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.
That’s not the point. The point is that man is not to glory or take credit. Scripture has been posted often enough to warn Catholics about boasting. Take heed.
history mentions both, and we were discussing the growth of the Catholic church through the years. Scripture doesn't mention the middle ages either, but we know they existed
Actually, it's easier to be accountable to the RCC than to God. A person can snow the church.
There's no snowing God. HE knows the heart. Talk about accountability.
And yes, it is easier to be not Catholic. The Catholic church makes it way too hard to be saved. God never intended it to be so hard for us.
unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and DRINK OF HIS BLOOD, you shall not have life within you....I do both
at first, yes, but we were discussing what they were known as in subsequent years...in the year 234 they were known as Catholics......and Catholics are Christians
Hmmm, let me think here.....
Why do catholics think of God so lowly? Because they don't know HIM so they don't honor HIS Word but bow to man and their teachings. No one can serve two masters.
if He had decided to use rocks, the rocks would recieve no credit, but the sculptors would.
Now that's a catholic comment - credit always goes to 'man' Even rocks could praise God but not catholics. Talk about stiff neck and hardheartedness!
Hmmm, let me think here.....
HEY DON'T DO THAT...how are these people ever going to learn anything about true Christianity if the teacher doesn't show up.....frustration is no excuse for surrender.
Semantics will not excuse them either.
Like it makes it any better that they were *older*?
I don't think so.
Even as regarding hearing, as a former lector, i know that the amount of reading of Scripture a RC gets in mass is very little, (http://catholictrenches.blogspot.com/2007/07/lectionary-statistics.html) including in the typical 10 minute sermonette, but you do not get much from many “so-called “word of faith” preachers either, or liberal Prot churches.
And on another note, the “Bible” most people read is us:
“Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: “ (2 Corinthians 3:2)
You are writing a gospel, a chapter each day,
By the deeds that you do, by the words that you say;
Men read what you write, whether faithless or true.
Say – what is the gospel, according to you? - Paul Gilbert -
We are the only Bible the careless world will read,
We are the sinner’s Gospel; we are the scoffer’s creed.
We are the Lord’s last message given in deed and word,
What if the type is crooked? What if the print is blurred?
What if your hands are busy with other work than His?
What if your feet are walking where sin’s allurement is?
What if our tongues are speaking of things His lips would spurn?
How can we hope to help Him and hasten His return?
To hasten our Lord’s return we truly need more power.
So let us all be Spirit filled and awaiting Him each hour.
In an hour that we think not, He said He should appear.
Then let us walk in Holiness and meet Him with a cheer. -
Part of a poem by Annie Johnson Flint, born 1866.
God certainly will...He is administering to the recipient and the recipient is guilty of nothing, why would God deny him the beneficial effects of the sacrament. You are right God hates sin He doesn't hate sinners.
They most certainly would because they most certainly did. They transferred priests from parish to parish to continue their sins knowing what they had done. The Catholic Church was knowingly allowing that practice to continue. Scripture does have instruction that once again the Catholic Church ignored.
1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”
>>I do both
True Christians have Christ indwelling full time. Claiming to recreate the literal flesh and blood of Christ is unscriptural to say the least. And by the hands of leaders who scripture clearly states to not even eat with is blasphemy and blatant disobedience.
Lack of a base of scripture causes one to rely on the words of carnal man which will always fade before the word of God.
2. Compare Acts 3:21 with Rom. 16:25-27. Peter, in Acts states: "...which God hath spoken BY THE MOUTH OF ALL HIS HOLY PROPHETS SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN". Paul, in Romans states:"...Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to MY GOSPEL and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to THE REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY, WHICH WAS KEPT SECRET SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN,,....
Is something that is made KNOWN since the world began the same as something that is kept SECRET since the world began? No, of course not. ANyone who can read can see this. SO...what did Paul call "My gospel" that was kept secret until revealed to him first and how did it differ from what Peter preached in Acts and referred to as being prophesied since the world began?
But there is more. 1 Tim. 1:14-16 is next, after these points have been pondered.
How can you out of a bloodless sacrifice that the church says it is?
Besides, God forbids the drinking of blood.
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
Leviticus 7:26-27 26 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. 27 Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”
Leviticus 17:14 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.
Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Acts 15:12-21 12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
16 “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, 17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’
19 Therefore my (James) judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Acts 15:22-29 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
The command to abstain from eating blood is one of the few OT Law requirements reiterated in the NT.
God is serious about it.
I believe that what I quoted....unless you eat of the body of the Son of Man and drink from His blood, you shall not have life within you....is in scripture....I love it everytime scripture is right.....always
He COULD NOT have demanded that people break the very Law He came to fulfill. That would have been an occasion of sin for Him.
Jesus came to FULFILL the Law, not abolish it, so He couldn't have told the disciples to eat real blood. It had to be symbolic, as the Passover meal was.
Peter said in Acts 10;14 when he had the vision of the sheet and unclean animals.... But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”
That would include eating blood, which would have made him unclean for the Passover if it was real blood at the Last Supper. As an observant Jew, he would never have eaten blood or anything he thought had blood in it.
Or he lied to God about never having eaten anything unclean.
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.