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.
Your Catholic faith that believes in man and their doctrines/teachings.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ the only Son of God
Jesus is The Word Who was from the beginning and the Son of God. So if you believe in JESUS, the Son of God - His WORD must be the Final Authority in your life - IS IT?
You believe Jesus so that goes in hand with what HE said that - Salvation is a GIFT of GOD and it is NOT of yourself it is NOT by works. You can't believe in Jesus if you don't believe what He says - DO YOU?
""For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the GIFT of God--NOT by works, so that no one can boast."
Hmmm, how many Popes would NOT qualify as Bishops?
Or is Pope lower that a Bishop without a need for those qualities?
If I may I would like to give my answer to that. No, it’s not a waste of time. Many who lurk these threads who have had questions see the error of the Catholic doctrines and practices by what is shown in these threads. Like you evidently have been doing they don’t post but do read. The amount of Catholic threads that are posted that no one but Catholics may post on must be somehow refuted in these types of threads. There are those who “lurk” who learn.
You are going to get some arguments from the “pure” Catholics here regarding this line from the article: But it is James, the physical brother of Jesus Christ...”
I’ve had to study from where they get that belief. It’s actually fascinating, on several levels.
How many times is Peter’s name in scripture? More than all the other apostles put together.
I’ll need to do a word search on Satan.
I’m not so sure.
Some people have commented on benefiting from the conversations.
It’s sure helped clarify some issues for me.
I only catch the discussions as I’m scanning new posts, and their tactics never vary. I would find it exasperating.
“”Many who lurk these threads who have had questions see the error of the Catholic doctrines and practices by what is shown in these threads.””
Actually, I found it to be the other way around.People who I have encountered on PM expressed to me the spirit of confusion they reorganized by anti catholic posters
Anti Catholicism is not the Spirit of Christ.
I’m reminded by something I read once from a convert who was once a satanist who spoke about dealing with protestants and born againr’s when she was possesed
This is what she said...
From Deborah Lipsky...
“After I left Satanism I joined a religious cult and spent the next eighteen years denouncing the Catholic faith and proclaiming that the Blessed Mother was nothing more than a demon in disguise,” she writes in a new book. “It wasn’t until 2011 when Our Lady made herself known to me in a very personal way that I saw her love and compassion. Even for me, someone who had made it a point to ridicule her in the name of Christianity. She delivered me from my personal demons and the hope she gave back to me is to be shared with all who read this book.”
When she was a practicing Satanist, says Lipsky:
“I used to take pleasure bringing born-again Christians to their knees if they tried either ‘exorcising’ my demons or speaking to me of Jesus’ love. Protestants of all denominations were also ‘sport’ as they quickly buckled under my power when they tried to convert me. However even back then I feared the Catholic priest as I knew, as did my demons, that I was no match for the power that came through him from God.”
Lipsky, who speaks at churches and also gives presentations on autism (she has a master’s degree in education), warns that born-againers who declare themselves immune from evil are deceiving themselves — and that Mary, so often disparaged by denominations that seek to put down Catholicism (and thereby bolster their enrollment), has indeed been granted extraordinary powers against the evil one.
From..http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/09/former-satanist-details-workings-of.html
Correction
reorganized should say “recognized”
I do believe that was covered up thread rather conclusively and no Peter’s name is NOT mentioned more than Paul’s is. Paul’s name is actually mentioned more than Peter’s is. Another Catholic myth debunked.
I do believe that was covered up thread ...
Yeah, after commenting I realized I was in page one of several thousand posts. My bad.
I usually bow out of this kind of thread. Everything worth reading is in the first couple hundred posts. After that it is too much “Christian infighting” and I try to avoid it.
Who says we don’t find it exasperating? LOL
I suppose when one has not been called by God as one of His chosen one will drift from error to error.
“I used to take pleasure bringing born-again Christians to their knees if they tried either ‘exorcising’ my demons or speaking to me of Jesus’ love."Yea, demons don't like to be thrown out.
Interesting take on born again, that is what a Christian is.
Yea, bring "born agains" to their knees if they speak to her of the Love of Jesus.
Sounds like the demons speaking.
They HATE to hear of Jesus' love.
Being as Mary can't remove demons, only Jesus can, it's no wonder it didn't work.
Jesus can free her.
ONLY Jesus.
Baptized is what Christian's are in the born again sense, not the modernity of how it's applied today in liberal Theology.
You won't find historical christian writings to back up modern usage of what born again means
Yea, bring "born agains" to their knees if they speak to her of the Love of Jesus..Sounds like the demons speaking.
She testified the demons were not afraid of the born agains. You just affirmed what I already knew by your response in trying to protect what the demons are not afraid of-which is the spirit of anti Catholicism
She knows catholics believe anything.
Cool!
NOW you are quoting ex-SATANists!
The demons knew not to be afraid of things unholy and were not afraid of the anti catholic's, instead the demons brought them down
The key word is EX. Jesus drove out the demonic and cured people!
It would do everyone well to study demonology to know what your up against in this world.
The late FR John Hardon was an expert in this field. Here is what he wrote about this
Here is a few excerpts...
We should say something more about the tactics of the devil, here as seducer of human minds and wills.
The evil spirit seduces the mind by making error appealing. What we now call advertising goes back to the earliest days of recorded history. The ancient Romans publicized what they wanted the people to get with resources they did not have. Today’s world in the most absolute sense of the word is the age of advertising. The average cost of advertising in America today is over one hundred and fifty billion dollars every year. Not incidentally this amount of money is enough to support more than one nation, especially in Africa and Asia.
The evil spirit capitalizes on this phenomenon and literally seduces millions. He makes them think they need what they want, just because they want it.
Take the tragic instability of family life in America. The annual average is now over one divorce for every two marriages. In the future, it will be even worse as the children of broken homes reach marriageable, and -we have to coin a word- divorceable, age. Yet always divorce and remarriage seem to be the easy way out. It looks like a quick solution to a deep problem. And the press, radio and television sustain the falsehood by telling married people of the benefits of divorce. The laws of our country abet the conspiracy by making it next to impossible to save a marriage if one of the partners wants to be released, as they say, from the tyranny of a husband or wife.
The evil spirit tries to seduce not only the human mind but also the human will. He entices our wills by releasing our passions. He wants to arouse the passions of the flesh and, what is less obvious, the passions of the soul. Why should he want to do this? What connection is there between passion and sin? The connection is that of cause and effect. Sin always leaves its mark on the sinner. It is like throwing a bottle of nitric acid into a person’s face and burning out his eyes. Every sin we commit weakens our powers of reason and intelligent perception. The more serious the sin and the more often committed, the greater is this induced darkening of man’s most precious possession, which makes him most like God, his ability to think. Sinners do not think, they emote, and then write learned volumes defending their irrationality.
How otherwise explain the crimes of a Stalin or a Hitler, who sent millions to their death in the cold deserts of Siberia and the gas chambers and hot ovens of Germany? How otherwise explain the mania of abortion?
No human beings, unless inspired by the devil, could be so cruel as to murder millions of innocent children. Only demonic hatred or lust for power and pleasure could explain what we are now witnessing in one once civilized country after another.
The apostle St. Peter tells us how to cope with the evil spirit. Peter knew because already in his lifetime the devil had seduced many who had been followers of Christ. The quotation is a bit lengthy but is worth giving in full.
All of you practice humility towards one another. For God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God that He may exalt you in the time of visitation. Cast all your anxieties upon Him, because He cares for you. Be sober, be watchful! For your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking someone to devour. Resist him steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same suffering befalls your brethren all over the world (I Peter 5:5-8).
What, then, is the first and indispensable condition for resisting the evil spirit? It is a deep, sincere humility of heart.
As St. Peter tells us, we are not to be afraid of the evil spirit. Why not? Because we have the grace of God, one of whose main purposes is to resist the machinations of the devil. At the same time we must be watchful. This means we must expect to be tempted by the father of lies. We must have a clear mind in order to distinguish inspirations from the good spirit and instigations of the evil spirit.
We must be sober, which is a strange word in our drink-preoccupied society. Sobriety, in the language of scripture, means temperance in the use of the creatures in our lives. God wants us to enjoy some of the things that He gives us. But, He also wants us to endure, and endure many creatures; He wants us to remove some creatures; and He wants us to sacrifice many things that are naturally pleasing. All of this is locked up in that strange word, be sober.
The devil knows us very well. He cannot read our secret thoughts but he can conclude to our inner spirit by our external behavior, and even, as exorcists tell me, the emotional expressions on our face. When St. Peter tells us not to be afraid of the evil spirit he means more than meets the eye. He means that we should not even show by our emotions that we are afraid of the devil. Our emotional expressions, in what we say, how we react, how we allow our feelings to manifest themselves in our bodies – all of these are dangerous in dealing with the devil. We must not only be at peace inside, but manifest a peaceful attitude in our external behavior. The devil is especially influential in mastering those who are afraid of him.
The courageous behavior of Christ in His temptation by the devil is a pattern of how we should deal with the evil spirit.
One strong recommendation, never engage the devil in conversation. I mean never. If you must tell the devil to depart; if you want the devil to go, tell him, but never engage him in what could even be interpreted as a friendly conversation. I have had enough experience of people foolish enough to engage in conversation with the devil who have suffered disastrous consequences as a result.
One more recommendation based on St. Peter’s injunction. Be strong in your faith. This is not a pious cliché. It means that we exercise our faith, courageously undertaking what we believe God wants us to do and not be afraid of the consequences. The faith we need is the faith of living martyrs in our day. We are to be witnesses of the power of Christ as a divine exorcist and never allow ourselves to doubt that God’s grace in our lives is more powerful than all the demons of hell.
Interesting take on born again, that is what a Christian isI know nothing about your modernity etc etc, it isn't in my being.Baptized is what Christian's are in the born again sense, not the modernity
of how it's applied today in liberal Theology
I'm not surprised that you deny the Scriptural state of being born again and deflect to nonsense which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Unless you have bought into it.
She testified the demons were not afraid of the born agains
The other nonsense I mentioned that she said shows her state.
She needs to have Jesus remove the demons that her depending on Mary to remove them (got a scripture that makes Mary have that power? Don't bring Jesus into the answer, as He wasn't mentioned in the removal) just caused them to have a stronger grip on her.
Your last sentence is incoherent.
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.