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.
Or Baptists with John the Baptist being the first member, if that's more like what Catholics want to hear.
I, as you know, was referring to a screw up against me...and as far as I'm concerned, it goes unnoticed......unlike small "c's"
I have made a statement in this court.....if you wish to refute my statement, you do the research...HINT...it is VERY easy to find......very easy!
We present the truth....not some man made "church of what's happening now" denomination....then we teach them the truth about Christianity verified by over 2,000 years of history.....then, if they decide that we are right (we are) they willingly join our COMPLETE Christian religion.....simple as that!!!
The Pope has been vicar of Christ for over 2,000 years....I don't think old Tom has quite reached that milestone
Only half-way...
NO ONE SAID MORE GUILTY....just more of them are AS guilty.
I am not saying anything.
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
NOW we’re getting somewhere!
While it is obvious that we do not see eye-to-eye in many repects; your dogged determination to state what you DO believe is to be commended.
I do?
I'm sorry; but when a statement is made that can be taken more than one way; I'll probably choose the one that WASN'T intended by the writer.
So; who's at fault?
The Reader or the Writer in failing to get clear communication established?
God doesn't tolerate it from Catholics either....however, the people have no way of knowing the condition of the priests soul. God, therefore, administers the sacrament to the recipient who is worthy to recieve it, and deals with the priest on His own time......how else could it possibly work????
There you go; you've missed MY poinbt!
How do you get them in the doors to HEAR the truth?
You've confused the OFFICE with the MAN.
I guess I should answer this again, this time responding to how it was writtenThe Catholic clergy are far more guilty because they know better.and protestant clergy, teachers, scout leaders think it's O.K.??????
No, protestant clergy, teachers and scout leaders do NOT think it is OK that the Catholic clergy are guilty of molesting children and when caught being able to continue the molesting.
No, it's the "Church" that is at fault here. Protestant clergy, teachers, scout leaders are united in knowing that.
aanother good catch!!! two in the last few posts!!
obviously, what I meant to say (and didn't) is that the other groups are guilty of far more child molestation accusations (clear that up too.....many are 30 years old and somewhat dubious)
If you have data, you need to provide it so someone can refute it. You made the initial statement, it is your responsibility to support it or it can be rightfully disregarded (IOW blown off) by anyone on the forum.
Nobody is going to chase around refuting someone's say so because there is nothing of substance to refute, just opinion.
It's absolutely hysterical that someone spouts an opinion and expects people to accept it as if it's written in stone.
Guess again.
another honest question please:
where on Earth did you read those words and the whole of revelation?
if you read them in the Bible, how did you get a copy of that if it was written 2,000 years ago?
if someone wrote down a "book", REVELATION, and wrote it on papyrus, how did you ever get a copy of it????? Papyrus doesn't last for 2,000 years (normally). How much is your papyrus version of revelation worth????
chances are that you have a printed copy of the Bible and that it is the KJV.....every book, every word, every text, every everything in that book was saved and preserved for you by the Catholic Church...except for the word "alone"
Absolutely someone did say MORE guilty.
I will direct your attention to post #2349
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=2349#2349 of this thread.
It says, and I copy and paste.... 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.....
Yes, someone did say *more guilty* not *as guilty*.
That's three times for the lack of edit function.
Perhaps you could address the poster of the comment and have it out with him or her.
You know, it is so strange to me how some just cannot seem to grasp this difference and they will continue to insist that what they believe IS the same thing that Scripture says. The simple truth is that, if we are saved by grace apart from our works, then that same grace keeps us saved apart from works. What WE do, our works, our good deeds, our "corporal" works of mercy - whatever term you want to use - do NOT in any way factor into the cause of our salvation. Just like God says, we are saved NOT by righteous deeds that we do but according to HIS mercy and grace by Christ Jesus. If only the blinders would come off and people could see the truth about God's grace, they would be saved and a huge burden could be lifted off their shoulders to live in newness of life confident that the good work God began in them would be completed at the day of their redemption.
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (Romans 8:32)
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.