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.
>> “And there were Jews in Rome to whom Peter preached.” <<
.
Yes there were jews in rome, but there is absolutely nothing that places Peter in Rome ever.
The apostles called the assemblies they visited and themselves Catholic? Could you show proof of that from scripture please.
My son just asked a Catholic girl to marry him and another son of mine is dating a Catholic girl. I’m sure glad that said Catholic girls no nothing of the Pope or Mary heresies of the RCC. I guess they are Catholic in name only. I hope it doesn’t become an issue later.
Yes but right after Jesus commends Peter for the revelatory nature of his answer as to who Jesus was, Christ rebukes Peter, addressing him as Satan.
“Get thee behind me, Satan”!
So much for the infallibility Pope thing right there.
Jesus is the Mediator, our only Intercessor between mankind and the Father. Even Jesus’ mom knew she was a sinner in need of a savior, and prayed accordingly; she was there at Pentecost and, along with Peter, understood what it all meant as prophesied by the prophet Joel.
2:28“And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
29Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
Hooray! The Holy Spirit has come and all that ritual of the Old Covenant is done.
**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**
many things happened in the church as time went by. If you believe 'sola scriptura" then you can't handle the assumption. Christ protects the church from error in matters of faith and morals. "What you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven". The members of the early church taught that Mary had been assumed, and had every reason to believe that it happened. I am certain that if you research on Google or wherever else, you will be able to find the documentation that the church used in reaching their conclusion. The church also teaches the immaculate conception, meaning that Mary was born without original sin....another one for you to ponder.
God said He hated all the feast days that He didn’t institute. It’s impossible to get around that.
The Babylon Peter referenced had to be Jerusalem, which is also revealed as “The Great City” in Revelation 11.
“And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”
Peter never entered Rome.
I believe that Christian was first used in Acts. I do not remember ever seeing Catholic being used in the Bible. I do think I read it was used in the first century. My memory is not what it used to be.
“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.<
Now you still post that as if it’s established fact?
You’ll have to show me some New Testament versus that say that, I am not familiar with them at all.
>> “There is no support from the original Greek...” <<
.
One thing that is absolutely certain at this point is that the original language of the gospels was Hebrew, not Greek.
There are passages in the Greek translations that were copied verbatum, rather than translating them logically for meaning, proving that it was specifically Hebrew from which the Greek gospels were copied. Hebrew puns and colloquy could not otherwise have found their way into the Greek copies. Had a Jewish author written them in Greek, they would certainly not have made such a stupid mistake.
While that is true, I have to agree with svcw, that salvation is through Christ alone and not dependent on works.
If it depends on anything but Christ, that is what being trusted for salvation.
Is celebrating Christmas and Easter a sin? I suppose then we're left with Romans 14, which did, BTW, deal with eating of meat sacrificed to temple idols.
I look at the bright side. At least they're still a thorn in the flesh of the atheists. It's still some sort of testimony of the birth and death of Christ that cannot be ignored in this country.
You don’t say. You mean that was added by man later? Go figure.
>> The members of the early church taught that Mary had been assumed,<<
Early church you say! So the Catholic Church claims the apostles knew of the assumption of Mary and said nothing of it? No, the “early church” did not teach that. The “early church” were the apostles and the people they brought to Christ.
>> The church also teaches the immaculate conception, meaning that Mary was born without original sin....another one for you to ponder.<<
I don’t need to ponder long at all. Scripture says the Christ was the only sinless human who ever lived.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1 King 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;
If you want to believe the error of the Catholic Church but I’ll stay with scripture and the Holy Spirit as a guide.
That’s interesting. I’ve never heard that before.
I could see three of the gospels being written in Hebrew originally, but Luke wasn’t a Jew, was he?
The New Testament wasn’t written in Hebrew?
Many people assume that the New Testament was written in Hebrew as well, but by the time the gospels were being written, many Jews didn’t even speak Hebrew anymore. Rome had conquered Greece, and the influence of Greek culture had saturated the empire. What’s interesting about Biblical Greek is that it didn’t use a high-class or complicated style; it was written in koine (common Greek), a language that could be understood by almost anyone, educated or not.
>> “Celebrating Easter as a representation of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Living Christ does not deny someone the Gift of Salvation.” <<
.
Celebrating Easter is worshipping another God. It is also disregarding the commanded observance of Passover. YHVH tells us what to celebrate, and exactly when to do it. Easter and christmas deliberately violate both.
Deliberate sins require repentance.
Though the powerful Catholic Church tried to wipe out all true Christians, God always preserved a remnant of true believers for Himself.
Acts 18:21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Jesus kept all of the old feast days commanded by God and taught the apostles to do the same. Then He sent them into the world with this command.
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The only feast day that really remains after Christ’s death and resurrection is Passover. No other feast days were instituted. God’s statement of man made feast days still stand. We could go into the pagan origin of many of the current “feast days” but you could easily do a search of the pagan roots of each of them.
Met, my Mom used to tell me that it pickled her pink that people celebrated Christ every time they wrote the date on a letter....
She said (and I realize this was her opinion) that the world would celebrate Christ even though they may not even know they were.
Christ will not be denied.
In Christ....LU
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.