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.
Absolutely. It is the very same thing as the Pharisaical oral tradition, performed in exactly the same way, and with the very same result.
D12: The question is not whether the entire church was apostate, as cults or unlearned argue, but whether being the instrument and steward of Scripture, which you hold Rome to be, makes such them the indisputable authority, with perpetual assured infallibility, and without whose sanction one cannot have authority.
Is that basically your argumentation, as I am still waiting for your answer.
TC: Yes
Well then, you have effectively just nuked the church, as it was born in dissent from those who were the stewards of Holy Writ and the official teachers of it, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Mt. 23:2) having historical descent and being the inheritor of the promises of God. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6)
But which did not require or equate to perpetual assured infallibility or authenticity through formal descent, and like Rome in presuming a level of assured veracity and authority above what is written, (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) they challenged the unsanctioned (by them) authority of the Itinerant Preach of Nazareth; (Mk. 11:28-30)
Who reproved them by Scripture for teaching as doctrines mere tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) and established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And that Scripture was the supreme transcendent material standard for obedience and testing truth claims is abundantly testified to in Scripture.
Therefore, as it is clear that OT writings were supernaturally established (essentially due to their unique Divine qualities) and truth preserved before there was a church in Rome, (Lk. 24:44) then it is manifest that Rome's assured infallibility is not necessary for that. Nor does being the stewards of Scripture and official teachers of it mean the same cannot be seriously in error. But what is revealed is that God is able to raise up men from without the official magisterium to reprove it and carry on His truth. And that is why the church began in dissent, and that is how it has sometimes been preserved.
The issue here is how authority is Scripturally established and continually verified, which is by the above means of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, for of such is the kingdom of God,. (1Cor. 4:20).
In contrast, your assurance cannot be from that means Scripture, lest you be a evangelical Protestant, but it rests upon the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome, who has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. But which formulaic assured infallibility is not what is taught in the Scriptures.
Moreover, while RCs argue against the supremacy of Scripture on the basis that man's fallible human reasoning cannot provide assurance (contra 1Jn. 5:13) and results in division because they lack an infallible interpreter, yet RCs do not have an infallible interpreter of their supreme authority, the magisterium, and must also rely on fallible human reasoning to discern what magisterial class teaching falls into, and thus what degree of submission is required, and to some degree what it means, and even their decision to submit to Rome relies on fallible human reasoning. .
In addition, under the Roman Catholic model, that of sola ecclesia, in which the Church is supreme, then you also have divisions and substantial disagreement. And if you doctrinal unity itself is the goal, then certain sola ecclesia cults win the prize.
Ultimately, souls find assurance the same way they came to realize that Jesus was who He claimed to be, which was not by looking to the official teachers as assuredly infallible (though they are needed), but by seeking the Lord in the light of Scriptural substantiation.
While that method must allow for even the devil arguing Scripture, it compels the church to overcome evil with good, by the word of God, by holiness and the power of God, (cf. 2Cor. 6:4-10) manifesting that it is the church of the living God, (1Tim. 3:15) not its institutionalized counterpart that largely goes about sounding its own horn.
May all real believers better manifest that Jesus is risen, and “hath showed Himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs..” (Acts 1:3) And may God forgive us and me for coming short in that to varying degrees.
But which did not require or equate to perpetual assured infallibility or authenticity through formal descent, and like Rome in presuming a level of assured veracity and authority above what is written, (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) they challenged the unsanctioned (by them) authority of the Itinerant Preach of Nazareth; (Mk. 11:28-30)
Who reproved them by Scripture for teaching as doctrines mere tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) and established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
I was referring to the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary.
Swan has done some homework.
Yes, it is not good to nuke the church. And to be consistent, they would also be rejecting this Itinerant Preacher saying,
“By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? “ (Mark 11:28)
Hold on! Aren't we regaled with the "meaning" of the Greek words when Jesus spoke about "eating" His flesh, that He was really implying to "gnaw" on His flesh? I seem to remember that from threads gone by. How ya gonna gnaw if ya don't use yer teeth???
Is it apparent yet how futile it is to even argue doctrine with some people?
Adam and Eve were created "innocent" which is a whole lot different than "sinless". They certainly proved soon enough that they were more than capable of sinning. By their sin, the rest of creation was under the consequence of sin and ALL humanity inherited the "sin nature". Jesus, because he is God, was truly the only human who was sinless - born sinless and remained sinless. He was conceived within the virgin - meaning he had no human father and did not inherit the sin nature. Mary was born as a normal human being to two parents who were born as normal humans and they were ALL under the consequence of the sin nature. Catholics and others call this "original sin", but, in reality, it is the sin nature we all inherit from our first parents.
And just like Adam and Eve, we may be innocent as little babies but it doesn't take very long before our tiny little sin natures introduce themselves to the rest of the world. Before we even knew what sin was, we were sinning. It is not disrespectful of Mary to admit she was a sinner, because she is human and God says ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is simply being true to what the Bible says, and that takes priority over what people think and develop with their traditions. If others want to believe that Mary did not have a sin nature or she didn't need a savior like we all do, they can go right ahead. It's when religious leaders usurp what Scripture says and mandate belief in their traditions in order to be saved that we will have problems.
Well, you did. Here was roamer_1 comment referring to Christ.
>>”pure Vessel. THE ONLY ONE. EVER.”<<
You then made the following comment.
>>”along with Adam, Eve, and Mary”<<
How can anyone read that differently than roamer_1 said Christ was the “pure vessel” and you said “along with Adam, Eve, and Mary”.
>>but as the Immaculate Conception states....Mary was conceived and born without original sin.... <<
Scripture doesn’t say Mary was sinless. It only says Christ was sinless.
Spewing my morning milk...
Oh yes it does. Born under the law of sin and death.
Romans 6:14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Mary was born under the law of sin and death and could not have been sin free until Christ took those sins upon Himself and paid the price for those sins.
>>Now, when it says "all have sinned", do you think that includes Jesus, or that Paul by mistake made a horrendous and embarrassing blunder in his writing, or do you think that Paul assumed his readers were smart enough and discerning enough so that he did not need to add, "...except for..."?<<
Well, let’s see what scripture says about that.
1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, >who knew not sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1 John 3:5"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." >>the Catholic Church told you that those two "Books", "Romans" and "Galatians" were part of the Bible<<
Catholics like to give glory to man. God could have used a rock to bring us the scriptures He wanted us to have. It was God who preserved His word to us. I don’t need to “listen to the Catholic Church”. I have the Holy Spirit and God’s clear words to us through the inspired written word.
That was one of many I referenced. Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, and other cults all claim to have those “new revelations”. I’ll stay with what Jesus and the apostles taught.
Jesus never said he came to start a new religion. It's not about religion. It's about relationship.
He came to restore our relationship with God, to give us a new heart and the opportunity to be with God forever.
It's not about setting up a new system of rules and regulations and do's and don't's.
Religion is man's effort to reach God. Jesus is God's effort to reach man.
Religion is about works. Jesus is about forgiveness.
I did do a keyword search on the Holy Spirit and found what you said. But the discussion was about men and the claim that Peter's name was recorded more than all the other apostles put together, and that is not correct. Paul is an apostle and his name alone shows up more than Peter's, so it simply disproves the claim, making that argument for the primacy of Peter invalid.
I see.
All of Paul's letters are scripture...They are scripture for all time...
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
God did not have Pope Paul write a letter just for those attending his sermons...Pope Paul's writing are scripture and are good and applicable for all time...
I have a copy of the letter...It was written to me as well...And it was written to you, if you happen to be a Christian...
Wonderful post, metmom. So simple. Going to steal it for my discussions with a family member.
Have a wonderful day!
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.