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.
LOL you gots that right!
Strange how some posters who misread a message right away ping the Religion Moderator and castigate the poster that did no wrong.
Then when others are simply trying to get to the truth, there is the sound of crickets.
They have no shame except the bucket full of it that they like to throw at Christians for...well...in one case... knowing two ways to spell a word!
I imagine they have a stat somewhere that only 3% of Christians are literate...heh
Jesus preached to thousands in those days.
Many of them became Christians, not Catholics.
There were no Catholics back then, only Christians.
All Christians are part of Jesus' catholic...universal...church.
Putting a big C at the front only waters down Christianity for those that wish to see the Catholic denomination as containing all Christians, with none exist outside of it.
Jesus taught something different from that.
there was no Christian "competition" at the time
And there is none now.
Except for JW's, LDS, Islam (which Pope declares has the same God as Christianity.)
(Those are NOT Christian, reading the Bible closely should confirm that for anyone truely seeking God's word, praying to the Holy Spirit for guideance)
Christians don't compete for prominince, they love one another.
Catholism is attempting to be seen as the ONLY proper "church" and the rest of Christians....well they aren't unless the join the "Church."
The "church" seems to not understand the reason for the tearing assunder of the veil over the Holy of Holies.
Based on Catholic lies from the pit.
Christians are born again saved followers of Jesus.
All Catholics are not born again followers of Jesus.
The Catholic leaders want their subjects to pass their lies to others over and over again so they will appear to be the truth.
The word of God is a two edged sword that can cut those lies out of those that try to foist them off as Christianity.
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.I see you got a reply, but big crickets on that part of your posts.
You would think Catholics would flock to that statement and loudly say they renounce those actions completely and unconditionally.
That's pretty Biblical, but maybe not "Sacred" Tradition approved.
Handle on it?
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?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
the effecacy of a sacrament does not depend on the state of sin which the minister of that sacrament is in
Allowing molesters of kids to do what the Catholics hold up as one of the most important, Holy things it does? Allow them to do THAT while "in a state of sin?" The sin of molesting children in the most vile base sexual way?
Christians churches would NEVER let anything close to that to happen.
For shame.
Example of an unacceptable answer:
*but* that happens much more in Protestant churches.
Tattle TailI see this post as a very personal one towards terycarl. I hope that it is noted by the Relgion Moderator.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...
Dang I was hoping the Religion Mod was a hot babe.
Can you say that on the RF?
I know I can’t post the pic the Admin Mods sometimes post of them, something like 4 hot babes IIRC
It seems they have removed it from their profile page
Hardly a reply. Just more excuses and deflection.
I took the liberty of bolding a bit more than was originally for impact.The teachers, ministers etc. are not "more guilty" nor did I say that...there
were just more of them.Your exact words were (copied and pasted) all those other groups are FAR more guilty of child molestation than are Catholic clergy.....far more.
No where did you say or imply it was because of numbers.
This is the second time the lack of edit function has proved useful.
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.GAG!!! That is just so revolting.
It ought to make a difference. God didn't tolerate it from His priests in Israel.
It's amazing the Catholics and the Catholic church think it alright for hands that touched young innocent boys in an inappropriate sexual way can also touch their sacred eucharist
If Jesus Christ did indeed become the eucharist, I'm sure the priest's hands would be dissolved when he touched.
Similar to touching the Ark of the Covenant should the punishment be. (Yoda speak...)
Yes, of course.
Catholics are very good at picking one part of a post to reply to, leaving the hard questions unanswered.
VERY much like Mormons.
and protestant clergy, teachers, scout leaders think it's O.K.?????? what do you mean they know better???
O.K....if not the Roman Catholic church, then which denomination started at the time of Christ followed His instruction and guidance more closely.....for the entire 2,013 years.....from beginning until now??
He really didn't mean "THIS IS MY BODY" and He probably didn't mean "THIS MY BLOOD"...you can never trust God to say whet He really means.....at least not among some.
More like the guy who drank from the wrong chalice in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I just have to get something straight in my mind....(honest question)
are you saying that no matter what you do....good works, BAD works, nothing at all....that because Christ died on the cross, everyone who believes that He did that will be saved??? That we are not free to reject His gift by our actions?????
I didn’t include Protestant clergy because they also know better.
Those claim to be representing God have an extra responsibility because they KNOW better in a deeper way than others. Not only are they teachers and moral leaders claiming to represent God to the people, they often have to deal with the fall out of what that kind of behavior can leave in its wake.
Those who hold up a moral standard are more responsible to live it than others.
Nice attempt at diversion, though.
nice catch!!! the statement was definitely judgemental, and the small "c" was a typo.. "Catholic"...I stand corrected!
NONE!!!!!
That's what we've been trying to tell you.
The church, the true body of Christ, is not about denominations. It's not about religion. It's not about organizations.
It's about the body of Christ, called the church, being built up of all true believers WHERE EVER they are, whenever they lived, whatever church or denomination they choose to affiliate with.
No one denomination or label is the true church because a relationship with God through Christ is not about labels and rules and regulations.
The body of Christ is an organism, a living organism, not an organization, a dead system of works.
I don't know what *church* boatbums attends. Nor Cynical Bear, Syncro, presentlynoscreenname, daniel1212,smvoice, etc but I do know that they are brothers or sisters IN CHRIST because they have put their faith in Him for their salvation.
They are part of the church; they are the church.
No, other than Catholic those engaging in those type of sin are FIRED and admonished and prosecuted.The Catholic clergy are far more guilty because they know better.and protestant clergy, teachers, scout leaders think it's O.K.??????
The Catholic church only acknowledged the molesting sexually of children AFTER they were caught.
Many of the offending priests were sent to other parishes where they had a fresh supply of young boys to treat as their little sex toys.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!
They just winked and let it continue. Catholic church, be ashamed!!!!
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.