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.
Uh...
What was your final grade in Logic 101?
And yet, when others refer to scripture and find that ROME has some ORAL stuff that ain't there, and they DON'T 'believe' it; you guys get all huffy!
Too bad!
The Other: who just one verse earlier acknwledged Him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God"?
What has ONE to do with the OTHER?
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
Could he 666!
That should have been your first clue that this was a bogus effort. There are slightly under 8,000 versus in the New Testament. That means that, before computers, word processors and printing presses were invented, Luther accurately researched and translated over 200 versus per day. Riiiiiggghhhtt.
Aaaiiyyeee! The post of the Beast!
The unfortunate result is a pope that believes that within their own reality they see the truths no one else can and is completely closed to dialog.
First, I hope your posts amuse you because they are really not funny or clever, only flippant, condescending and disrespectful.
I have seen your consistent posts about bad popes and the lack of understanding of inerrancy, infallibility, the continuing role of the Paraclete, and the Magisterium, however I am not going to debate you on these issues, because I really do not care what you do or do not choose to believe. I have no time for those who choose to focus on and revel in what divides us as Christians rather than rejoicing in what unifies us.
Catholics will continue defend the office of the Pope without defending any of the Popes. No Pope is impeccable, they are men and all men sin. However, no Pope, in spite of his personal flaws, has ever failed to act faithfully to the guidance of the Holy Spirit on pronouncements of matters of morals and faith. That is a testimony to to God, not to Popes.
"But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us." - 2 Corinthians 4:7
Except that Jesus taught us to go to the Father, no.
Jesus never told us to go to priests either.
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."- Matthew 18:18
Leviticus 19:14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
Any one who takes him seriously after a snarky comment like that decerves what they get.
Jesse Duplantis is wrong because Jesus Himself said that the Son of Man had no where to lay His head.
He rode on a borrowed donkey.
It's disingenuous of you to portray all non-Catholics who follow Scripture in his category.
And, no, that is not an example of someone who follows Scripture alone. It's an example of someone who DOESN'T follow Scripture alone but mixes in other teaching.
There are three slightly differing accounts of this exchange; Matt 16:23, Mark 8:33, and Luke 4:8. A harmonized reading of all three shows that Jesus was not referring to St. Peter as the devil. Satan simply means "adversary" and was an admonition to Peter to see the bigger picture and not further attempt to dissuade Jesus from His fate on the cross.
Peace be with you.
I find it very ironic that Catholics should rail against Christians about that when they have translated their Bibles from the Vulgate, making the Catholic Bibles a translation of a translation, and considering the absolute abominable liberties taken in those translations, such as Genesis 3:15 and translating the Greek word for elder as *priest* and then seeing other Scripture posted that contains additions of stuff never found in the Greek.
Acts 17:24-25 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
“I have no time for those who choose to focus on and revel in what divides us as Christians rather than rejoicing in what unifies us.”
I have had this very thought so many times and because of that I spend much less time here now. I’ve grown weary of the re-hashing and re-cycling of old grievances, the way Christians are addressing one another, the “I win, you lose” way of dialogue and even a certain kind of spiritual haughtiness.
I’m happy that I chose to become Catholic 65 years ago. I am grateful to worship the Lord in my Catholic life. And I see the need to show respect for those who have chosen to worship Him outside of the Catholic Church. He is the same Lord to us all.
I have so often thought about how I have given my life over completely to the Lord Jesus and live in the “sacrament of the moment” of His presence in my life. I can believe Him totally when He says that anyone who comes to Him He will not cast out.
Therefore, I am united-—or should be-—in a wonderful and mysterious way to ALL my brothers and sisters who have given themselves completely into His hands.
Catholics appear to be humor challenged.
It’s probably best not to expect them to understand something said tongue in cheek.
I beg to differ. It is precisely an example of someone who follows Sola Scriptura with nothing but his limited knowledge and imagination to render his interpretation. That is precisely the inerrant capability you have been telling us Protestants possess for years. I agree that it may be one of the more extreme examples, but it is not subnstantially or materially different that finding "Rapture", Arianism, Catharism, Albegenism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Moderism, and Protestantism that some would have you believe can be fully found and supported from within a self interpreted Scripture. Or have you now taken the next step and modified your position to mean that only those that agree with your particular self-interpretation are correct?
Peace be with you.
Amen!
"I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought." - 1 Corinthians 1:10
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.