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.
Of course there were other Christians. The Catholic church acknowledged their existence by ending it.
The Church does not teach that works are the cause of Salvation, but Salvation is impossible apart from good works. Works, the corporeal and spiritual works of mercy that are the Fruit of the Holy Spirit, are the evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer. When there are no good works in your life the Holy Spirit is absent too.
Peace be with you
Brilliant! Absolutely Clintonesque!
both statements say the same thing...in my post 2211, I was questining your ability to discern the differance...ie, the question marks following the statement. I probably should have started that statement with "does that mean that you really can't......etc.
The Holy Spirit works through the lives of the individual believers who ARE the church, the organism, the TRUE church, the body of Christ.
It's just not *the Church*, capital *C*, which by precedent refers to the Roman Catholic church, the organization.
In the letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes to the believers in Corinth....
1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
So who came up with it that you’re accusing me of accusing another FReeper of posting while under the influence to the RM?
A freeper came up with that concept? I thought only Popes and such set those concepts. Do they now let regular lay members establish what the RCC sets as a belief? Wow! Who knew?
They don’t say the same thing and post 2211 was not made to me.
It sounded like that rhapsodizing nonsense from that one pope about Mary that you’ve posted before.
The *I’m all yours* pope.
Or am I thinking of another FReeper?
Paul taught that works are of God's creation and not our own. Any works we create outside of that are done in vain.
Paul also taught that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. I am surprised that the Church would teach something that conflicts with what Paul taught.
Oh that’s funny. Do Catholics not see the difference between works that are a result of salvation and works to earn salvation. Why would one make a comment like “I hope you have done enough of………”) if ones salvation is not contingent on works? So how much is enough per the RCC? Is there a check off system or is that why Catholics never know whether they are saved or not?
“Now you are the body and individually members of it”
That being the case, and knowing that as a person who has given myself totally to Jesus Christ, I am a part of His Body.
Therein lies a problem with all the condescension of those Catholics who are part of His Body; as St. Paul wrote, He cannot deny us, for He cannot deny Himself.
Jesus also said that He would not cast out any who come to Him. I cannot be cast out for I have come to Him.
What is to be done with people like me? Say it isn’t true that I am “saved”? No—there is no way that can be said.
Neither can it be said by putting ALL Catholics together and making claim that they aren’t sons by adoption based on the personal opinion (belief) that assumes that their faith is in error.
I don’t think I posted the “rhapsodizing” one. I have posted the prayer by the pope who was obviously praying to Mary. I do know that one of the Popes, I think it was the last one, who dedicated his life to Mary.
Because I do not see evidence of the Fruit of the Holy Spirit in you posting history. I do hope it is present in the portion of your life not visible in the forum.
Peace be to you.
Contrary to what the Catholic Church would have us believe, the early church fathers were big supporters of having people read and understand the scriptures. Chrystrostom encouraged people to read the scriptures and complained that they were not doing so. One of the fathers stated that if you were sitting in church and heard false doctrine being preached, the Holy Spirit would have you put your hands up to your ears and you would run screaming from the church. (Or something like that.) :O)
Furthermore, while our dear Catholic friends would like to talk about their council, here is a little gem Alex led me to:
The Vincentian Canon states that sound doctrine is built off of scripture and the way you can tell heretical doctrine is through the scriptures albeit, one should also reflect on sound teaching. Today our Catholic friends have this exactly backwards.
It is also plain from the early writings (and simple logic) that bishops and others were free to read and interpret sacred writings. It was when people strayed from sound doctrine not found in the scriptures that councils were called and people were branded as heretics. The Reformers encouragement of reading scriptures came from the same beliefs as the early fathers. For the scriptures are the power of God. They believed in the inerrant word of God profitable for teaching and reproof.
It was never taught that people were not allowed to study scripture until the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 decreed it so; that people were not even allowed to read it. The Council of Trent backed off (a little bit) of this extreme idea by saying, "Hey, it's OK to read it but we'll tell you what it means." What a stupid concept and is the reason Catholics today cannot figure out how scripture differs from any other writings. The early fathers never had that problem.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
"I don't know who made up that kind of unscriptural nonsense and under what circumstances, but I want some of whatever they were on next time I am in the hospital."Are you accusing another FReeper of posting while under the influence in violation of Forum rules and protocols?
Was I wrong in thinking that what you posted: " In the Eucharist the Church takes up her Marian role, becoming once again the place where the Spirit conceives the Body of Christ" was doctrine of the Catholic church or did you indeed make that up from what St Francis said in a foriegn language?
Or were you translating?
It seems you could have just asked that question of the poster instead of bothering the Religion Moderator.
You got your answer, it wasn't an accusation towards you. It was a statement that it wasn't known who made it up.
It was put so eloquently it was probably thought it was a edict from the church "Fathers."
Oh, and by the way--for clarification-- the statement about the Holy Spirit was:
What an appalling misunderstanding of the role and function of the Holy Spirit in this worldYour statement
...you begin with the premise that the Holy Spirit does not and cannot work through His Church...doesn't fit with what was posted to you.
First of all, the body of Christ is made up of all saved born again believers, it is NOT the Catholic church.
It is NOT His church because it denies that any Christian who is not a member has Everlasting Life.
The body of Christ can only be the COMPLETE sum of ALL believers, not just the Catholic ones.
Catholics are members if they are saved born again Christians.
It was the last Pope, John Paul the something. I’m looking for the exact wording he had sewn into his skirt about her and will post it when I find it...
I’m sure there are saved people in the Catholic church just as there are saved people in every church.
And there are unsaved people in every church, including the Catholic church.
Because salvation is based on faith in Christ, not faith in church membership, baptism, works, or whatever else is added to faith in Christ.
If someone chooses to continue in the Catholic church while being saved, that’s their prerogative.
But for the RCC to state that salvation is found in it alone and that outside of the Catholic church there is no salvation is wrong. As is conflating the terms *Catholic* and *Christian*.
Not all Catholics are Christians and not all Christians are Catholic.
When those erroneous statements are made, people will speak out.
And the Catholic church has no authority over those who choose to not put themselves under it.
Do you know what an apology is?
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.