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.
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/adding_bible.htm
That is why God gave you free will, so that you could be free to choose sin and reject Him. Yours was a poor choice.
At least I don’t use the tools and symbols that those who served Baal used. I know God didn’t like that.
No sense in getting personal. Besides, I don’t support birth control so you made a false accusation. A twofer the way it looks.
I apologize. The post did not read the way I intended and does look like a personal attack. I have already asked the Religion Moderator to remove it.
Apology accepted.
Just pointing out with statistics that your hateful accusation of “Christian” women includes millions of Catholic women. Yea, you have a point, maybe the Catholics aren’t Christian.
Facts is facts.
Are you possible (sic?) saying that Jesus could not have transubstantiated that bread into His body?Now why would he do that? I doubt that transubstantiated is even in the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic languages. Or Pidgen.
And no wonder, the whole scenario was made up many years later.
I have taken communion from a Catholic priest before, and it just tasted like an unleavened cracker.
Jesus took some bread and broke it and HANDED it to one of his fellow diners at what is called The Last Supper.
And He said, Take and eat, this is my body, do this in remembrance of me.
It was still bread, still tasted like bread.
It was NOT his literal body obviously.
If it was, it would have tasted like flesh.
And it wasn't magically turned into his body. (Nor was his body changed into a big loaf of bread)
It's a mystery I know, kinda like the Trinity.
It IS his body, but it is still bread.
Jesus doesn't inhabit the Catholic cracker, he doesn't have to.
We take the bread and wine and say, This is your body, broken for me and we take it and eat it.
I guess it is magical in a sense, because it is bread AND His body, just the body part isn't literal
At best that is an argument from silence, and thus we should not make doctrines out of it, while Mary never having sinned is contrary in principle to the manner of revelation in Scripture, in which far less notable pertinent things are recorded, as well as being sinless, while much of Mariology is not, and she is rather marginal even in the gospels, noble and holy as she was. See THE MARY OF CATHOLICISM
Thus, while you argue from Scripture in condescension to us (as your doctrine is not dependent on warrant from Scripture), you are really arguing on the basis of tradition, but your tradition-based brethren deny this (among some other teachings of Rome) as being contrary to tradition, and this (among other things) does not have the unanimous consent of the fathers.
CynicalBear, please show me the text in the Bible that contradicts that Catholic teaching.
I believe you do not mean that it "contradicts" the Bible, but only that you cannot find a text in the Bible that explicitly confirms that event.
You don't believe that EVERYTHING that ever happened in Biblical times was put into the Bible somewhwere, do you?
For example, do you believe that Jesus Christ had a 16th birthday? Do you believe Jesus and His Mother Mary ate some kind of food on that day of his 16th birthday? Can you prove that from the Bible? (Show me the actual text of that.)
The Bible NEVER claims to contain "everything about everything" that happened in the Holyland during Biblical times. (If you disagree, show me the text where it DOES claim that.) To believe that is in itself an extra-Biblical belief -- you are believing something that is NOT contained in the Bible. In fact, if you believe that Mary simply died and was buried and remains there in her tomb or grave like most other people, show me the specific text in the Bible where it explicitly tells you that. If you can't (and you certainly can't), then you too are believing something that is not explicitly stated ANYWHERE in the Bible. You are NOT a "Bible-only" believer.
Do you believe Peter died, and Paul died, and John died?
If so, please show me the texts in the Bible where those three deaths are recorded.
If there are no such texts in the Bible discussing when, where, and how they actually died, but you still believe that they died, that is NOT a contradiction of the Bible -- it just means that many true things that really happened are NOT recorded in the Bible, and it is very likely those three men DID die, though the Bible is totally silent about all that.
A contradiction to the Assumption would be a Bible text that explicitly stated that the Assumption did NOT happen. If you can find no such Bible text, than there is absolutely NO contradiction in the Bible to that teaching, anymore than saying that the statement "CynicalBear is trying to live as a Christian according to CynicalBear's best understanding" is a contradiction to the Bible because that information about "CynicalBear" is not explicitly contained anywhere in the Bible. That is not logical, and does not represent a true contradiction whatsoever, just something that is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, like so many other things that, nevertheless, really, truly happened.
Do you believe that the "Ark of the Covenant" which God instructed Moses to have built to God's specifications, was important, and that God promised Moses that He would communicate with Moses from the Cherubim Gold statues on the top of the "Ark of the Covenant", as claimed in these texts?
Exodus 25:10-22Do you also believe that the "Ark of the Covenant" was important enough to appear in God's temple in heaven, as seen in a vision and related here in the Bible?10 “They shall make an ark of acacia wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height.
11 And you shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without shall you overlay it, and you shall make upon it a molding of gold round about.
12 And you shall cast four rings of gold for it and put them on its four feet, two rings on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it.
13 You shall make poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold.
14 And you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry the ark by them.
15 The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it.
16 And you shall put into the ark the testimony which I shall give you.
17 Then you shall make a mercy seat[a] of pure gold; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth.
18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat.
19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends.
20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.
21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark; and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you.
22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you of all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.
Revelation 11:19Do you believe God commanded all humans to honor their mother, and that everyone should obey that commandment?19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.
Do you believe God can and does do miracles at times?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ was born from only one womb -- Mary's?
Do you believe that God's special presence (Jesus Christ) inside of Mary was just as important as God's special presence talking to Moses from those gold cherub statues on the top of the "Ark of the Covenant"?
Please consider all these things prayerfully.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Mary was “under the law” so was a sinful person as “all” have sinned.
Galatians 4:4-5, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."
>> You don't believe that EVERYTHING that ever happened in Biblical times was put into the Bible somewhwere, do you?<<
I believe that we are told all we need to know. Making stuff up or adding to Christ’s words were rather looked down on.
>> A contradiction to the Assumption would be a Bible text that explicitly stated that the Assumption did NOT happen.<<
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. Now you’re trying to say that there was one other before the “first resurrection”.
>> Please consider all these things prayerfully. <<
No disrespect but what makes you think I haven’t? The nonsense of “if scripture doesn’t say it didn’t happen then we can say it did” is exactly what the Mormons, Muslims and other cults claim. The special revelation will have dire consequences.
So who were the mothers of Adam and Eve?
I have to get a copy of the Catholic Bible, so I can read about the birth of Adam and Eve.
Your pronouncements are pretty much in line with the LDS (Mormon) doctrine. (this gem, and also the Catholics having "another gospel" [superior to the Bible as the BOM is also] to supplement the Bible.)
Christian Bibles tell about God CREATING Adam, and then Eve from his rib. Pretty outrageous, huh? No wonder your denomonination put them in the "born" column.
who said they were????They, like Mary and Jesus were BORN, in their case created, sinless. They did sin later, but as the Immaculate Conception states....Mary was conceived and born without original sin....
'Magic' mumbo-jumbo.
So after the consecration at the Last Supper, Jesus admonished the disciples to "do THIS in remembrance of Me"....to you that is magic mumbo jumbo???? How very sad for you, you will never know the wonderment of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as He promised.....sad
yes
The key thing here is the word *remembrance*.
Jesus did not instruct His disciples to participate in sacrificing Him, killing Him, but rather to do the ceremony to REMEMBER what HE did.
What Catholics don't seem to realize they are saying in their mass is that they are participating in His crucifixion, in the act of killing Him.
In one sense, we are all responsible for His death, but to participate in His continual sacrifice every time they take communion just kind of tells me that they are missing the point.
Nope, that would be consubstantiation, I think that the Lutherans might teach that but Catholics teach that is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine...
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.