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.
There, fixed it for ya.
No. Paul told the CORINTHIAN believers here.....
2 Corinthians 5:17-21 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Every believer is responsible for taking the message of the gospel to the world around him.
No. Paul told the CORINTHIAN believers here.....
2 Corinthians 5:17-21 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Every believer is responsible for taking the message of the gospel to the world around him.
LOL!
Is that patented and only allowed for use by Catholics?
Out of Context Posting ® © Catholicism 379AD
It's not inane. It's very relevant.
I'm sure Catholics would much rather keep that sort of thing out of the public eye. It really doesn't look good for all the claims Catholics make about Catholicism. It just annihilates their credibility.
Too bad. They're your guys. You own them.
Don't talk about having error when you post this..The Sacred Scripture proceeded from the oral Traditions of the Apostles preserved and handed down by the Church.
Jesus said It IS WRITTEN to satan. And I say It is Written to Rome and all it's subjects when they say 'oral'. Jesus knew who satan would use to deceived with 'oral' before Rome/RCC showed it's ugly face.
THANK YOU, JESUS!!
There is nothing sacred about man made teachings - only sacred to the counterfeit/satan. Rome/the gates of hell - did not prevail against God's Church/His Body for born again Christians, have His Word and the Holy Spirit as their Teacher who dwells in them - as they did since the time of 'ACTS'.
God is Faithful to HIS Word. Rome was exposed for IT IS WRITTEN.
In their dreams......
Not with all those pagan rituals, ceremonies, and symbols their not.
"Did God really say....???" Satan always attacks the integrity of the Word first because he knows that is what he can't stand against, it has defeated him.
So instead of it being *God breathed* Catholicism teaches that it's simply a matter of transcribing *oral tradition*.
No big deal.... so they think.
Another Catholic doctrine which is contradicted by Scripture.
2 Timothy 3:14-16 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
how many times are you going to repost that inane “bad Popes list”????Probably until Catholics step up and aknowledge that what they did was horrible instead of just saying, Oh there are sinners in every denomination-- and might also deny that they should still be venerated as Holy (Could be excommunicated if done? No one knows who you are on the www..)
how many times are you going to repost that inane "Catholic church brought you the Bible and is the only true church AND that God chose the Catholic church to carry His message to the world???"
The Church accepts the author of Scripture and the Sacred Tradition as the authority (note the word root).
Pure sophistry. In Roman Catholicism, what Scripture and Sacred Tradition say only have the authority Rome gives them, and no evidence to the contrary can be allowed based upon that premise. According to her interpretation, or decree, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
The Cardinal Manning citation is EXACTLY like the True Spouse of Christ citation above, partial, out of context, intended to mislead, and something that has been hashed out in this forum many times in the past.
That is a lie, and once again (linked for the mod at least) you evidence you cannot refrain from charging those who expose Rome with lying, besides attributing intent to mislead.
The fact is that there is nothing in the additional context that is contrary to what i described, and instead it affirms i, as will be shown.
Do you all share some tickler file that triggers the reposting of the same old garbage when enough time has passed for the dust to settle?I know you fancy yourself quite the scholar, but this kind of sloppy or intentionally deceptive work would not get a passing grade in any class I have taken or taught.
This is getting old. Like one of your comrades who is also prone to make rash accusations, you also have been exposed before as making false allegations What i intended to do was just what Manning supports, which others can see but which you do not or will not, despite your claims to be a teacher.
Let's go to instant replay and see what Cardinal manning actually said. Thew BOLD is the parts you left out. It paints a completely different picture from you you are implying.
Rather than a completely different picture, what Manning is stating is just what i said, that Scripture is not the supreme authority for Rome, but she is the ultimate judge of what the Scriptures and the past means, and having autocratically declared she cannot be wrong in any conflict when she assuredly says that she is right, then Scripture, history, tradition can mean whatever they say that mean in order to support them. No amount of evidence against praying to the departed will deter her from affirming this Tradition, for Scriptural warrant is not necessary and in Rome's constrained eyesight she sees nothing forbidding such. The Orthodox rejection of the IM of Mary, papal infallibility, etc. does not deter her either, as she has infallibly declared that she is infallible when speaking according to her infallible defined scope and content-based criteria.
Let us now examine the “completely different picture” that your Roman eyesight sees:
“The doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive. It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? No individual, no number of individuals can go back through eighteen hundred years to reach the doctrines of antiquity. We may say with the woman of Samaria, ‘Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with.’ No individual mind now has contact with the revelation of Pentecost, except through the Church. Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount at most to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition.”
The problem here is not invoking historical legacy, but than rather than trying to make a epistemological case, Manning presumes Rome has assured veracity, essentially blithely dismissing all contrary evidence as no more than opinion, based upon the very premise which i stated, that of Rome's assured veracity. In contrast, the church began in dissent from those who likewise presumed a level of veracity above that which is written (interpreting themselves to have such), while the claims of Christ and the church were established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. We for our part cannot claim assured infallibility, but must depend on the Scriptural manifestation of the truth.
“It is not enough that the fountain of our faith be Divine. It is necessary that the channel be divinely constituted and preserved…. The Church contains the fountain of faith in itself, and is not only the channel divinely created and sustained, but the very presence of the spring-head of the water of life, ever fresh and ever flowing in all ages of the world.”
This is simply argument by assertion. The Tradition-based Orthodox contrary view of Peter is dismissed as are all others, based upon Rome's high opinion of herself, not the merits of the case.
“I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. The Church is always primitive and always modern at one and the same time; and alone can expound its own mind, as an individual can declare its own thoughts. ‘For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.’ The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.”
Thus by implication only what Rome says is true in any conflict and nothing contrary can possible be true, for Rome is a Christian oracle infallibly channeling the past which no one else can do. Thus for the Roman Catholic, assurance is not based upon Scripture substantiation, else they would be like an SS type Protestant evangelical, but it rests upon the premise of Rome's assured infallibility. And therefore many of her Roman Catholic apologists also engage in arguments by assertion, being driven to dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary, and who often resort to ad hominem attacks in their knee-jerk reactions against anything that seems to impugn Rome. All of which is an argument against the very church they seek to defend.
You have once more been exposed as making false charges, and rather than engage in more sophistry and damage control, just repent and apologize.
Not with all those pagan rituals, ceremonies, and symbols their not.
From the RCC favorite book of the Bible....
James 1:26-27 26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
Hmmm, looks like the Catholic hierarchy is having more than a bit of trouble with the *keep oneself unstained from the world.* part of the verse.
Oh, Elsie, about that *inane* list of bad popes. Perhaps we need to add all those priests their church has been having trouble with as well.
It's generally a different reaction when it's non-Catholic clergy involved in some moral failure.
Catholics are big on *Do as I say, not as I do*.
Very reminiscent of the Pharisees, as I recall.
When you pray to God to be rescued from a flood, and a fireman comes along in a boat, take the ride with him....chances are that God Himself is not going to walk on the water to rescue you...He uses others to do His will, and He used the Catholic church to bring you Christianity and the Bible....say thanks, Catholics!!
yes always....if you do it right!!! I say something in jest and suddenly ir becomes dogma....A male goat is the Billy as in Billy GOAT Gruff...you get to name your goat whatever you want, the goat couldn't care less.
Elijah foretold Jesus, he did not introduce Him.
That is what the premise leads to.
Here is a lesson in the Catholic concept of Both / And. Both John 8:7 and Luke 18:11 apply
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.