
You are part of the Body of Christ...made up of ALL those that are born again and who have decided to follow Him.
You are very positive about your conversion to Christianity, that is a good sign!
Don't let Catholism draw you into it's seemingly endless rituals and restraints.
Although the Catholic belief system is fraught with error and needless dogma that distracts from lookin at Jesus (such as praying to Mary, believing that SHE is the only way to salvation...etc etc...btw all sanctioned by their Popes as Gospel) that does not mean that there are no born again believers within their denomination.
Unfortunately, the leadership pushes Catholic Doctrine/Tradition as equal (and in some cases as more important) to scripture, but that is not true.
Stick with the simplicity of Christianity and do be led astray.
I agree wholeheartedly. Neither did I judge anyone’s salvation. I simply posted scripture.
>> That belongs to God alone.<<
Oh really!
The Greek word for judge is “krino” and it means “to call into question”. This is what Jesus means when He says “judge with righteous judgment”. We are to call into question the unbiblical actions of individuals and discern for ourselves whether or not to follow such a person.
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” John 7:24
2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.
>>St. Paul said he didn’t judge even himself.<<
He didn’t write these?
I Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?" (I Cor. 6:1-5)
Just for God you say?
Beautifully put, well done.
We need to keep our eyes on Jesus only. Him alone. He's all we need for in Him we live and move and have our being.
In what way is that a problem?
If CB Scripturally quoted things about Christ, how was it done wrongly?
IOW, I don't have a clue what you're referring to.
What I find incredibly ironic is that virtually every Catholic I have ever met is not sure about their salvation. They tell us that they will find out when they get there, that it's presumptuous to be sure of being saved, they hope they are but don't consider themselves yet.
But when a Christian comes along and tells them that they are not saved unless they accept Christ, they go into orbit.
They have a meltdown and start quoting Scripture (that they don't believe is authoritative), about how we are not to judge others and how dare we declare them not saved, yada, yada, yada.
And all we did was agree with them. Nobody said anything about that Catholic that the Catholic hasn't said about himself, but heaven help the person who speaks it if they aren't Catholic also.
What pushes them over the edge about agreeing with them?
Not to mention that said same Catholics have NO problem whatsoever, telling us that we need to *cross the Tiber* and *come home* or we're on our way to perdition.
So why is that?
Why *Do as I say, not as I do*?
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.