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.
2 Corinthians 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
And they sure do.....
Why do you keep bearing false witness against others?
Galatians 5:25-26 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
Count-your-change is not provoking others. Why do you?
What a great testimony.
Praise God for how He works in our lives.
just wow.....
It's not what they are told to believe that they should think twice about - but what they are not taught. They say they must believe in the Trinity; yet they ignore the Holy Spirit, they discount that HE is in us, born again believers, and non stop with their 'our interpretation' all the time in spite of that very teachings of Jesus. I go to prepare a place and He will send The Comforter, The Teacher, the HOLY SPIRIT. And His Word is 'spiritually discerned as it IS Holy Spirit Inspired. Catholics do not believe Jesus nor His Spirit.
They place Mary for Jesus, pray to the dead instead of going directly to the Father - God doesn't have a 'go to' person - HE IS THE PERSON and Jesus offered us a direct link to HIM. That is the reason for Him dying for us to make that possible - as sin separated us from The Father.
Where ever The Trinity should be in their lives, the place it with man. So with their lips they say they believe in The Trinity (because they are taught that) but they do NOT with their heart or actions (because of their teachings). One can't say they believe in The Trinity and then keep discounting IT. That is what they are doing. How many posts did we see from them - telling us that we don't believe in The Trinity?
Another thing - they still have Jesus on the Cross and Mary is with the baby Jesus. Where do they show ANY indication that HE is risen?? And that IS the crux of Christianity. And then they have a pope who brazenly reinforces it with saying 'I'm all yours, Mary' and embroiders it on his garments. There is no denying, Jesus is on the back burner in the catholic church. And JESUS IS part of the Trinity and the three can't be separated. Where Jesus is - is God and HIS Spirit. 'When you see ME, you see the Father.'
JESUS is GOD and not a baby. Jesus IS RISEN and sitting at His Father's right hand. Now 'who' wouldn't want to proclaim that the Man Jesus is GOD reinforced?? - And that HE Resurrected? - now 'who' deceived man that brought sin into the world? what 'loser' would be angry that Jesus came to earth to die for OUR SINS and, then, resurrect to show HE is God for us? 'Who' wants us to keep our sins? What happens to us if we die in sin? Where do we go? That 'who' is behind those teachings and he wants to make the subjects of those teachings 'losers' along with him - where he goes, he wants them there, also.
Bottom Line: Catholics do not believe in The Trinity, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit - only with their lips and that is perfect with Rome and the design/plan of satan. And we nknow MANY will fulfill the plan of satan. And we know the only weapon satan has is deception from the beginning.
Satan is just an imp and a flea has more power than satan. Satan needs a body to perform his evil. Remember the pigs the demons begged to be cast into?
d1212-””Moreover, as a poster states on a thread here in response to this, “”
That thread you are pointing to is part of CARM ministries run by Matt Slick ...and we know he can;t be trusted and has justified evil such as masturbation when he wrote.
Is masturbation wrong?
by Matt Slick-Carm Ministries
http://carm.org/masturbation
“The Bible does not discuss masturbation at all. This seems a little odd since it is such a strong and prevalent human event. And, given that Leviticus has so much to say about sexuality, one would think it natural that the subject would be covered. But it isn’t. Masturbation is not specifically declared to be sinful.
Furthermore, what if a person masturbates in order to reduce the sexual urge in an attempt to not commit fornication? Certainly, actual fornication would be a sin, and masturbation would be preferable in this instance.
Therefore, I believe that though masturbation under certain circumstances may not be sinful”- Matt Slick Carm Ministries
The demons like guys like Matt Slick and Carm Ministries theology
And here is Catholic Teaching that demons don’t like and run from...
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df75se.htm
The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self (”ipsation”), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.
This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church—in the course of a constant tradition— and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.[19] The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of “impurity,” “unchasteness” and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.
Of course, you will probably end up posting a novel of cafeteria Catholic’s who don’t follow this which will mean nothing to change what the church teaches
Is that all you can dig up on him to discredit him?
Are you saying that Catholics don’t masturbate?
How many do you think confess THAT to a priest?
And just what is Catholics obsession with sex?
Seems like every time you turn around, some Catholic is carrying on about it.
Not to worry; as you have fellow travelers in MORMONism:
What is your church doing to help the male to stay true?
"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church, January 5th, 1982"Prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation-practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality...."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Pages 77-79, 81-82
"Among the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, [unwed] pregnancy, and abortions - all ugly sins - but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils, and it is often difficult for youth to distinguish where one ends and another begins. They awaken lust and stir evil thoughts and sex desires. They are but parts of the whole family of related sins and indiscretions. Almost like twins, 'petting' and fornication are alike."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 65
"Also far-reaching is the effect of the loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 196
"And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth." (Genesis 4:9-14.) That was true of murder. It is also true of illicit sex, which, of course, includes all petting, fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and all other perversions. The Lord may say to offenders, as He did to Cain, "What hast thou done?" The children thus conceived make damning charges against you; the companions who have been frustrated and violated condemn you; the body that has been defiled cries out against you; the spirit which has been dwarfed convicts you. You will have difficulty throughout the ages in totally forgiving yourself."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965. Often-used quote still used today in LDS seminary classes.
"I do not find in the Bible the modern terms "petting" nor "homosexuality," yet I found numerous scriptures which forbade such acts under by whatever names they might be called. I could not find the term "homosexuality," but I did find numerous places where the Lord condemned such a practice with such vigor that even the death penalty was assessed."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965
"If adultery or fornication justified the death penalty in the old days, and still in Christ's day, is the sin any less today because the laws of the land do not assess the death penalty for it? Is the act less grievous? There must be a washing, a purging, a changing of attitudes, a correcting of appraisals, a strengthening toward self-mastery. There must be many prayers, and volumes of tears. There must be an inner conviction giving to the sin its full diabolical weight. There must be increased devotion and much thought and study. And this takes energy and time and often is accompanied with sore embarrassment, heavy deprivations and deep trials, even if indeed one is not excommunicated from the Church, losing all spiritual blessings."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Page 155
"How like the mistletoe is immorality. The killer plant starts with a sticky sweet berry. Little indiscretions are the berries -- indiscretions like sex thoughts sex discussions, passionate kissing, pornography. The leaves and little twigs are masturbation and necking and such, growing with every exercise. The full-grown plant is petting and sex looseness. It confounds, frustrates, and destroys like the parasite if it is not cut out and destroyed, for, in time it robs the tree, bleeds its life, and leaves it barren and dry; and, strangely enough, the parasite dies with its host."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967.
I find it ironic that the same church that condemns masturbation does not condemn the priests who homosexually raped children. Instead they moved them around to different parishes and provided them with new victims.
Catholics need to get off their moral high horse because they are not the paragons of virtue they like to present to the world. They have all kinds of rules and regulations and *official* teaching of the Church, and precious little living it out in the daily lives of its priests and parishioners.
What do you think she thinks when she sees what you posted?
Don't you think you should pray to her and ask for her devine forgiveness?
As a Catholic poster said about a Christian knowing more than one way to spell a word...
BE ASHAMED!!!!
It fits here better
I seriously found that in less then a minute, i 'm sure i could find more if I wanted to
And just what is Catholics obsession with sex?
Masturbation is not sex , it's a self serving sinful act.So,there is no obsession other than to condemn sin
Reminds me of something posted from a guilty person on the subject
Church Teaching does condemn them and if a Bishop protected them there is the old writing that applies to the Bishop who did nothing written by Saint John Chrysostom
"The road to hell is paved by the sculls of Bishops"- Saint John Chrysostom
Bill Clinton: Oral sex is not sex.
Your are in good company.
So are you saying that Catholics have mastered masturbation with out any lust?
Masturbation is sin!Period!
Yes, that was terycarl
She admitted she was wrong to say that Adam and Eve and Mary were born.
Although attempting to cover a Christian with shame for knowing the spelling of a word in two accepted ways was never retracted.
It seems born again Christians are fair game for Catholics to project shame upon even if there is no valid reason.
Similar to what liberals do, make a false accusation and then say it's justified because the charge is worse than it actually being true.
No problem the Armor of God protects against misapplied castigation such as that.
Love it! Thanks for sharing. He deals differently with all us - that demonstrates how GOD is a PERSONAL GOD.
I can attest to that - I remember it well - it depended on whose turn it was - to be the recipient of that 'tactic' which is Cronos' MO - even following one, thread to thread.
egad woman, you have such a 1 track mind that your opinions are becoming totally useless....not that ANY of them had any credence before that.
you describe a two thousand year old institution which brought us the bible and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, and want to condemn it for the actions of a virtual handful full of bad apples....that is, at best, a pathetic conclusion.
stfassisi, do you seriously think that is an argument? The site is indeed part of CARM ministries, but that that is not the one posting, nor is he a pope whom all must agree on, and regardless of the owner, that does not negate what a poster says on it anymore that it would on anything else.
As for the irrelevant tissue that you made an issue, you cut off what he said without even an ellipse to indicate there was more, and while i think he should see a Scriptural case against masturbation can be found based on principal, and for testimony, he seems to be sanctioning it as the lesser of two evils, and what came after your ending was “the desire to be sexual pure and holy should move the Christian to avoid it. Instead, he or she should seek to master the body and not give into its desires. “
Many people also did not include all that the pope said when he was reasoning along the line of the lesser of two evils, without actually sanctioning one, in saying,
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. (http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/11/23/guestview-did-the-pope-%E2%80%9Cjustify%E2%80%9D-condom-use-in-some-circumstances/)
`
And while i agree with the pope here, Rome errs on the other side by presuming that almost all its pastors must have the gift of celibacy, contrary to the NT church (and most of the apostles, including Peter) which it certainly does not improve on.
And consistent with this opposite extreme, some major CFs even held 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,” and Jerome for one engaged in specious exegesis in trying to justify perverse reasoning regarding this issue. (More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=311#311)
However, if you insist on arguing according to the genesis fallacy (if the source is wrong all that comes from it must be wrong) then we can certainly dispense with anything Rome (or anyone) says, based on such things as sanction of slavery, torture, etc. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2821956/posts?page=17#17
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.