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.
WOW ! It is patently clear the the Roman "church" and YHvH and His WORD get NO CREDIT !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
does not worship the same YHvH as Christians
and Jews.
O.K., let me get this straight.....for about 1,600 years, the Holy Spirit just let this whole thing get out of hand....Along came the enlightened revolutionaries (reformers) to straighten things out. Just think how lucky we are, now we, at last, know what the Church should have been teaching all along....whew!!
Getting rid of the priests who molested the children as SOON as they found out instead of complicitly covering it up by shuffling them around from parish to parish.
Then not one parishioner would ever have to give it a second thought.
Vicar of Christ - (Latin vicarius, from vice, "instead of") [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15401a.htm]
“instead of Christ”! Isn’t that interesting!
Scripture says that true believers have “Christ in them” but the Catholic Church says they have an “instead of Christ” in Rome. What blasphemy.
Those who have aligned themselves with the Catholic Church who truly wish an eternity with Christ need to denounce the pagan practices of the Catholic Church and become part of the true universal body of Christ with the indwelling of Christ with no need for an “instead of Christ” imposter.
wrong terminology....not proper, complete. The rest of Christianity, that's correct, they are not "complete" unless they REJOIN the Church.....they're not necessarily wrong....just incomplete.
It was not a denomination, those started much later.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.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??
It was Christians.
There were thousands of them in the first century.
Many of those that Jesus preached to followed him, they did NOT follow the non existent Catholic church.
There were Christians back then, but NO Catholics.
Except in the sense of the fact that the Church founded on the basis of salvation and following Jesus, all those members were a part of the catholic church. Catholic means universal, ie all the followers, born again and saved, of Jesus.
Many years later a group of people started a denomination called Catholicism.
Then they co-opted the word catholic, added a big "C" at the beginning of the word, and started proclaiming themselves the only true Christians. [Kind of like the homosexuals taking and changing the word gay]
They were so sure of that, that later they started killing the actual true Christians because the wanted to follow Jesus and his fantastic teachings instead of the "Church Fathers."
Catholics do it all the time listening to what the RCC teaches.
God preserved it. He could have used rocks if needed. No credit would go to the rocks either.
That was a really obvious obfuscation. Deflecting the attention from a statement from scripture however was not overlooked.
The "church" seems to not understand the reason for the tearing assunder of the veil over the Holy of Holies.
that would indeed be a perversion of Catholic teaching and the people and clergy in that community should be brought to task....however that has nothing to do with Catholic teaching.
yes, the Catholic church knows everything about tearing asunder the veil....they were there!
YES!!!!
That we are not free to reject His gift by our actions?????
Two things. One is that the gift has to be accepted. It's not a matter of everyone having it until they reject it. We don't have it until we accept it.
We don't accept or reject with our actions. We do it with our heart.
Our actions may or may not lineup with our heart, but that is irrelevant.
King David was considered a man after God's own heart in spite of his adultery and murder.
God looks on the heart, man judges by the outward appearances. That's the whole purpose of works, to show what's in the heart.
Romans 10:9-13 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Slipping up and sinning does not constitute a blatant, outright rejection of God resulting in a loss of salvation. That is a whole different ball of wax.
We aren't perfect and God knows it and honestly, I don't think He even expects us to be.
That's why I think He seals us with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption, so that when we do slip up, we don't lose our salvation.
Did you see that movie "the 2000 year old man?"
Your very old Pope (see your quote above) was the star!
if protestants keep saying that over and over and over, and over again, someday it may actually be true.
God has allowed Satan to function for much longer than that. It’s the same influence that caused the RCC to go off track from what Christ taught. It’s been happening since creation which is much longer than 1,600 years I would say.
I, for one, did exactly that....there was no excuse for the way the church handled that situation...none. However, (new thought coming up for those concerned with the word however) I went on to explain that the church had undertaken seriuos new policies to alleviate the situation in the future.
now an additional thought...The Catholic church has paid out billions of dollars to victims of abuse....how much has your "denomination" had to lay out????.........crickets
"handle on it" of course, as you know, means taken steps to assure that it doesn't happen again.
that it" happens far more often in protestant churches" statement means that you are living in a glass house and should be very careful when casting stones.
Which “denomination” are you “assuming” any one of us belong to? Have you ever heard any of us put our faith in a “denomination” like the Catholics put their faith in the RCC?
if you were a Christian in the year 456, you were a Catholic.
if you were a Christian in the year 567, you were a Catholic
if you were a Christian in the year 789, you were a Catholic
moving along, if you were a Christian in the year l694 you were either a Catholic or someone who had decided to leave the true church and strike out on your own seeking new and untested waters.....good luck with that!
Your first mistake was expecting an honest and civil discussion with these people. Thankfully, they do not represent the vast majority of our separated brothers and sisters who are honestly Christian enough to be honest in their discussions.
What you will get from these people is lies and insults carefully couched in the rules of the forum and outrageous accusations that have been responded to many, many times. If we allow ourselves to be troubled by the liars, to be goaded to respond in kind or to rise to anger they will have succeeded in thier incitements to sin. Concede the mud hole to the pigs but continue to love and serve the lord.
Peace be with you
or 1609 and John Smythe as first member....whichever..
Sexual immorality within non-Catholic denominations, especially in the cases that I have been personally aware of, are more along the lines of garden variety adultery between a male and female adult, not the homosexual rape of children.
God condemns homosexuality in a different way than adultery, as it reveals a depravity of mind that adultery does not.
Please compare apples to apples.
Oh, and BTW, the cases I've known of ministers who have been involved in adultery, have been relieved of their positions and their credentials have been revoked.
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.