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.
Yea, that worked out great for the people, right?GAG!!! That is just so revolting. It ought to make adifference. God didn't tolerate it from His priests in Israel. Those passages have already been posted.God doesn't tolerate it from Catholics either....however, the people have no way of knowing the condition of the priests soul.
No it didn't
The people didn't know of the depravity of certain Priests, but the superiors of the Priests did.
The bosses of the priests kept moving them around and they continued their perversion of having sex with innocent little children
God, therefore, administers the sacrament to the recipient who is worthy to recieve it, and deals with the priest on His own time......how else could it possibly work????God will NOT administer a sacrament that is tainted by the sinful hands of a priest who continued to use those hands to abuse young trusting children.
No matrter how pius and official the sinful priest looks with his fancy robes God will not allow those hands to touch the communion cracker, as you believe it IS the actual body of Jesus.
I think it has been explained on this thread how else it can work.
Hint, the Priests could have been fired unstead of shuffled around the country where they CONTINUED TO PREY ON YOUNG CHILDREN IN THE MOST DESPICABLE WAYS!
Fired and disiplined and turned over to the authorities for procecution. Unstead of waiting for sometimes decades for the victims to complain.
As an aside to readers that see that I keep posting these rebuttals to other posters:
I will continue to do it as long as Catholics make excuses for the perversions their denomination has allowed to happen.
Or skirt the issue with inane compaisons to boy scouts, etc.
I've seen where others have already addressed the main point of your question - and quite adequately. But I DO have one concerning your math. How is it you consistently imply the Roman Catholic Church began in the first year A.D.? You've said "2,013 years" several times now. Not to be picky, but, I wonder why you think your church began when Jesus was arguably but an infant, only a few years old? You can't seriously believe this is also true, do you?
The Catholic church is NOT CHRIST.
Christ died for me, not the Catholic church.
Even Peter, the guy you guys claim is your first pope said....Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Not the name of the Catholic church; the name of JESUS.
FWIW, there were no Catholics around when the veil of the Temple was torn in two. Gentiles were not permitted in the Temple. For that matter, only the Jewish priests were allowed in that area, so if there were any witnesses to the occurrence, it would have been Jewish priests and no one else.
God gets all the credit for its existance...but He USED the Catholic church to preserve it and protect it and bring it down through the years so you'd get to read and understand it.
They sewed it back up and called it a confessional, with a priest at the door.
Projection.....
Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23).
How would the Apostles know what sins to forgive or retain, unless sins were confessed to them?
nope...as you said, there were thousands of them and they BECAME KNOWN, by the public and themselves, as Catholic. The title can therefore be attributed to those who came before.....That's not a big deal in and of itself....there was a group of people, starting with the Apostles, who venerated Christ, followed Him as the Reedemer and postulated their beliefs to the masses. As they grew in number they became known as Catholics.....whatever....it was one group of people which grew to what the Catholic church is now.
Well, you are half right, the Catholic church is certainly not proper. In any sense of the word.Catholism is attempting to be seen as the ONLY proper "church" and the rest
of Christians....well they aren't unless the join the "Church."wrong terminology....not proper, complete.
Nor is it complete.
The rest of Christianity, that's correct, they are not "complete"
I never said that and you know I never would. Stop that practice of putting words into my mouth.
Christains are the church.
To join the Catholic church would be to leave the real church started by Jesus.
oh good grief
God preserved it through the efforts of the Catholic Church...granted that it was His will, but also His way...if He had decided to use rocks, the rocks would recieve no credit, but the sculptors would....bare rocks tell nothing, bare papyrus tells nothing. It takes a person, writing on them, to bring out the message......other that the ten commandments of course.
John Hus for one.
Burned him at the stake.
You want all of that brought up again?
It’s been proven on this thread and other places on FR.
Bad grief.
Christians are born again saved followers of Jesus. All Catholics are not born again followers of Jesus.God made that very clear in the Bible, take it up with Him.if protestants keep saying that over and over and over, and over again, someday it may actually be true.
WOW!!!!! it is easier to be a protestant that I thought....the darned Catholic church makes us at least somewhat accountable for our behavior......
Satan will be excited to hear about the new rules because he not only knows that Christ died on the cross....he BELIEVES it
the Pope is a title, moves on with the next elected, like president. The person referred to in the post was just that, a particular person.
Wow! So God used a sculptor to write the ten commandments on those tablets of stone? Who knew? That must be in the “tradition information” that the Catholic Church hasn’t put in writing to this point still?
Now about that “bare rocks tell nothing comment just look at this.
Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
So God says the stones would cry out but you say “bare stones tell nothing”? Wow, just Wow!
No I would be glad to answer your question that assumes that I belong to a denomination that would do things like the Catholic church has done.
For starters, I don't have a denomination.
No church I have ever been a part of has had those in the ministry that commited those types of acts.
Nice try to attempt to put the blame on others for what the Catholics did.
And they certainly did TRILLIONS in damage to young venerable children with the vicious violent painful sex acts they forced those children to endure.
Those children are scarred for life, the Catholic church should have SOLD ALL THEIR ASSETS AND GIVEN THEM TO THESE PEOPLE and gone out of business with great shame.
there was no excuse for the way the church handled that situation...noneGood for you saying that.
Then of course you go on and try to show that it wasn't that bad, everyone does it.
Which Bible? How do you know which books belong in the Bible?
not a real good analogy...your statement indicates the Christ came to Earth to establish a new covenant with mankind, did so, sent the paraclete, and then let His church lapse into apostasy for one thousand six hundred years, and then went the Reformers to fix it....God is FAR more efficient than that.
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.