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.
I thought that protestants believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old....millions of years?????
Was my effort to interpret that word lost on you? I'd say it is a pretty easy sense to understand when the verses surrounding that one are talking about how other people can see our outward evidence of faith. Only God can see the heart and only God knows if a person's faith in a genuine faith or is mere "window dressing" attempts to impress people of our piousity and worthiness - something for which "religious" people are well known. And it is STILL the truth that a genuine, Christ-centered faith will result in a faith that is not dead but demonstrated by good works - which God has prepared for us to walk in them.
The church Christ founded is the true UNIVERSAL body of Christ that is not exclusive to the one based in Rome that pretends it has copyrighted the word and represents the entire body. As blessed Peter said, "You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (I Peter 2:5) and "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (I Peter 2:9). THAT'S the one I belong to and identify with.
No it isn't. In fact, it is not even a Greek word.
The New Testament was written in Greek, using the Greek word fatne. It was transliterated (look it up) from Greek into Latin. The "official" language of the Vatican.
The word is pronounced like a large overweight horse sound: fat-niegh
It means a crib, or a manger. (So according to the Latin translation, it's possible that he was laid in a crib. Joseph, Mary's husband, was a carpenter he could have made a crib for the baby Jesus.)
The Catholics translated the orginal writings of the new testament into Latin.
It is highly esteemed by the Catholic denomination, and in fact other Bibles were produced from the Latin version.
Which brings in more chance for error, as (as I mentioned above) the original was written in Greek.
So you take advice from a muslim, I'm not surprised.
Catholicism was a church for one thousand six hundred years before ANYONE was a protestant..
Because were Christians and Rome labeled them Protestants because they protested against Rome, it's tactic and false teachings.
With God there is no denomination - that is all man's doings and you have, obviously, taken their 'mark'.
Christians chose God, catholics chose man.
Please feel free to use this as an example of a making post ABOUT a freeper.
Prevents people? Weren't you the one who accused me/others of not believing in free will? You never did follow up on who they were or apologize to me for accusing me of such. And now you want a church where some don't sin/lie. LOL!
Consider yourself stuck.
"It needs nothing of what you call choices."That doesn't really make sense.You are not the first to deny freewill, nor will you be the last.
Peace be with you
Maybe because it was taken out of context, as a "reason" to exclaim that Christians deny free will.
Here is the context:
Yes people make choices, but the Truth is the Truth.The TRUTH stands on IT'S OWN and has from the beginning!
It needs nothing of what you call choices.
God's Word was here before man. Be humble, man has their place - to HEAR and OBEY Almighty God!
Contrary to Catholic proclamations:
Catholic teaching Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are complementary and synergistic, together forming the TruthThe arrogance of Catholicism to say that those 3 things "form" the truth is...well...par for the course. I was going to say astounding, but it's a given.
Jesus is the Truth. The Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Jesus was formed by God, not by that Catholic anathematic threesome.
One has to wonder why those with such disparate doctrines choose to ignore them and concentrate on attempting to bring down the Church. It is obvious that the Holy Spirit could not have told them each a unique truth, yet their contempt for the Church blinds them to everything else. They fail to recognize that supernatural religion requires an absolute authority and that private judgment in matters of faith is the beginning of disintegration.
Peace be with you
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Jesus IS God. Arius too taught that Christ was a creature made by God.
Peace be with you.
a male goats nickname is always Billy....as in Billy goat...did you ever hear of Jack goat??
I'll buy that, I don't see anything here that defies church teaching
I didn't take advice from a muslim....I quoted him!
One is drawn to what attracts them - don’t backtrack.
Don’t give credit to man what GOD does! Save it for your cult followers.
Telling someone I won’t respond to their comments is “making it personal”? So be it.
Well; MORMONism calls all non-MORMONs GENTILES!
Go figger!!!
What's this? YOPICCC?
Are Catholics allowed to not believe the CCC?
Can that happen for purgatory and not the rapture?
Nobody even knows if it happened. Unsubstantiated rumor aka... hearsay, does not carry the weight of Scripture.
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.