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 assume wrong.
The real thing happens all at once; in the twinkling of an eye.
Of COURSE not!
ROME wants to stuff everyone into PURGATORY!
1 Corinthians 15:52
in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
Everything is for show w/the religious.
"I hate all your show and pretense--..."
The liberals do that all the time, accuse someone of something that is not true, and try to shame the person they are smearing. Strange to see that tactic used here at Free Republic.Yes, the nit picking was your post to me saying that I mispelled "savoir" when I didn't. That is an accepted spelling.didn't someone, earlier, post something about nit-picking????
You wanted me to be ashamed, when the shame sould be with the one that makes the false attribution.
That's why I posted to you the following (try to follow along and get it right this time):
The liberals do that all the time, accuse someone of something that is notWhy you needed to post the following again is beyond me. It isn't all about you.
true, and try to shame the person they are smearing. Strange to see that tactic used here at Free Republic.
Yes, but first you "edited" what you said by posting that you said born OR created.I did, in my first post on the subject say Adam, Eve, Mary and Jesus were born without sin....however, I admitted it and in three or four subsequent postings I corrected my error....Get over it.
When it was apparent others saw the deception and rewriting of history, you adimtted your error.
That apparantly inspired you to smear me for making an error which I did not make.
LOL I was over it until you brought it up again.
*Yawn*
How old was Jesus when the wise men come to worship Him?
Jesus was born in a stable, The Word doesn’t say HE lived there.
Jesus was born in a stall and then put in the manger.
They didn’t live there, they moved to a house shortly after he was born.
There may have been an area for animals associated with the house, there may not have.
ROTFLOL!!!!!
There is no subliminal esteem for Catholic priests. Especially with their history.
Hey, if they're going to be making claims of being Christ's representatives on earth, they'd better live up to the name.
It's not a matter of subliminal respect as much as expecting them to live up to what they claim to be.
They could have done a lot of things but if you are going to reject the "traditions" of men and stick to Sola Scriptura you ought to be true to what Scripture does and does not say about the Nativity. Most of what you think about the Nativity is the product of St. Francis of Assisi's response to the Muslim conquest of the Holyland. When Pilgrims could no longer go to the Holyland sought to bring the Holyland to the Pilgrims.
Some of the basic assumptions about the Nativity are simply not supported by Scripture. The first is that we do not know how many wise men there were, where they came from or what their names were. Second, Scripture does not mention any animals being present. Third, Jesus was not born in a barn or a stable, but within a home that had a traditional Phante. I encourage you to read the Scripture. We may not always agree with what it means, but we should at least agree on what it says.
Peace be with you
And yet there is a balance here, as God could have written the entire Bible the way He wrote the 10 commandments, but even then He used a man to bring them down, as He has chosen to privilege man to be used by Him, and hath tempered the body together in interdependence, and thus the eye cannot say to the foot i have no need of thee(1Cor. 12) so that are varying points we need each other, and we have also entered into other men’s labors. (Jn. 4:38)
And the more righteous, anointed and otherwise graced a believer is then the more they can give, for “it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.” (1Cor. 8:12)
All believers are provided direct access to God in Christ, “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; “ (Hebrews 10:19-20) “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father, “ (Ephesians 2:18) without the need for canonized saint secretaries. And by which they can (and are to) confess their sins to him who is faithful and just to forgive us.
Yet as in many things and at many times we need the help of others, and if the entire church was healthy and wealthy as the so-called Word Of Faith preachers tell us should be the case, then we would be quite a shallow people. Even the world needs the handicapped to enlarge their hearts, though we can also react the opposite.
And on the other extreme - and there always are extremes - there are those who have a sectarian spirit (Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us,” (Luke 9:49-50) , or think of themselves or others above what is written, (1Cor. 4:6) who love to have the preeminence, (3Jn. 1:9) such as who make demigods out of created mortals or religious org., so they particularly are the unique vessels of salvation and access to God, rejecting all others as lost or inferior, regardless of superior Scriptural substantiation.
And thus “there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him [Jesus], By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (Mark 11:27-28)
And thus the church began in rejection from those who presumed too much, and persuaded soul by manifestation of the truth, preaching the risen Lord Jesus in word and in power, not all about an institutionalized church with its pompous leaders with ostentatious clothing, titles and elitist self declarations (applies to some WOF preachers also).
Scripture says nothing about the time frame of the events associated with the Nativity, but Scripture tells us they fled to Egypt. Most think that they went by land, fleeing in the night on camels or donkeys. One thing we do know is that their flight and subsequent stay in Egypt was paid for by the gifts brought by the Magi. The most practical means of travel from Caesarea Maritima or Jaffo would have been by boat. It was the cheapest and fastest, most readily available, most discrete, and the quickest way to get beyond the reach of Herod.
Peace be with you
Since Yah'shua was born during Sukkot,shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Miriam and Joseph were following YHvH's commandments
for the commanded Feast living in a Booth where stars could be seen.Yah'shua's birth date can easily be ascertained
by anyone reviewing Luke 1 & John 1 and the Torah.
I would like to know and understand more. Please elaborate.
Thank you
James 2:14 what shall it profit, my brethren, if a man says he hath faith, but not works? shall faith be able to save him?
James 2:17 so faith also, if it does not have works, is dead in itself
You were doing so good there, I myself have never been a proponent of SS.
Most of what you think about the Nativity is the product of St. Francis of Assisi's response to the Muslim conquest of the Holyland.
Where do you get this stuff? Mind reading or just the product of a fertile imagination? All we need to know about the Nativity is in the Word of God. (The St. Francis stuff is from Catholic Tradition huh?)
Jesus was not born in a barn or a stable, but within a home that had a traditional Phante. I encourage you to read the Scripture.
For your edification, Jesus was born in a stall as I have stated before.
Scripture reference for your statement about home/phante please. In English.
Glad to see you using scripture.
All scripture is God breathed, breathe it in. It's refreshing.
Metmom, I pinged you as Nat Law pinged us both to his anti-eludicatory but semi-obfuscated post. (in other words I was gobsmacked by it.)
noun 1. a box or trough in a stable or barn from which horses or cattle eat.
A manger or trough is a feeder that is made of carved stone, wood, or metal construction and is used to hold food for animals (as in a stable).
Can we at least agree that the sanitary rules for "facilities" that kept animals safe at night were not in effect two thousand years ago as they are today? That our Savior and Lord was born in a humble stable because there was not room for them in the inn and that he was placed in a manger (probably with clean straw and cloths) is not a made up story. If it HAD been, I highly doubt such an inauspicious start would have been thought up. I also doubt that Mary and Joseph would have placed the newborn Jesus in a filthy feed box unless they had first cleaned it out and placed clean hay in it. Is anyone seriously suggesting this was not the case? It seems the whole point for why this even came up has been lost. Didn't it start with the contention that Jesus HAD to have been conceived in an "immaculate" vessel (meaning Mary not only had to be a virgin but also sinless)? I believe the SIGN that the Messiah would be born of a virgin of the house of David in the fullness of time were the only specific prophecies on this subject. Having to have a sinless mother was NOT part of the deal and this doctrine was not one that had been preached, spoken of in Scripture nor held by the early Christians.
I admit that I have mostly seen barns and stables owned and operated by responsible and caring "shepherds".
Thanks, that is what I have been trying to tell them.
Only not quite as well...
of course it is, it holds the hay that the animals eat and it is off the floor......do you realize what this thread has deteriorated to?????We're discussing the federal agriculture bill....can I get free money from the Government to buy fresh hay for my manger....
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.