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.
Has anyone said you didn’t have that right?
Yea, no kidding. Such a vociferous contention that the RCC has all their doctrines based in scripture then when I ask for a simple proof, Poof, their gone.
you have implicitly assumed that the Holy Spirit has authored the doctrine of fragmentation.
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?
That group think mentality is strong for sure. I’ve been studying how the Babylonian religious influences worked their way into the New Testament church. It’s rather apparent that humans have a reluctance to give up ingrained teaching.
The please explain and justify the existence of both the Roman and Orthodox Catholic churches.
The body of Christ is indeed one. It just isn't the Catholic church.
You are partially right, the effects continuing, but you didn't say what vs. you were referring to???? or how this bears on the questions I posed. So be it. If you don't wish to I'll not press the point further.
But I am curious as to why in your apparent reluctance to respond to those questions I offered you now are willing to introduce the subject of the trinity doctrine, a doctrine I'm certain you cannot successfully defend from the Scriptures.
Thanks for (finally) letting me know it was Luther's words you quoted. While Luther accomplishments are notable indeed I don't treat him as authoritative on Christian doctrine.
Is that the level you want to take this thread? I really think that making it personal especially at that level is beneath what most adults would consider appropriate.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
HA! Great post!
I’ve no time for agitators and willful doubtors.
The testimony is in recorded history, from RCC scholars no less.
"There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." - John 21:25
Nevertheless, the New Testament testifies that the early Church regularly participated in the Eucharist whenever they met together (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; 1 Cor 11:33).
Peace be with you
after He was born, god allowed us to KILL Him, but before He was born, He had all the protection that the almighty could provide....
Unless the Roman church has infallibly declared that Mary was born with a Kevlar-wrapped womb, protection is not the point:
Your post suggested that God would never allow His son to be 'housed in a soiled vessel' (ie: a sinful mother). Considering the fact that Yeshua left His heavenly abode to become a common bag of meat like the rest of us; the whole POINT thereof being that He was to become 'God With Us', to interact with Man in spite of (and because of) his sinful nature; And that while doing so, He would be subjected to actual contact with us sinful creatures on a one-to-one basis... Considering that eventuality in real-time, I fail to see the necessity of a 'sinless, pure vessel' being employed in the 'construction phase'. His exposure to the common and base things began the moment He was reduced to being contained (contain-able) in mere flesh. That His mother was also mere flesh is without significance.
In fact, to call her a sinless, pure vessel detracts from the real point: HE is the sinless, pure Vessel. THE ONLY ONE. EVER.
In the past, there was a distance kept between humans and the place of the Shekinah Glory, *not* because YHWH is too holy to become tainted with our sin - The reason was (and IS) because no sinful creature can stand in the Presence and live. The distance put between us and the Eternal One is for our sake, not for His. He is Holy, no matter what or where or how.
Let's see some statistics and about that:
40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
To see more, click on This Link (Thanks Daniel1212)31% of faithful Catholics (those who attend church weekly, 2004) say abortion should be legal either in "many" or in "all" cases. 2004, The Gallup Organization Gallup Survey for Catholics Speak Out: 802 Catholics, May 1992, MOE ± 4%
Catholic women have an abortion rate 29 percent higher than Protestants. Alan Guttmacher Institute http://www.catholicleague.org/research/Catholic_women_and_abortion.htm
96% of evangelical leaders worldwide disapprove of abortion at least conditionally, with 51% (59% in the “Global South,” including Africa) affirming that abortion is always wrong, with 45% saying it is usually wrong. 84% say that society should discourage homosexuality, and 79% say that men should serve as the religious leaders in the marriage and family, and 71% of the leaders are male, yet 75% think that women may be allowed to serve as pastors. (in contrast to historical Protestantism). http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Christian/Evangelical_Protestant_Churches/Global%20Survey%20of%20Evan.%20Prot.%20Leaders.pdf
The "Ignorati" spew whatever the think has propaganda value the same way they have their little tantrums when things aren't' hateful and nasty enough to further their agenda on a given thread.Oh I think your propaganda is hateful and nasty enough in an attempt to further your agenda.
wow ... you really missed the point
Amen and Amen!
Anyone who has a god who can be contaminated by contact with a human being doesn’t have a big enough god.
OT law said that anyone who touched a leper or dead body was unclean and yet Jesus touched lepers and remained clean.
His cleanness/holiness is greater than our uncleanness and cannot be contaminated by contact with it.
The advantage of that is that even if a group does go off kilter, it doesn't take the whole body with it.
Having a centralized, congregational approach means that if the leadership goes off kilter, it takes the entire organization with it, except for those with eyes to see who get out, and are then labeled heretics.
Thank you for the opportunity to explain. The catechism requires all Catholics to attend confession on at least an annual basis, the Pope is no exception. All recent Popes have confessed at least weekly.
St. Paul was acting in the capacity of what has become known as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the office once held by Cardinal Ratzinger before his elevation to the Papacy. It is its holy obligation to correct the Pope when necessary.
Peace be with you.
The key word is "derived" as it cannot be said that it literally means the same thing, and while it can be said that the English word priest is etymologically derived from presbyteros, yet that this is a misleading and invalid argument for justifying making "priest" the formal title for NT pastors.
The fact is that out of 150 times in which hiereus (priest) occurs in the NT, not one time does the Holy Spirit ever use hiereus to refer to a or the pastors of the NT church (except by way of inclusion as part of the "royal priesthood" of all believers in 1Pt. 2:19), much less for their formal title.
Technically "presbyteros" could not be semantically translated into the English words senior or elder without losing the meaning Rome assigns them in support of their sacramental function as sacerdotal Eucharistic minsters.
And as a Catholic source (R. J. Grigaitis O.F.S.) - while trying to defend the use of priest - states:
"The Greek word for this office is ‘ιερευς (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest took on its definition." http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html
The KJV has it right in using "elder" in such places as Titus 1:5. But Rome used presbuteros for the Latin sacerdos (sacred), which, as even on a Catholic forum it is acknowledged,
is the semantical equivalent of the Greek word "hiereus," but which has no semantical equivalent in a number of modern languages, such as German, French, and English. The reason for this is that the word presbyteros TOOK ON THE MEANING [caps mine] of sacerdos by the very nature of Christ's explication of the presbyterate, to preside at the celebration of the Eucharist." ...This is the case with the English word priest, which is derived from the Latin word presbyter, and has no lingual or morphological relationship with the Latin word sacerdos, but only an inherited semantical relationship.- http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=744379.0;wap2
Thus priest etymologically became (though Rome's use based on imposed functional equivalence) derived from presbyter, though literally it means elder/senior, and is used that way in neutral and non-religious contexts as well.
And all believers offer sacrifices, and while ordination is a specific function of presbyters, the restriction observed by the absolute absence of any distinctive use of hiereus to refer to the presbyters testifies to the distinction being made btwn covenants, and unique sacerdotal function, contra Rome.
Finally, that "priest" being derived from presbuteros (senior) refers to a derivation based on functional equivalence as a consequence of Rome's developing Eucharistic theology has been established: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=603#603 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=4809#4809 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=4756#4756 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=4779#4779
Which should be read first to prevent redundancy.
E-sword shows Petros separately occurring 162 in Greek in E-Sword (157 as "Peter," 4 as "Peter's," and once as "stone"), and which includes many duplicate accounts, and 5 times as Kēphas (Cephas, and separate from Peter/stone) for a total of 167 times.
Peter is also mentioned (my count) as "Simon" separately from being mentioned as Petros or Kēphas) 4 times in Mt., 4 times in Mk., 10 times in Lk., for a total of 18 times, and a total of 185 mentions of Peter as Peter, Simon or Cephas. Unlike the other names, you must examine each occurrence of Simon to get an accurate count.
"Paulos" separately occurs 162 times in in E-Sword, excluding "Paulus," and 25 times as Saulos (apart from Paul, and which mostly occurs after his conversion) for a total of 187 times in English.
Even with the duplicate accounts for Peter, Paul surpasses him by this count 185 to 187. By counting Simon Peter separately you can get a much higher number, but that would be offset by eliminating the duplicate accounts for Peter, which a fair comparison would warrant. .
In any case, and the credentials of Paul are so substantial that he should be far more honored than is manifest by Rome, while the whole numerical argument is not valid, as they should be more ready to admit, and Mary, the mention of whom is quite marginal in the NT, is the one who is most supremely exalted above that which is written.
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.