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.
Interesting.
But it does make me wonder why Rome would not rather be CLOSER to the ORIGINAL languages of Hebrew and Aramaic?
Peter's name was Simon Bar Jona...Christ named him Peter (petros...Rock)
When you mention another Freeper in a post, be sure to ping him.
All Catholics are born again.
Well that would be nice
One time I asked a Catholic lady if she was a Christian
She said, “no, I am a Catholic”
Interesting
but it does make me wonder why you don't think that the church which originally translated the bible from whatever source didn't do it right in this case?????
It's simple, they are simply Christians (with a capital "C")
(A person can become a Christian by just reading the Bible)
You do not have to "protest" Catholicism to become a Christian.
There are millions of Christians that do not belong to Protestantism or Catholicism.
They are called "born again"--by themselves and Jesus:
Of course many Catholics and Protestants are born again, that is the sign of true Christianity and fulfillment of the assurity of everlasting life.
SALVATION & THE NEW
BIRTH
How to be Born Again
What is salvation and the new birth (
being born again ) ?
Let us start
by saying that the Bible calls it being "born again".
During Jesus'
ministry here on earth, a rabbi ( teacher of Jewish law ) named Nicodemus came
to interview Jesus
at night and stated, "we all know that God has sent you
to teach us, your miracles alone are proof enough of this.
Jesus then told
him, "That unless a person is born again ( anew, from above
) he cannot
ever see ( know, be acquainted with and experience ) the Kingdom
of God" Nicodemus then said to Jesus,
"how can a man be born when he
is old? Can he enter his mother's womb again and be born?" Jesus answered,
"I tell you, unless a man is born of water and ( even )
the Spirit ( Holy Spirit ), he cannot ( ever ) enter the
Kingdom of God.
What is born of ( from ) the flesh is flesh ( of the physical is physical ) and
what is born of
the Spirit is Spirit", John 3:2-6.
This is
the new birth, what is referred to as being "born again". Jesus Christ paid a
great price ( His life )
by suffering and dying on the cross to pay the
price for every sin that mankind had committed up till then
and every sin
humanity would commit in the future to open the way of salvation, the "new
birth".
What part does belief have in salvation (
the new birth ) ?
Jesus said in
John 3:15-16, "everyone who believes in Him ( who cleaves to Him, trusts Him and relies on Him ) may not perish
but have eternal life and ( actually
) live forever. For God so greatly loved the world that He
gave up His only begotten Son,
that whoever believes in ( trusts in, clings to, relies on ) Him
shall not perish, come to destruction,
be lost but have eternal everlasting
life".
The Bible makes it quite clear who and what His Church is.
Is is every single (not as opposed to married lol) born again Christian.
There is no overall authority except Jesus Christ.
Christians have no problem with Catholics being all caught up in their Catholicism, but please...We don't need to "come back to the mother church," we are the Church.
(So are you if you are born again)
The Authority of Christianity is Centered on Jesus Christ.
That is possible....you have the ninth street Christian church, the pisgah Christian church, the Christian church of High street, the Apostolic Christian church........she was merely trying to point out that she belonged to the only true Christian church on earth....Catholic is the easiest way to do it.
Oh, good grief.
That verse is talking about rulers. IE government.
I am not going to debate you here, we are to obey the leaders as long as what they say does nor violate God’S Word.
Christ is the Head of His church (church means people).
You are free by will to submit to whomever you wish, I choose to submit to and be a slave to Jesus, the living Christ.
Good find! That’s exactly right. Even many if not most of the Protestant churches get that wrong as well.
She said to the question, Are you a Christian? an emphatic “NO”
Many Catholics are not born again.
Many Protestants are not born again.
This lady was NOT born again.
She believed that being a Catholic covered all the bases.
Jesus says otherwize, he is the Authority.
As you can see by my previous post to you, the “only true Christian church on earth” is made up of ALL believers.
We are the Church.
I didn't ignore the selective use of Scripture in your posting, but maybe you ignored this one:
When Jesus said, "if he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector," what did He mean?
Well, since Rome was at that time the tax collector and it's state religion was pagan, it seems we can rule that out.
Thanks, I was happy to find that.
The simplicity of Christianity is complicated by some churches with so much extraneous dogma that it is amazing that some of them have any born again Christians in them at all!
It’s like trying to swim upstream during logging season. You gotta dodge all the dogma to get a glimpse of Jesus.
(ekklésia)
Short Definition: an assembly, congregation, church
Take it to the congregation or assembly of believers that he has been meeting with. There is no inferred worldwide hierarchy there.
Well, that’s clearly says, “if you don’t listen to yourself, treat yourself like a pagan and a tax collector”.
prelate
Definition prel·ate [ préllət ]
prel·ates Plural
NOUN
1. high-ranking member of clergy: a high-ranking member of the Christian clergy, e.g. an abbot, bishop, or cardinal
Encarta® World English Dictionary[North American Edition] © & (P) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
If you choose to be a slave or submit to man be my guest, you do that with free will.
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.