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.
I don’t deny Catholics anything. The inquisitions were a Catholic thing. Catholics have a right to believe anything they want. I also have a right to show where I disagree with them and show why I believe that.
you do realise, CB, when you see a post like this
Cronos to dartuser; Natural Lawit was cronos TO dartuser...actually possess the Holy SpiritWhooa, so are you saying that when you or some other say Oneness Pentecostal comes up with his or her own interpretation (maybe denying the Trinity, maybe denying Christ's divinity), it's "the Holy Spirit interpreting", but you deny the same to Catholics?
interesting....so any interpretation according to you is by the Holy Spirit? Whether John Smith or Charles Taize or Ellen G White etc.?
a little help reading? Moo moo?
touche eh! ;-P you should stay with the group Matthew 18:20 -- we Catholics follow Christ to pray as a community, not stay alone as an individual cynic believing in respecting gays etc..
I also have a right to show where I disagree with you and show why I believe that.
I did a count. Salvation is correct. But are we including the following verses where Peter is called "Cephas"?
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Could you also explain how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes?
Demonstrably false ...
To the objectors who claim that this book was not the Koran, we present an excerpt from an interview with FIDES News Service (June 1, 1999). In it, Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Raphael I affirmed that he was present when John Paul II kissed the Muslim "holy" book:
"On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shi'ite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. ....
"At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu'ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam."
For the full text of the interview
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=10415
Soory for my eventual repost ... Im a little behind on this thread.
Gee, CB, you've never had any takers on that challenge. I wonder why.......
When you're taught all your life that you can't go directly to Jesus, that you have to go through a priest or a church, it's simply beyond your comprehension.
Again with respect, let me say that you did not answer my question as to:
whether or not I did discern from your responses the intent that was on your mind;
to wit, that you have implicitly assumed that the Holy Spirit authored the doctrine of catholicity (the doctrine of an institution external of the local church and superior to it, which would govern the local assembly and the constituents therein).
Is this not what you had assumed (without Scripturally proving it), and were attempting to use this unproven concept in furthering your line of argument?
The evolution of the centralized hierarchy with all power focused through it has led to most of the heresies we see in Christianity today. The worship of Mary, the control of God's grace through men, the belief you can take the good works of one person and impute then to another, the belief that individuals must work their way to salvation are just some of these heresies. Really what we are seeing is the self perpetuation of an institution.
The Biblical model of governance was always a decentralized, congregational approach. The Jerusalem Council is a perfect example of this. In this case the ultimate decision was arrived at by the members of the church, not one autocrat.
What did Jesus say about it? how many times does Jesus mention Paul.
Who besides Paul himself refer to him being an apostle.
This is not about the Gospel but only about authority and notoriety.
There is no real proof that any one was to be a pope, Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you.
It is what we do with the Gospel of Jesus in our every day lives that we need to think about.
Any one can put scripture together that they choose and come up with what ever they want but it does not make it a fact.
History is full of things that may or may not be true depending on whos eyes it is seen through or how much was added to it for notoriety.
Billy Bonny for instance is now known as a desperado and leader of an outlaw gang and had killed twenty one men, but the facts show that he may have killed four men in the Lincoln county war which he had nothing to do with starting.
I realize this may be a poor example but Peter or Paul nor the Church is not where are salvation is, but only the Gospel of Jesus.
You can see that the initial center was from a council in Jerusalem with Barnabus and Agnabus being from there to Antioch.
Then, the question of Gentiles -- this was not left to each local church or individual to decide, but sent forth : 23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment
They are sent out from one central council.
After the martyrdom leadership is vested in the persons of +Peter and +Paul. You can see this in the way their epistles are taken as central containing doctrine
This is why Paul writes to the Churches across, scolding or ensuring strictness to the true faith
From the time of +Ireneus in the middle of the 2nd century you see that the whole Church from Gaul to Syria affirm the primus inter pares of the successor of Peter and Paul. Note of course that this is why the successor to Peter and Paul is necessary for each council and why St. Jerome wrote to Pope Damasus in the 4th century that "I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul . . . My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built! (Letter 15)"
Because he used the word “apparent” he was expressing his own mind and not reading yours.
LOL So there are more who don’t care what the meaning of presbuteros meant as it was written by Holy Spirit inspired writers during Biblical times? Go figure.
Trying to make the current day priest into something resembling the Old Testament priests is not a new concept. Many people don’t understand what the true meaning of the office of priest signified. Neither did the Samaritans as evidenced in 2nd Kings.
The false priests of the Catholics surely resemble the false priests of the Samaritans. Curious that.
Statements like that indicate that there is a total lack of understanding of this discussion. How can I illustrate that the meaning of the word gay today is not what the meaning of the word gay back then was? Or do you really think it’s the same?
So you would say that because Kennedy was a Catholic and supported abortion I should assume that all Catholics support abortion? Is that how the Catholic mind works?
If you wanted to address just one person perhaps it should be taken to pm. I’ll remember the view you just expressed and will wonder when you address a post from others that wasn’t specifically addressed to you. Psst, your desperation is showing.
Clement of Rome writes, "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason . . . they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians, 44).
Remember that the successors to the Apostles were distributed, but sent forth from one bishop appointing presbuteros and so forth, in strict apostolic succession
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.