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.
...when the inexcusably heinous and reprehensible conduct of high level Catholic clergy through the ages is addressed, well, nobody is perfect and we have to separate the man from his office.
Sounds a lot like the excuses liberals used for Bill Clinton, doesn’t it?
A man who does not have the moral integrity to control his own lust and behavior has no business being in any position of authority over others, especially in matters of faith and MORALS.
But I still don’t doubt it will be lost on Catholics. They’ve been too indoctrinated to see it objectively.
Having a hardened heart it the past, I noticed that the process is like a onion, and I found that I had many layers of hardness.
Peeling one away would reveal the next and on and on.
It is a process but at any moment the Holy Spirit can quicken wisdom to your soul and draw you to Him and point you to Jesus for salvation and a new heart.
Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” --John 22:39,40All it takes is asking
And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh--Ezekiel 11:19
And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.--Ezekiel 36:26
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.--2 Corinthians 5:17
Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me--Psalms 51:10
Note some other adaptations: http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2011/09/contradictions-in-roman-catholicism.html
"You can NOT be born again from baptism unless other factors are present."Please don't presume to tell me what I do and do not understand
I should have just answered "Huh?" as that quote doesn't fit your comment. It's just a statement of Biblical fact, not a presumption.
I believe the problem was a sentence I posted as a statement when I meant to end it with a question mark.
The statement of mine that you quoted above, I stand behind.
Baptizing an infant cannot cause him/her to be born again and saved as those attributes can only come about from a conscious decision on the part of an individual.
Catholics should always encourage their children to make a conscious decision to give their lives to God through a personal born again relationship with Jesus some time after they reach the age of reason.
The Holy Spirt will help them.
Gald you didn't mention all of them..
If my brother won't listen to the Seventh Day Adventists, should I treat him as a pagan or tax collector?...etc etcAs they are all Christian denomination, within their memberships will be found a number of born again Christians how have been given the promise of salvation from God.
Are any of these "the church" that Christ founded? If not, why should I listen to them?
That is the body of Christ, as I posted in the post you replied to: "The church is the body of believers."
If there is a problem between individuals, scripture say the one sinned against should take it up with the one who did the sin.
If he listens, fine.
If he doesn't, take it up with him with a couple of witnesses present.
If he still doesn't listen, take it up with the church.
The "church" in this case if the congregation that they belong to.
Then if he doesn't listen, that is the time to treat him as a pagan or tax collector. [all the above taken from Matthew 18:15-17]
It does NOT mean take it up with the Catholic church, but the congegation where the members regularily meet.
Only the Catholic Church possesses a non-contradictory body of Teaching, and the Authority given by Christ to teach authoritatively.That is false statement.
As an example, years ago a Pope proclaimed that if any Catholic debates about Catholicism with someone that doesn't believe, he or she should be excommunicated. [you can find the exact quote from that Pope on this thread]
If that is true today, the Catholics debating on this thread would be candidates for excommunication.
If it is not true today, well there you have one example of Catholic contradictory teaching. (there are a lot more btw)
Don't worry though, there is room for any and all in the Body of Christ, His universal (that is what catholic means) church.
All it takes is being born again by believing on Jesus and asking him for salvation.
Don’t laugh: it only encourages him.
—MrsELSIE
And just what does treating someone like a pagan or tax collector or sinner amount to?
Ostracizing them? Ex-communicating them and sending them to hell? Turning your nose up at them in the kind of smug superiority that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees?
How did Jesus treat tax collectors and sinners?
Catholicism is a very condemning and damning religion. Instead of reaching out and restoring them, they just claim the person ex-communicated themselves and let it go. Oh well.......
There are precious few real life Catholics I've ever met who didn't have an arrogant, superior to thou attitude.
That is the difference between the Reformers who went back to the source.
The real source being Scripture, not opinions of men, helpful as they can be, but some of which believed in things such as universal reconciliation, that all would eventually be saved, and that all marital relations are unclean, as they could not be effected without the ardour of lust, this being carnal concupiscence, though it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate.
Jerome (enaging in a false dilemma) reasoned that since 1Cor. 7:1 says "it is good not to touch a woman, [then] it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness." And that since men must always pray, ministers could not be married, and invoked Genesis 7 as proving that "two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact." — St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 Chapter 7,13,16,33 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=311#311
Thus wresting Scripture to support an imbalanced theology is not new. Mormons is the other extreme. And promoting contraception is another problem.
Moreover, despite Scripture, CFs and history being invoke for support, as said, these can only authoritatively mean what Rome says they mean, and thus as said in regards to the CFs, the church judges them more than they judge the church. And RCs must engage in interpreting the church.
For those with Faith no proof is necessary, for those without faith no proof is sufficient." - St. Thomas Aquinas
The same thing was said of Jesus (Mark 3:22-27; Matthew 12:22-30). Whoever loves Him keeps His commandments. Everyday, in fulfillment of the Beatitudes and the warnings of the parable of the sheep and the goats, the Catholic Church ministers, feeds, shelters, treats, clothes and educates more people than any other organization in the world, all while you all do nothing more than pound impotently on your keyboards about Her evils.
Peace be with you
Catholics do not debate issues of doctrine, dogma and faith here or anywhere else. A debate implies that the Truth is not eternal and absolute, but something to be determined by some kind of contest influenced by lies and judged by the fallible. Nothing any freeper, Catholic or otherwise, can or will post will change the Truth as proclaimed by God and His Church.
Peace be with you.
That Catholic definition of debate is a bit narrow, but I see it seems to be SOP.
That debate is "something to be determined by some kind of contest influenced by lies" is an opinion, but I see that is the way some Catholics debate.
What a useless way to debate.
The truth proclaimed by God cannot be changed, but the "Truth" proclaimed by the Catholic church has been changing for centuries.
So you would purport to tell each of us what we are doing? Are you all knowing or something?
>>the Catholic Church ministers, feeds, shelters, treats, clothes and educates more people than any other organization in the world<<
Catholics just don’t get it do they.
Mark 12:38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, 39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: 40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. 41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
It’s not difficult to see where Catholics fall in that. Notice the ”these shall receive greater damnation”. So go ahead and brag about “what the RCC does” but take heed of Jesus words and understand the consequences. The choice is yours.
I know, I know, filthy rags, thank God you are not like that tax collector, and all of that. I do hope all of your impotent pounding will have been enough when it is time to determine if you were a sheep or a goat.
Peace be with you
... For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
Imagine what they could do if it wasn't just for show.
The Catholic "abundance" consists of billion of dollars worth of art and buildings.
No to mention that throne for the Pope, picture of which was posted here the other day.
The opulence in which the higher ups in the Catholic live is simply obscene.
Years ago I was noticing the poor condition of the members of the Catholic faith contrasted with the gaudyness of the churches.
I would think why do they take these peoples money when they could help them impove their lot in life instead of spending so much money on giant false fronts.
One Christian church I went to years ago in the Santa Cruz area had a family where the father was out of work and lacking proper food for his family.
When the father went to put some money in the bucket, one of the elders told him, no don't give us your money, we will help YOU.
And they did.
They had several children.
Nice use of scripture.
No they don't get it CynicalBear.9 Then Jesus told this story to some who had great confidence in their own righteousness and scorned everyone else: 10 “Two men went to the Temple to pray. One was a Pharisee, and the other was a despised tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed this prayer: ‘I thank you, God, that I am not a sinner like everyone else. For I don’t cheat, I don’t sin, and I don’t commit adultery. I’m certainly not like that tax collector! 12 I fast twice a week, and I give you a tenth of my income.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance and dared not even lift his eyes to heaven as he prayed. Instead, he beat his chest in sorrow, saying, ‘O God, be merciful to me, for I am a sinner.’ 14 I tell you, this sinner, not the Pharisee, returned home justified before God. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”--Luke 18:9-14
That was the altar at St. Peter's Basilica. The sanctuary and altar should be as beautiful as the Blessed Virgin was. As St. Francis put it so simply, Mary is the "virgo ecclesia facta", the Virgin made Church. In the Eucharist the Church takes up her Marian role, becoming once again the place where the Spirit conceives the Body of Christ.
Having become once again the Body of Christ in Holy Communion, we faithful go forth from the Eucharist as the Word-made-flesh born into the world, on his behalf to preach, heal, suffer, and willingly give our lives so that the grace of His Passion and Resurrection may continue to flow over the world.
Peace be with you.
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.