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.
Although it truthfully explains a lot of the corrupt anti-extra-Biblical beliefs handed down through centuries.
Although it truthfully explains a lot of the corrupt anti- and extra-Biblical beliefs handed down through centuries.
Yet still people go into a closet with a man designated as a priest...who supposedly towers over us spiritually...to confess and be absolved of sins (the ones confessed at least) and then told to do unscriptural penance with repititious chanting (forbidden by God's Holy Word.
When all they have to do is seek out a born again Christian and they will be set on a straight path, not one with traditional chinks and zigs and zags to try to maneuver through. But then maybe that justifies their purgatorical resting place.
My very simple question is how could Peter “make” each and every Christian a holy and royal priest when he loosed himself and the 11 from the so-called “great commission” and gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship and agreed to keep the 12’s Kingdom mission to the Jews while Paul went to the Gentiles. (Galatians, Chapter 2). Seems the RCC should have PAUL as their first “pope”, if they are following Scripture...but I digress...
“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions..” (Galatians 3:19)
Read only books, magazines, and other material authorized by the Church. [And never examine the veracity of claims against the Church.]
Do not give any information about the area. [”Can you tell me where the library is” “Sorry, we are not allowed to give that information.”]
Proselytize for 10 hours between 9:30 A.M. and 9:30 P.M. [But try to walk faster than the JWs’ who walk as if they are killing the clock.]
Sleep from 10:30 to 6:30. [But...]
Do not arise before your companion. [Bcz you are to...]
Never be alone. [You might begin to think objectively. Or handle explosives, turn the odometer back (see below)...)
Do not retire after your companion. [Mother needs to keep an eye on you.]
Do not handle explosives. [Wonder what precipitated this rule?]
Ask your mission president for help if your companion doesn’t obey the rules. [Rather than using explosives.]
Proselytize as much as possible on weekends and holidays because this is when you’ll find people home. [In your spare time]
Use cars only on approved mission business.
Do not tamper with the vehicle’s odometer. [Bcz someone did not obey the above rule]
And in Catholicism it is written:
“Obey blindly , that is, without asking reasons. Be careful, then, never to examine the directions of your confessor....In a word, keep before your eyes this great rule, that in obeying your confessor you obey God. Force yourself then, to obey him in spite of all fears. And be persuaded that if you are not obedient to him it will be impossible for you to go on well; but if you obey him you are secure.
But you say, if I am damned in consequence of obeying my confessor, who will rescue me from hell? What you say is impossible.” St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p 352, Benziger Brothers, NY (search Google books)
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, “What Faith Really Means.”
“The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. - John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals. (More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=355#355)
The first part, yes that is what the Catholic Church is. A supernatural religion, as you so aptly describe it. With private judgments in matters of faith...that would be by those described as the church Fathers and of course the Popes. (That may be redundant, I imagine that the Popes are considered church Fathers.)
Jesus spoke frequently about his dislike for religion, and therefore built up his body (His church) made up with those that chose/choose to believe in and follow Him. Becoming "born again" and brought into His kingdom.
He did not create a church such as is described at the top of this post, but a group of believers who have a personal relationship with him.
That is "the church."
Jesus' church has HIM as the absolute authority.
Not a man or men as the Chatolics do. Or at least so you have proclaimed.
Oops LOL
Chatolics in the last sentence shoud have been Catholics.
Very good, that was the point I was attempting to get across in my post."Jesus was formed by God,"
Jesus IS God.
I was going step by step from, to put it in context, this
Seeing the Truth (Jesus) being formed as you describe it, starting with God formed Jesus seemed a good way to lead to clarity.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.
Of course Jesus is God, I would never say otherwize.This scripture may fit here quite well:
For it was You who created my inward parts; You (God) knit me together in my mother's womb.--Psalm 139:13A bit liked "formed?"
That’s unreal!
......if it were not for the Catholic church bringing to your door step the bibleHeh, the only ones coming to my door are JW's, Mormons and Christians bringing cookies and The Truth
...only Catholics existed as Christians thenLOL, a false statement repeated over and over again is effective, but still not true
...had they not compiled, translated, copied, preserved etc etc the bible.....we wouldn't even have it now.The Bible admonishes us to "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit."
The God Breathed scriptures would have been...and have been actually...brought to mankind without the Catholics.
It's good not to get too puffed up about what Catholics did:
Holman Christian Standard Bible (2009)[not the dreaded KJV]
Look, his ego is inflated; he is without integrity.--Habakkuk 2:4
Plagarism I tells ya, plagiarism!
But what’s knu?
Also pinging the Goat "Lady"
How many Pope Paul's were there?
Maybe they had a clue and chose that name because they knew that Paul should have been the first pope.
LOL subtly sticking it to their own belief system....heh
Oops I better lool for another pic, that one apparantly didn’t show up.
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, “What Faith Really Means.”So looking at the Catholic Church is the same as gazing into the eyes of God and listening to Him speak?
The arrogance is astounding!
This is a misconception arising from Protestantism that we are only Justified by Faith through grace, and that moral efforts, sacraments, liturgy, institutions, primarily the Church, are counter to this, but ironically the only time justification by faith through grace is actually mentioned in Scripture it is to specifically condemn that thought (see James). St. Paul calls for us to participate in the mystical body of Christ that is His Church and to participate in the Sacraments that can only be done through the Church.
Jesus spoke often against the abuse, distortion and corruption of religion, and if you are saying that you are opposed to those things you will have an ally in me, but if you mean to imply that Jesus opposed religion then you will have my active opposition.
Jesus was a deeply religious, law abiding and devout Jew who proclaimed that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. If you think Jesus advocated individualism and was against those institutional, liturgical and sacramental doctrines that tie us together into the unity he commanded you are wrong. Jesus then gave us a new Decalogue; the two Greatest Commandments and the eight Beatitudes, He established his Church and the Papacy under St. Peter and instituted the Eucharist. He sent his Apostles into the world to baptize and preach his Gospel and to establish Episcopacies and Churches.
Protestantism often preaches spirituality with out religion and Jesus without religion, but those result in Jesus being an abstraction and nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus is the Word made flesh and religion, the Church, the Sacraments and Liturgies are as real as He was.
Peace be with you
That is completely false. One would think that anyone who was legitimately Catholic or who was Catholic and found difficulties with the Church's perceived teachings would be honest enough to actually learn the teachings instead of choosing apostasy arising from a personal error.
The Church teaches that the forgiveness does not come from the priest, but from God through the priest acting "in personna Christi". The fact that you have often criticized and ridiculed the concept of in personna Christi says you are either being forgetful or intentionally inaccurate. Which is it?
The Infancy Gospel of James is recognized as a fraud by Catholic scholars and still it is offered as proof that Joseph had children before those with Mary.
Point out that it is a fraud and the messenger is attacked.
Not a surprise.
What a bunch of nonsense. The Catholic church did its darned best to keep the Bible out of the hands of the laity. The only reason that can be that the Catholic church has changed its position is because after the invention of the printing press, it saw that it could no longer keep it out of the hands of the laity.
Try as they might at stopping it with their pronouncements, tortures, murders and burning people at the stake for it, the spread of the gospel couldn't be stopped. Persecution ALWAYS makes the church grow, hence the Catholic church itself fueled the fires of the Reformation.
The more the church tried to stamp it out, the stronger the body of Christ became.
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.