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.
It never was. Some abuses did take place, but those were contrary to Church teaching. One thing that is often misunderstood is the concept of restitution and corporeal acts of mercy as penance. Too often these have been mischaracterized as "buying your way into heaven" by the Reformation.
Peace be with you
So the Holy Spirit is not grieved or quenched by the sin in their lives?
Interesting.
That means all the rest of us are all right then, too.
So why does it rankle Catholics that we are sure of our salvation, again?
"I apologize for the personal nature of my post to you."Although I apologized to you, my apology was also directed at the rules for this forum.An apology is not necessary.
So it was necessary as I take responsibility for my actions.
I did not attempt to deceive you.
In fact, I try not to post to others with out of context quotes that change the meaning of what that poster was actually saying.
Although I occasionally do it back to those that use that tactic, just to even things out and as an attempt to keep the dialogue meaningful and honest.
: > )
you mentioned a few bad people in the oldest organization in the history of the world.....you mentioned no errors on the part of the church in matters of faith or morals....what's your point....there have been BAD people in the church.......and Now there is a place where that fits, not posted to a poster for not making an error.
Fixed it for ya.
God doesn't need the Catholic church. Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit to do that job.
I know and appreciate that. Thank you
I know and appreciate that. Thank you
I think the real question is - what if the leaders of the catholic church are not really Christian? If they are apostate and servants of satan? How would we even know? The Bible warns us of false prophets.
I’m not talking about your local people, The guys they report to 3 levels up, that is who I’m worried about.
This is a question being asked in protestant circles today. Mainly due to the push for denominational alignment via the “One Church” movement that is basically a recognition of some pope guy as the world spokesman for Christians. We non-papist are not on board with that. Not even a little.
"By their fruit you will recognize them."- Matthew 7:16
I'll take the scholarly work of Daniel1212 over the repetitive fluff and propaganda that the children of Rome constantly intone. I'm sure he, as well as myself, couldn't care less what "grade" you might award to our efforts.
I read your "full" context of the Manning quote, and its not saying anything different than what Daniel quoted it as saying. It boiled down to the Catholic Church presuming it alone IS the voice of God. If holding to the Divinely-inspired Scriptures as THE authority ordained by God is "Bibliolatry", then what your church demands is Churchiolatry. I'll take sola Scriptura over sola Ecclesia ANY day! If even Jesus said, "It is written...", to dispute against Satan, rather than, "I say..." or, "The church says..", then I will follow HIS example. You are certainly free to follow whatever idols you want, just please refrain yourself from accusing Christians, that see Jesus as their example, of worshiping the Bible. It is unfortunate some are unable to tell the difference.
you seem unable to understand the concept of individuals being evil, and institutions erring.....think real hard now.....if you, as a Democrat do something stupid, does that reflect on the Democrat party????.........oh wait, that was redundant....sorry
"...and if he won't listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
I think the real question is - what if the leaders of the catholic church are not really Christian? If they are apostate and servants of satan? How would we even know? The Bible warns us of false prophets.
That question applies to protestants too - not catholic bashing here. Benny Hinn who is a fairly well known fakester from the evangelical angle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6SvSjaU62M
no one can prove a negative, and you certainly cannot prove your positive
That is not what I said. I said "Christianity was brought to me DIRECTLY from Jesus through the Holy Spirit."
And it was. Are you calling me a liar?
you were raised in a Christian home, by Christian parents who learned Christianity from a pastor or priest or whatever
You know nothing about me, how dare you make stuff up and post it as if it is a fact!
That is mindreading and personal, both not allowed in the Religion Forum
but all that information came through the Catholic church
No it didn't. For the last time can you stop posting that false and erroneous balderdash?
there was no one else in the world to bring it to you.
No one that Catholics eyes can see apparently.
Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.--Ezekiel 12:2You CANNOT quench the Spirt no matter how hard you try.
But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!"--Luke 19:40
BTW, I do not hit the abuse button to alert the mods of rule breaking.
Yeah thats why I’m talking to you guys. I know what the Bible says in that verse. Recently I found out “my” Bible is different that “your” Bible. Never knew! Now I realize you are are a adherent to a belief system that is foreign to me. As I am to you apparently. Just trying to understand why this stuff matters. I’ve never been told I was going to hell because I wasn’t catholic. At least not until lately. Now I’m paying attention. In a big way.
Here is another example of Catholicism creating their own doctrine outside of what Scripture says. When Jesus gave his commission and the Holy Spirit with the message of the forgiveness of sins through the gospel (note this was BEFORE Pentecost) he had appeared to the "disciples" who had gathered in the upper room. He addressed these same disciples which INCLUDED Mary Magdelene as well as Jesus' mother, Mary:
John 20:19-20 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
So, this idea that women were not included in the "great commission" is a false one which resulted from a faulty reading and understanding of Scripture and, over time, the doctrines of Catholic Church superceding the Word of God.
And apparantly you don't know how to format a post so it is clear who said what.
I suggest posters let their minds catch up with their fingers before they type.
And read each post twice before responding.
If you want to understand what I posted to you, go back and read it slowly a couple of times.
I don't like “quotes” attributed to me that I didn't say.
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.