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.
We know that there are no perfect eggs in that carton either. That is what is meant by treasures in earthen vessels and that is why the Popes and Magisterium have the Paraclete to guide them.
That Protestants expect the Catholic Clergy to be something more than flawed humans shows the level of subliminal esteem they hold the Church that they cannot completely suppress.
Peace be with you
your intellectual level is on display......
I saw the pictures of your goat barn....My father would have more than a little upset with me if our geat barn was EVER in that condition....you could have at least cleaned it before you pictured it. Barns and stables should be clean, fresh straw for the animals to lie on, manure removed at Least daily...I assume that you produce goat milk....to be consumed by humans......Uhhhhh
I’m still looking for the synergy of Mary’s assumption with scripture. Can you help?
We have you beat by 32 chickens, 1 duck, and two turkeys. You have us on goats........so far.
“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29
Almost daily I see Protestant threads and posting affirming the doctrine of the Rapture. How is Mary's Assumption not Rapture?
ROFLOL!!!!! You obviously haven’t been on some of the farms I have been on.
Aside from the hygienic detractions I saw the perfect examples of the kind of manger (stall or pen) I referred to in my post #1716. I guess it is hard to recognize something that is right under your nose if you have to keep your nose pinched.
Peace and blessings
Not scriptural. So there is no “synergy” with scripture and Mary’s assumption?
So you agree with the Catholic Church that Rapture is not Scriptural, good. You have begin the journey home.
Peace be with you.
That seems to be a Catholic problem. Injecting a meaning that they know is not there. I suppose like minds.
We live in dairy farm country and it gives a new meaning to *country fresh air*.
Clean as humanly possible?
I suppose that that could true to some extent, but what is humanly possible in regards to keeping any farm clean is well, not impressive.
Animals are dirty.
Mary probably picked the manger to lay Jesus in because it was the cleanest place available in a barn or stable.
Scripture says that Mary laid Jesus in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn.
Now, unless she gave birth out in the open, or in public, she did it in a stable or barn, and I’d say it’s a pretty good bet that she did not give birth IN the manger, so it had to have been on the floor.
Not pristine.
WHO do you know that has deny free will? And then SHOW ME where I denied it.
A few chose God and many chose man. So you won't be the last to make the wrong choice.
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live".
I hear and obey God only - I choose life.
Those who choose death - choose curses as they put man before GOD and/or even imply they are equal. Either God's Word is the FINAL authority or man's is. Catholics, Mormons, Muslim chose man/curses. They aren't the first nor last to chose wrongly. They need to humble themselves TODAY, tomorrow is not promised to anyone.
"Enter through the narrow gate. For WIDE is the gate and broad is the road that leads to DESTRUCTION, and MANY enter through it."
"But small is the gate and NARROW the road that leads to LIFE, and only a FEW find it."
It wasn't a barn or a stable. It was a portion of a house, probably similar to a modern lean-to that would be used to keep young animals at night, the Passover lamb for the three days before its sacrifice and be available to rent during the high holy days when the population of the area grew 4X. We know it was in a house because Matthew 2:11 says of the Wise Men; "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother..."
Peace be with you
Are they doing it as a 'remembrance'? Why not REAL animals?
Ironically, in Orthodox Jewish homes this was the place the Paschal lamb was kept from the 10th of Nisan until the 14th of Nisan.
Ironically, Constantine changed the calendar and inserted Easter and got rid of The Passover. As usual, 'man' thinks he has a better way even down to creating their own bible.
It doesn’t say how old Jesus was at that point.
Don’t forget that Herod had all the boys two years old and younger killed based on the time the wise men gave for His birth.
Mary and Joseph could easily have gone back home after the census, when Mary had recovered enough to travel.
If they were at home, she would not have laid Him in a manger. I have no doubt that a carpenter would have been perfectly capable of building a cradle for a baby. They did know how to count in those days so they’d know when to expect the baby.
Hold that thought...
I’ve heard that goats can be house broken; but mine are so stubborn I don’t think I’d have the patience for that.
Luckily; their poop is just damp pellets; not all runny and messy like a cow’s.
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.