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.
You may excel in Catholic philosophy but you are failing in bible 101...
I will use this verse as an example which we were recently discussing...
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.
Now you guys have a bunch of Cardinals...They wear different color clothes from each other to signify what office or how much authority they have over each other...And the official robes of course signify they that are not just run of the mill Catholics...
These guys are transported around in limousines, they sit in the most prominent places at public conventions, they are bowed down to...
The bible does not say you can not have a Cardinal...But the verse posted eliminates any consideration of the office of Cardinal...
The same with the assumption of Mary...Like you say, the bible does not say Mary was or wasn't assumed into heaven...But we know from the rest of the scripture that she wasn't...
I suggest YOU consider all these things prayerfully, with an open bible in front of you...
Merely??? In remembrance is the key...It tell us WHY we do this...It tells us it is a memorial, not a feast...And you learned that at Mother of Good(?) counsel School, and in the 4th grade???
Brilliant, Lera! And inescapable...
Exactly...And that puts the lid on the pot...That verse alone proves once and for all that Mary was NOT sinless...
That brought me down memory land. My 3rd grade classmate, Andy, didn't know what hit him when he returned to the pew and sat down. He was, immediately, pulled from the pew by his collar and dragged down the aisle to sit in the back of the church. No one else knew either - but Sr. Clement who happened to see him moving his mouth. The control Gestapo was in full force.
Pope Paul didn't assume his readers were smart enough...These people were taught that Jesus alone, was sinless...
Act 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Why would you think Paul would teach that all had sinned but had left important scripture out???
1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
So it is alright then if people add to and take away from the rest of words God spoke to us???
Amen, amen, and amen.
And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
Genesis 3:8-9
From the beginning, it's always been about relationship.
Why don't you answer the questions???
So it is alright then if people add to and take away from the rest of words God spoke to us???
Have at it.
PM me on how it works out for you.
The Young's Literal Translation may be clearer concerning the curse:
And Jesus had a lot to say about the traditions He encountered every day.
Matthew 15:1-9 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.
7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 8 “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
And He taught that people were wrong because they didn't know Scripture.
Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,.....
Oh I think the Holy Spirit is doing a great job working through posters on this and other threads to point out the extra-Biblical errors deeply embedded in some of the "sacraments"
It;s not the Holy Spirit because The Holy Spirit would NOT overturn 2000 plus years of Sacramental teachings in favor of 500 years of inconsistency from the time of the Reformation by those who lack unity with each other on Sacramental teaching
Restricting the Holy Spirit in any area is counterproductive to understanding the Truth. And the Way and the Life.
That's very silly!
We know the Holy Spirit has spoken final on things like The Divinity of Christ, so we know when someone denies the Divinity Of Christ it's not from The Holy Spirit.
I don't think you seem to understand the amount of heretical teachings that can be applied when you say there is no restrictions on The Holy Spirit. There can ONLY be ONE TRUTH,dear sister
I do not doubt that some traditions of men are innocuous, e.g. the order of a worship service.
But I choose to avoid them all because even though some are obviously counter-indicative to the words of God, there remains the risk that a tradition of man might be offensive to God or to one of His own adopted children (Romans 14).
For instance, it troubles me that so many Christian religions have altars that they use in their service, especially of the bread and wine. I do not know if it troubles anyone else. Nor do I question the sincerity of the ministers or priests or congregations who attend such services.
But in my spirit, there is only one altar on earth where blood sacrifice can be presented:
Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD: - Deut 12:11
And the altars that [were] on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, did the king beat down, and brake [them] down from thence, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron. – II Kings 23:12
And of course, God allowed those earthy types to be destroyed almost two thousand years ago, not to be re-established until the end of Gentile's era by my understanding of the prophecy. (Romans, Daniel, Revelation)
We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. – Hebrews 13:9-16
Give God the glory, not man, never man.
You really should read entire Church documents
Here is more from DOMINUS IESUS by Cardinal Ratzinger(Pope Benedict XVI)
For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit";81 it has a relationship with the Church, which "according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit".82 21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it "in ways known to himself".83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the "unique and special relationship"84 which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God.
Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God,85 and which are part of what "the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions".86 Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God.87 One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments.88 Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.
And FWIW, I'm aware Pope Eugene and others and I suggest you read the following to understand further the mistakes that people who don't understand Catholicism make
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/vandrunen-on-catholic-inclusivity-and-change/
http://catholicism.org/has-the-church-changed-its-teaching-on-no-salvation-outside-the-church.html
The reality is, that people who are invincibly ignorant, yet love unconditionally and follow the Law of Love written on their hearts are mystically connected to The Church and attain Salvation through the Church
The extra-Biblical Gospel of Catholic Tradition which is just dogma of your denomination is not God breathed.
Restricting the Holy Spirit in any area is counterproductive to understanding the Truth. And the Way and the Life.Unless that was posted from ignorance, it is close to blasphemousThat's very silly!
Show me any scripture that says man can decide if the Holy Spirit can NOT do as It pleases.
We know the Holy Spirit has spoken final on things like The Divinity of Christ, so we know when someone denies the Divinity Of Christ it's not from The Holy Spirit.
Any Christian knows that.
It has NOT spoken in agreement with ALL of your church Fathers pronouncements over the years. Including the dogma concerning communion.
I don't think you seem to understand the amount of heretical teachings that can be applied when you say there is no restrictions on The Holy Spirit.
Now if anything is silly, that is!
I don't think you need to worry about anyone elses heretical teachings, perhaps you should search your own heart.?
Do you not see that God did not appoint you or the Catholic church as the final word concerning the Holy Spirt's function and ministry?
To quote your post: There can ONLY be ONE TRUTH. Embrace the Truth. And the Way. And the Life. (That's Jesus)
Oh BTW, noted the condescendent attitude of your reply.
Life happens...
Another LIE from Rome.
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.