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.
Ooops that should be hearsay. My bad.
Fixed it ...
Yes, really. Jesus gave Simon the name of Peter (Cephas/Rock).
You mean when he followed it with this?
Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get you behind me, Satan: you are an offense unto me: for you consider not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Possibly.
Great ~ thanks.
And thank you for doing so.
I have not attacked anyone...As the post indicates, your religion was built on the idea that the Church is a Roman Church and it's first leader lived and died in Rome among other things...
The bible shows these things not to be true...And as such, your religion will not lead you guys to eternal life with Jesus Christ...You might wonder why I care...
Beats me...I'm thinkin' God layed it on my heart...
Historically, the only significant highly religious person, prophet and 'church' leader that lived in Rome prior to Paul establishing a church there was a Simon Peter Magus
There is church history outside of the Catholic religion...
Simon Peter NOT With Simon Magus in Rome
Later, about the fourth century, a flood of works came out about Peter encountering Simon Magus in Rome and overthrowing him. But these works are clearly fiction. Almost all scholars realize the absurdity of maintaining such a thing. In the first place, it can be Biblically shown that Peter The Apostle was NEVER in Rome when these fictitious writings say he should be.
It was NOT Simon Peter who went to Rome to become Apostle to the Gentiles, but the SIMON in Rome was SIMON MAGUS!
That Peter the Apostle was not with Simon Magus in Rome is made plain by the Encyclopedia Biblica, col. 4554.
"The attempt has been made to meet this by pointing out that church fathers mention the presence of SIMON in Rome while at the same time NOT speaking of controversies between him and PETER. This is indeed true of Justin [one of the earliest witnesses -- 152 A.D.] who knows nothing of any presence of Peter in Rome at all, as also of Irenaeus."
Not only did Justin feel that Peter was NOT in Rome at the time, but his deliberate silence shows he didn't want to perpetrate such fiction. After all, Justin lived very early in the history of the church, and the legend of the Apostle Peter's being in Rome HADN'T GOT STARTED YET! Continuing with the Encyclopedia Biblica about Justin's reference to SIMON MAGUS: "One part of this tradition -- that about Simon's presence in Rome -- he [Justin] found himself able to accept [in fact he held it to be confirmed by the statue, which he brought into connection with Simon]; the other -- that about Peter' s presence in Rome -- he was unable to accept" (col. 4555).
Of course Justin was unable to accept the latter teaching. The fact is, Simon Peter was NOT in Rome. It was another Simon who went there -- SIMON MAGUS, the one bringing "Christianity" to them in the guise of the old Babylonian mystery religions. Simon came to Rome with the grand idea of stablishing a UNIVERSAL RELIGION in the NAME of Christianity! And what is remarkable, he did just that!
Next, we will see how Simon Magus became later confused with Simon Peter and how he cleverly brought "Christianity" the mystery religions of Babylon.
That has easily been proven wrong...You should do a little actual research to keep from looking foolish...
I thought everyone except dedicated anti-Catholics already knew Dave Hunt's Babylon fantasy is based on old lies.
Not only just Catholics disagree with this fantasy based trash. Hislop recognized that there was a large anti-Catholic audience and facts weren't something he cared about. He only cared about increasing sales of his anti-Catholic lies by tying them to the wave of of interest in archeology in Europe at the time.
Regular Christians who are just interested in keeping him honest by calling him on constantly misquoting noted Christians.
A great many people are well aware that Hunt bases his entire book on known lies and fantasies from an earlier era. As such, honest Christians who just want to keep fellow Christians from error work to show how Hunt is catering to the anti-Catholic market by publishing known lies.
And in particular, as the previous link shows, a noted author investigated the primary source of all of Dave Hunt's anti-Catholic lies and propaganda and realized it was all fiction based on Hislop's work, then withdrew his own book from publication because he had taken Hunt at face value and relied on his work.
It was obvious that Hunt was just repeating Hislop's work. After all, if the same lies helped Herbert W Armstrong gain followers, those lies are sure to have an audiance who will pay to read them. Aside from references to archaeological digs and historical sites that don't exist and never have existed, it contradicts known factual connections in the very areas it claims to base conclusions on.
There are more than enough sites where non-Catholics who are only interested in the truth debunk both Hislop's work and Hunt's work that is based on it. Those who haven't decided they don't care about the truth as care their anti-Catholic agneda can clearly see the "Catholics are pagans" lies are based on the same sort of scholarship the Book of Mormon is based on; the market savvy of the the author of the lies and nothing more.
If you find someone defending Hislop's work, either as quoted by Hunt or in the original work, you find someone who is either a dedicated anti-Catholic and doesn't care about the truth, or someone trying to make a quick buck by feeding known lies to an existing audiance who loves the lies, or both.
What was it that Paul was writing and passing around amongst the individual churches??? Copies of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd???
How can you guys be so naive???
Christian faith is like a family tree with its different branches.
Logic??? I try to avoid logic...Logic is for people who don't know something and then have to take a shot at their best guess...I prefer to just believe what Jesus says and teaches thruout the scriptures...
But anyway, your argument fell apart when Martin Luther wrote the bible in the language of those who wanted to know what God really said...And they found out from those very scriptures that your religion was lying to them left and right...No logic at all...
Church on sunday is just a farce.
The sabbath is the Lord’s day. There is nowhere in scripture that changes that etrernal fact.
Easter? fine day of pagan worship. Yeshua’s followers have the Passover. These things are unchallenged in the scriptures.
LOL...I was left speechless...
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
But there's one HUGE problem...Your (plural) faith is in your man made religion, your popes, Mary, your good works, your Saints, etc....Your religion is your faith...
My (our) faith is in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and the free gift of salvation thru faith, alone...
I can not unite with your religion...You'll have to unite with me in praying ONLY to God thru Jesus Christ if you want unity...
>> “God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.” <<
.
I firmly believe that anyone that fails to repent of celebrating pagan days like christmas and easter will not find eternal life.
But i do not think we are to keep any days except the ones God told us to keep.
I do not have anything against the Nativity scenes but the satan garb and lights on trees and the junk people buy for their kids just to buy their adoration is sickening.
Don,t Jesus tell us to feed the hungry? where does he tell us to fall over backwards to pacify each other?
Easter? i have yet to see a rabbit egg.
Anyone who he had told.
ridiculous, you are being silly.
I'm glad to see you agree with me...Or do you???
NOT to your assumption there.
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.