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.
All who are Catholic have been baptized ie: all are born again
Sorry, baptism does make a person “born again”, it just makes them baptized.
If you're born again, you're going to heaven. Jesus taught that.
Are you sure of that?
you can't possibly believe that all who claim to be "born again" are going to heaven....there are many Catholics who will fail to get to heaven and there are many protestants who will be right with them. You can't say "I'm born again" and then lead whatever kind of lifestyle that you choose. It would be nice if it worked that way, but it doesn't!!!
>> “What I am trying to say is that, is that, instead of arguing on the “small details”, find what can help bring Christians from all the different churches together” <<
.
There is no value in bringing conflict together, because that requires compromise, and compromise always means that evil is forced on all.
Better that we go out as individuals, as Christ instructed, and spread what solid truth we may have to as many people as possible.
It worked in the first century, resulting in spreading the gospel to the entire world, and it can work again.
The Catholic church made the original translations...they know what they're doing. Without them, we wouldn't have a bible at all.
Unless, of course, the person doesn't have the means, motive, or capacity to form the intention of the heart - Otherwise, they are just getting wet.
Being baptized has nothing to do with being born again. Did you read the scriptures I posted?
It explains born again and salvation.
So Pelosi is born again?
All infants baptized are born again?
If that is a "proper" baptism, then a Catholic who does nothing else spiritually their whole life and dies at 82 years old, he/she is saved?
Born again means saved period.
Scripture does not back up your statements.
If you disagree, show me where you get your information. Scripture would be best, but Catholic doctrine will do for a start.
In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was “Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
In other places in scripture Jesus is referred to as the “corner stone”, but the rock that the church is build on is the Father.
If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.
Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
I’m sure you meant “does not,” not “does.”
LOL!!! :O)
Interesting, when Augustine FINALLY understood the truth, people thought he was crazy. Not unlike me. :O)
That is what we are called to do, go out and spread the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Sorry, baptism does NOT make a person “born again”, it just makes them baptized.
>> “people thought he was crazy.” <<
.
Or, more likely, they hoped he was crazy, because thay had no desire to go that way.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=347#347
It was addressed to you, but you may have not read it.
It's very inspiring.
BTW-It was Cyprian question “What do you you have that you have not received?” that pushed me over the Calvinistic edge as it did Augustine. If one thinks about that question and what it truly mean, they would come to the same conclusion as Augustine.
Funny, how the early fathers were very Calvinistic in their views. ;O)
That meme has been trotted out so often it’s gotten rather stale. If you can’t show where anyone said that Catholics need to stop using it. Should we also say that by becoming Catholic a person can live like they want just like the Kennedy’s? Or should we assume that by being a Catholic one would naturally be for abortion because of the percentage of Catholics who vote for pro abortionist Democrats?
So you give credit to the RCC instead of God for preserving the Gospel?
lots of luck with that theory....there is one true Christian religion and it is Catholicism. If you claim to be a Christian, but choose not to follow the Catholic church, you are a protestant. Some of the early followers who wandered off into various heresies are actually neither Catholic, Christian, nor protestant.
as to "truth seeking Catholics" who split away during the revolution, they were mislead and drawn away from th true church and weren't seeking truth at all, they were following charismatic people who decided that they could alter and otherwise change the church to suit themselves....tragic!!
Oh, please.....without the Catholic church you wouldn't even know who Jesus Christ was. For 1,600 years, the church carried the message of Christ to the world and you think that somewhere in the 16th century the truth of Christianity came out of the woodwork??????
Luther, Wesley, Calvin, Henry VIII, Zwingley et al knew of Christ because the Catholic church had taught them about Him!!!
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.