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.
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=1120#1120 for clarfication
Actually its kind of exciting to watch the creation of another Protestant Frankendoctrine before our very eyes..........
That is the root of most of "Reformed" error. In fact, Protestantism assumes the Holy Spirit not only does not, but cannot work through Catholics and the Catholic Church. One has to wonder at what point in the history of the Church Protestantism believes that became the case. My educated guess is that that point is subject to the circumstantial interpretation of the individual Protestant.
Peace and Blessings
But everyone recognizes an attempted diversion away from the issue of massive infanticide with abortificiant contraceptives.
It’s interesting to see how some people respond to the issue of infanticide with abortificat contraceptives by trying to change the subject and talk about abortion by other means. People who do this more often than not do so because they know their Self Worship doesn’t protect anyone who is a party to that massive and ongoing infanticide from the feelings of guilt and shame they have when the subject of abortificiant contraceptives is broached.
Matthew 23:27 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
The Self Alone crowd preach and teach that everyone who cares to can apply a little “Christian Liberty Grease” to help them squeeze and slither past the fact that abortificiant contraceptives murder an unborn infant. When anyone dares to clearly state the fact that murder by contraception is still murder, the Self Alone crowd immediately try to shift the focus to abortions done more or less in public at clinics and hospitals which is, they say, the appropriate place to object to infantacide.
Matthew 6:5 And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward.
You see, even if they don’t personally use abortaficiant contraceptives they have a vested interest in keeping the “Christian Liberty Grease” handy should they ever need a bit for their self to squeeze past the truth if they decide they "need" to use a Day After Pill or something similar.
Matthew 23:27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.
So here we have a group, a group that prefers Pharisees who denied the deity of Jesus Christ and murdered Christians, to Jesus Christ Himself when it comes to what should be in the canon, telling the world that when it comes to abortion, what is personal and private doesn’t count as abortion and doesn't matter. For the Self Alone folks who have their "Christian Liberty Grease" handy, abortion only matters if it’s done publicly among and with other people. Which just happens to be the exact opposite of what they teach about all other matters of faith and morals.
Ehpesians 4:14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive.
For everything else related to faith and morals, they preach it is only their personal and private lives that matter, not what they do in public among and with other people. How very typical of those who now preach as the truth regarding contraception, the exact opposite of what they preached with regard to contraception for over four hundred years.
Is it any wonder that just like those hypocrites spewing it, their anti-Christian anti-Catholic propaganda and hyperbole is totally out of touch with reality ? Only those who worship their own, Most High and Holy Self, who base their love of "Christian Liberty Grease" on an argument from silence becuase contraception isn't specifically mentioned in the subset of the Scripture they do accept, who then claim that Christ not specifically mentioning there being something wrong with the Septuagint doesn't mean the Septuagint is His Word because it's an "argument from silence", and have completely reveresed themselves to now teach as truth the exact opposite of what they taught as truth for four hundred years, would counter an objection massive, ongoing, infanticide with abortificiant contraceptives by screaming, "Oh yeah, well where's the public civil disobedience over that other third of abortions?”
Only the deluded, dedicated, Self Alone Cultists who worship their own, Most High and Holy Self could pretend that individuals murdering two of their own children with contraceptives for every one medical abortion performed is mitigated somehow by other people not restraining those who seek abortion as a procedure, especially after so recently trying to sell as an immense horror old throughly debunked lies and exaggerations about people being restrained seven hundred years ago.
Perhaps the Self Alone crowd should actually study and meditate on some of the Luther Subset of Scripture they pretend to believe and apply that Scripture to their own lives before they join the anti-Christian anti-Catholic Self Worship that who deny even the words of Christ Himself.
Matthew 7:3 And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye ; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye ?
Matthew 7:4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother : Let me cast the mote out of thy eye ; and behold a beam is in thy own eye ?
Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy to dogs ; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.
Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you : seek, and you shall find : knock, and it shall be opened to you.
Even Luther, who in order to rationalize breaking his vows, excuse his own lack of self control, better indulge his drunkenness, and win favor with the princes and nobles he preferred to continuing to try and serve Jesus Christ never dared to contradict a direct quote of Jesus Christ Himself.
Matthew 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
Mark 14:22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body.
Luke 2:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
I Corinthians 11:24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
I Corinthians 10:16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
Those who continue to deny the deity of Christ by calling Jesus Christ a liar can fool themselves however they like, but they should get used to the idea of hearing, "I never knew you" from the very Jesus Christ they deny is God.
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 7:16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ?
Matthew 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.
Matthew 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.
Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven : but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name ?
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
How can it be anything except a satanic lie from a convenient spirit when someone claims that that murdering your own children is good fruit rather than thorns as long as it’s done with poison rather than a knife or suction tube? No matter what these Self Worship cults say, whether it's the Self Alone Cult of the Dairy Cow, Cult of the Dead Cow, Cult of the Grateful Dead, or any other group claiming to be Christian and preaching Self Worship disguised personal rewriting of Scripture, you have to walk the walk of imitating Christ in all things doing what Christ expects us to do, not by revising Scripture to rationalize away murder and self-gratification.
I Corinthians 9:27 But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection : lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.
Luke 6:46 And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?
The Self Alone crowd thrives by spreading the same old lie, “Surely, you will not die the death”, that Satan told Eve and in doing so, spread false assurance to lure those who follow Christ into falling away and going along to get along with the anti-Christ pagan society that encourages infanticide, pharmakia, lust, and everything else that opposes what Christ said was expected of us.
18:17 Matthew And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
This has brought shame upon my tribe. :O)
just where and how did God preserve scripture other than through and by the Catholic church???
I recall reading someewhere in scripture about a crucifixion...pretty much a fatal happening, and all the unborn are under the protection of God I think you can look up chapter and verse all by yourself!
Christ gave the power of transubstantion to the Apostles, they in turn handed that power down through a lineage of apostolic succession. ONLY the Catholic church and eastern rite Catholics have an unbroken line.
So then, what's hierus translate into???
give us a few examples of those means...there was no Christianity outside the Catholic Church, no one to translate anything, and remember, the Catholic church was in possession of whatever true manuscripts that existed.
For example, how is "Protestant" now not too broad a brush when it enlarges the pool someone wants to compare to Catholics but far too broad a brush to use when someone points out anything that isn't easy to manipulate away with a calculator and the right sample set? How convenient, apply a little of the "Christian Liberty Grease" and slip right past the two thirds or more of all abortions the majority of Evangelicals do approve of and look only at the third or less that weren't done quietly with a proper application of "Christian Liberty Grease". Sure, they have no problem saying those tacky people who waited too long to take a morning after are having bad and nasty abortions since they should have just sucked down the right pill every day and not made a public spectacle of murdering their own child.
Roughly one quarter of the population claim to be Catholic, half of them because they were baptized as a child and for no other reason, than any other Christian group. Another ten percent of the population claims to have once been Catholic. And for some reason someone is supposed to be surprised that out of roughly a hundred and ten million people there more sinners who have fallen away when tempted, ceased to live a Christian life, and otherwise proved what Scripture says regarding the wheat and the tares than there are good examples of their faith?
I'm not the least bit surprised, in fact, I feel sure Satan works much, much, harder to have Catholic folks fall from a state of Grace than he does to convince those who already go along to get along precariously balancing on the razor's of a Christian walk anyway.
Those folks are on the razor's edge because they've fallen for the Self Alone heresy which makes them easy pickings for Satan. They've already accepted the same lie Satan told Eve, so he can convince another cool ten million of them to drop their cross and follow their own path rather than Christ just by funding a new Self Alone Prosperity Gospel Televangelist tomorrow. He sets a few million of them at a time on the path to their own destruction then gets back to what takes real effort, trying to pry faithful Christian hard cases in the Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Churches, conservative Lutheran Churches, and all other faithful Christian churches, away from Christ.
What's really hateful is ignoring people marching to Hell because it's easier to go along to get along than to carry a cross and pretending that if the truth might make someone uncomfortable it's better to let them go to Hell.
while scripture is 100% accurate, it is not necessarily 100% complete. While the church never changes scripture, she certainly knows that things happened that were not recorded. Tradition, word of mouth (which is the source of most scripture) certainly play a significant role in church history. Just because someone didn't write it down, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
isn't there a passage in the bible that states exactly that.....many things happened which are not recorded here???
while scripture is 100% accurate, it is not necessarily 100% complete. While the church never changes scripture, she certainly knows that things happened that were not recorded. Tradition, word of mouth (which is the source of most scripture) certainly play a significant role in church history. Just because someone didn't write it down, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
isn't there a passage in the bible that states exactly that.....many things happened which are not recorded here???
I know it, or archiereus (high priest), is not once by the Holy Spirit for presbuteros in the 150 times these two words occur in the NT, but you have forgotten that Rome does not simply translate what she will, but she transubstantiates what she will as well, so (not exactly, but) the covenantal distinction the Holy Spirit made by the absolute absence of hierus for pastors is changed into warrant for Rome to do what the Holy Spirit did not, in supporting a class of men uniquely offering expiatory sacrifices for sin.
And again, what is your argument, that being the steward of holy writ requires, or means what?, as you have not clarified it as requested: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=993#993 re http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=948#948
Catholics worship God, we honor Mary as the mother of Christ (God), and didn't James mention in one of his epistles something about faith, without corresponding works is empty and meaningless???
How many times do I need to tell you that I don’t give credence or credit to man? I give credit and glory to God alone. It matters not to me who God used to preserve His words to us. If thinking the Catholic Church was responsible than you go right ahead and feel good about that. Since it matters not to me I’ll not get into that discussion or research.
At least you have a lot of company in that belief. That should make you feel good. Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, and many others have “revelation” that is added to what they consider scripture. I know that Catholics like that “belonging feeling” of large numbers.
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.