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.
But he rebelled against God and denied the all supreme power of God. It’s like Catholics do today by claiming that they need to somehow “earn” part of their salvation. Even to the extent that if not enough is done in this life to “atone” for sins they are sent to purgatory to finish the payment.
Those who truly “believe” on the Lord Jesus Christ believe that He completed the payment for sins perfectly and no other “atonement” is needed.
well I guess I assumed a little, for example, I assume that you attend Sunday services somewhere???? I assume that you tithe to someone, so I just assumed that it was a denomination.....I guess that you could send it to one of many T.V. "evangelists"...sorry
1. Paul. Why wasn't Paul numbered with Peter and the 11? Paul speaks of the twelve as a SEPARATE body of apostles when he says that the resurrected Christ was "seen..of the twelve" (I Cor. 15:5). Get that? He did NOT consider himself one of the twelve that Christ sent out to proclaim God's kingdom at hand, or offer it to Israel. Paul's apostleship was separate and distinct from that of the twelve. Paul cannot be considered as one with the twelve, for just as eleven apostles would have been too few for God's kingdom plans, so thirteen apostles would have been TOO MANY for God's kingdom plans. There will be TWELVE thrones (besides Christ's) in the kingdom, NOT thirteen. HENCE Paul belonged to ANOTHER PROGRAM, and was sent forth to proclaim ANOTHER MESSAGE. That's what Roman through Philemon is all about.
Paul speaks of the twelve as a SEPARATE body of apostles (I COr. 15:5). Why is this so important to understanding Christianity, St. Peter, and Rome? You tell me. What about Paul? Where will he fit into Christ's Kingdom when He returns to set it up? And WHY did he NOT number himself with Peter and the 11, if he was another one of them? p.s. Paul and Rome we know about from God's word. Peter is strangely absent from Rome in GOd's word.
Just like happened to Israel. They also have been in error since Christ was crucified. Are you saying the Jews have not been “let” in their error since? What’s so great about the 1600 years you claim the RCC was there before Luther? If your contention that “God would have never let the Church lapse into error” held any validity than the Jews would still be faithful to God’s word because they after all were His chosen people. That meme of how long the RCC has been in existence hold no credibility. Time and time again God’s people have fallen away from worshiping Him in the way He commanded. And time and time again God has brought something to put them back on track.
It’s time Catholics understand that they are still with the group who stayed under the curse rather than repent and change.
In one of your own posts you said a priest in a state of sin could do the conscreating ritual.
And not let them do much of anything?
So it is not much of anything that they knew these priests were forcing children into vile sexual acts and sent them to other areas where the did the same thing?
That is totally unacceptable.
Catholics just ignore that? That sure isn't handling it right and is NOT taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. In fact, they ALLOWED it to happen over and over again. Pathetic.
This claim can only be claimed by a PRIDEFUL organization. We all know where the sin of PRIDE comes from. And from whom That is not what you said.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Nope, apples and oranges. Actually the incidences of priest misbehavior along these lines fall much more along homosexual lines that paedophilia....chicken hawks as they call themselves, preying on young, near or post adolescent boys. I'm sure that priests are also guilty of relationships with adults of the opposite sex, but this discussion concerned incidents of sex with minors, and the Catholics are still far behind,IN NUMBERS, than the aforementioned groups
LOL!
No they didn't. They were a part of the body of Christ, the universal (catholic) church.
Scripture doesn't mention Catholic, only catholic.
Forcing your extra/anti Biblical belief system into the New Testament is a futile endevour.
>>I assume that you attend Sunday services somewhere????<<
What’s so special about Sunday? Can’t believers gather every day? Can’t they let’s say gather each day at noon for instance? “Where two or three are gathered in my name there I am in their midst” says Christ. Would you say that could be around the dinner table? How about gathered around a camp fire for praise to God? When Christ is “in us” wherever we are their He is!!! Catholics think they have to “go meet Him” or something like that. How sad.
>>I assume that you tithe to someone,<<
Tithe? Seems like the least we could do. Who said that had to go to some organization? Does that “tithe” have to be money or can it be assistance for those that need it in some other way? I know that Catholic even in this forum like to brag about how much the Catholic Church does but I prefer following scripture.
Matthew 6:4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
>>so I just assumed that it was a denomination.....<<
Only the carnality of man has established the need for organized religion and such things as “denominations”. The gospel of Christ is much less cumbersome and contains much less carnal error. He simply offered Himself as the perfect and complete sacrifice for our sins and eliminated the need for any intermediaries by destroying the veil that separated us from our God. Now when the Father sees us He only sees Christ in us because of the covering of the shed blood of Christ. Catholics are much to encumbered with the shackles of the legalities of the RCC which denies the blood of Christ.
Nope! The people who followed the Savior Jesus Christ, were known as "Christians":
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. (Acts 11:26)
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28)
However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. (I Peter 4:16)
The followers of Christ were called Christians and it was after the first century when the faith Christians held began to be called "catholic", because it was recognized as a universal faith that ALL those who followed Christ held to the same faith in Him as Savior, Lord and God.
Please delete my account. I no longer wish to expose myself to the sin that pervades the Religion Forum and concede the cesspool to those who created it.
I do wish you peace.
--- God made that very clear in the Bible ---It doesn't really matter.
Which Bible?
No one can get anything out of it except by the Holy Spirit.
That's the method I use, and it is very effective with almost any translation.
well it does stretch credibility a little....however, since Christ was God, and Hecertainly knew what and how He intended to form His church, it is not completely without merit to go back that far.....and the fact that noone knows the exact year or day helps....We're dealing with approximations here, not that the exact year had any meaning at all...
sure He will, it certainly is not the fault of the recipient that the minister is tainted....The sacrament is of Gods doing, the priest merely administers it, if you are baptized by a bad priest, you are baptized, if he hears your confession and administers the sacrament of reconciliation, you are forgiven your sins, if he marries you, you are married...He may be in trouble with God....you are not
That would probably be true, however, the Catholics have first hand evidence that it took place. While they may not have witnessed it, they certainly heard about it the next day!!I can guarantee however, that there were no Lutherans nor Methodists there....probably not even 1 Baptist.
Still having trouble seeing the fruits of the Spirit?
Too much TRUTH here? You betcha!
Wonder why ‘under the influence’ created such an uproar against a freeper when it wasn’t even there? hmmmm...Where’s that peace and love? Where’s the fruit?
However, I think it’s the liberal approach, it’s someone else’s fault.
God’s Word is the FINAL Authority FOREVER. Love IT and share IT.
Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
you know very well that in the first instance I added "except for the ten commandments.
in the second statement, the stones didn't cry out, did they??
God will NOT administer a sacrament that is tainted by the sinful hands of a priest who continued to use those hands to abuse young trusting childrenGod hates sin.
Indeed he can, but without the authorization to do so by the church. If the priest is in a state of mortal sin, he can still perform as a priest....his ordination allowed him to do that. The church, of course would not approve if it knew of his sinful stste, but nevertheless the sacraments that he administered would be fully beneficial to the recipient...if he married you, you are married.
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.