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.
You will have to show that Augustine taught anything close to double-predestination. In any case, Augustine did what many contraverialists do, and carried his arguments to logical conclusions that were soon rejected by a church synod. The eastern fathers, who are certainly as authoritative, did not belong to his school. Sometimes culture colors theology, and Augustine was an African ever bit as stubborn as his Donatist compatriots, whom he had to bully into submission.
>> “ All that verbeage to get to an erroneous conclusion when all we had to do was listen to God.” <<
.
And therein lies the total story of the “catholic” church, form its founding in the 4th century, to the present. An edifice of deception.
Well, John was jealous of Peter, but given that he is always Peter, or Simon Peter, and that he is the leading figure among the twelve, you have to go deep into semantics to reject the importance of Peter.
Please don’t ping me again. I will return the favor.
1,891 posted on Friday, December 21, 2012 12:38:42 by CynicalBear
Memory loss is an early warning sign of Alzheimer's particularly when accompanied by a shrinking vocabulary and decreased word fluency, which lead to a general impoverishment of oral and written language.
Don’t confuse establishment with founding. There was a good reason for Constantine’s choosing to make Christianity the state religion: one is these reasons was its great numbers. Just look at the number of bishops at the first church council.
Not so deep.
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Matthew 16: “23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
James actually was the evident authority in the first church council gathering in Jerusalem.
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
If a person can’t defend with scripture they should just say it.
Please don’t ping me again. I will return the favor.
1,891 posted on Friday, December 21, 2012 12:38:42 by CynicalBear
Someone who cannot keep their word is by definition untrustworthy whether they, like Satan, can quote Scripture or not.
Jude 1:10 "But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not : and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.
Jude 1:11 Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain : and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core.
You remember Core, they guy who said, "Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them : Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord ?" because he wanted to be his own priest. Remember? The guy the earth opened up and swallowed because God The Father Himself was angered by that garbage about each one being their own priest with no need for a priesthood. Well, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
You mean in the Old Testament when there was a hierarchy of Priesthood prior to Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross? Don’t you believe what scripture says in the New Testament?
1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
You see, when Christ died on the cross the veil was rent and the old Jewish priesthood was no longer needed because now each believer had access to the throne of God through the blood of Jesus. Jesus is now the High Priest who represents us before the Throne of God.
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Catholics should ditch those false priests and that “vicar” or “false Christ” and realize what scripture teaches about the priesthood of all believers.
To: CynicalBear
To: Rashputin
Please don’t ping me again. I will return the favor.
1,891 posted on Friday, December 21, 2012 12:38:42 by CynicalBear
Someone who cannot keep their word is by definition untrustworthy whether they, like Satan, can quote Scripture or not.
1 Corinthians 1:18-31 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Please don’t ping me again. I will return the favor.
1,891 posted on Friday, December 21, 2012 12:38:42 by CynicalBear
Someone who cannot keep their word is by definition untrustworthy no matter how much Scripture they twist to suit their own personal inclinations and absurd notions.
Have you read any of Pope Benedict’s writings? He’s on his third book about Jesus. I think he’s quite serious about Jesus as his Lord and Savior, as well as knowing that Jesus is the Head of the Church.
Well in this case we were discussing your broad brush about all non Catholics.
I am a non Catholic, but don’t fit into your box of “generating labels”
The labels are from Catholics. So far you have labeled us as non catholics (I’ll take that one) and protestants and labelers.
The broadbrush of all that are not Catholic are Protestant is a prime example.
Check out the article at the top of this thread.
Shirley you have seen that said over and over again.
The point is about being born again.
Did you see that information?
I have known Catholics that are born again!
Well, no. However if you follow the thread that is not what I am reading from some posters.
Jesus the Living Christ is head of Christianity - period.
Beneath Christ, there are prelates, and Scripture says, , “obey your prelates”. You cannot read obey your prealates if you have none and reading that command to mean, “obey your selves” is absurd.
Regards
It sounds like you do not believe that God often chooses imperfect, weak, and frail humans as instruments to communicate for Him.
Not one single book in the Bible (Old Testament or New Testament) was physically written by Jesus, or was even written during the years that Jesus Christ walked on this Earth in His humanity.
Do you believe that God, in God's infinite wisdom and power, chose an imperfect, weak, and frail human being to be the instrument to communicate for God by writing the "Gospel of Matthew", rather than just God physically writing it directly Himself?
Do you believe that God, in God's infinite wisdom and power, chose an imperfect, weak, and frail human being to be the instrument to communicate for God by writing the "Gospel of Mark", rather than God just physically writing it directly Himself?
Do you believe that God, in God's infinite wisdom and power, chose an imperfect, weak, and frail human being to be the instrument to communicate for God by writing the "Gospel of Luke", rather than God just physically writing it directly Himself?
Do you believe that God, in God's infinite wisdom and power, chose an imperfect, weak, and frail human being to be the instrument to communicate for God by writing the "Gospel of John", rather than God just physically writing it directly Himself?
Do you believe that God, in God's infinite wisdom and power, chose imperfect, weak, and frail human beings to be the instruments to communicate for God by writing the Epistles and all the other Books of the New Testament, rather than God just physically writing them directly Himself?
Do you believe that God, in God's infinite wisdom and power, chose imperfect, weak, and frail human beings to be the instruments to communicate for God by writing the all the Books of the Old Testament, rather than God just physically writing them directly Himself?
In other words, God could have chosen to physically write the whole Bible directly Himself, without the assistance of any human whatsoever, but instead, God chose, in God's infinite power. wisdom, and Sovereign Holy Will, to use imperfect, weak, frail human beings as instruments to communicate for God, in EVERY SINGLE Book in the Bible, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. Not one single Book in the Bible was written without God making use of some human being, as an instrument to communicate for God by physically writing that Book (NO EXCEPTIONS).
Now, seriously, does that sound like a God who does NOT choose quite often to communicate through imperfect, weak, frail human instruments? (Please consider that question honestly, carefully, and prayerfully in your heart (for your own sake), after all the contentious discussion is completely finished on this thread.)
You will have to show me in the New Testament where it says obey your “prelates”.
I do not recall ever even seeing the word, so I looked it up - ah, so no.
Chapter and verse?
Jesus said this....
John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
John 14:23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
John 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
1 John 5:1-5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
The only one we have to obey is Jesus.
Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
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.