11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity Is Centered on St. Peter and Rome

stpeterslist ^ | December 19, 2012

[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.

 

The Apostolic Primacy of St. Peter and Rome

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.

 

1. The Gospel of St. John

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.

 

2. Salutations, from Babylon

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).

 

3. Gospel of St. Mark

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.

 

4. Testimony of Pope St. Clement I

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.

 

5. Testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch

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.

 

6. Taught in the Same Place in Italy

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).

 

 

7. Rome: Founded by Sts. Peter and Paul

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.

 

8. St. Peter Announced the Word of God in Rome

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).

 

9. Rome: Where Authority is Ever Within Reach

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).

 

10. Come to the Vatican and See for Yourself

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).

 

11. Ancient Epigraphic Memorial

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.

[Cronos]

The simplicity of Christianity is really encapsulated in the Nicene Creed

Nicene Creed

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per prophetas. Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.  We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.  We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Rashputin]

The only thing "interesting" is that anyone who claims to be Christian doesn't know enough of the history of how we got to Bible to know that after hundreds of years of Roman persecution and destruction of copies of the NT Scriptures little other than Greek translations still existed.

After Romans destroying Scripture wherever it was found for several hundred years, few if any original language works survived. What did survive that wasn't a Greek translation varied from one fragmentary copy to the next far more than the surviving Greek translations did.

By the time Christianity was legal and not being constantly persecuted existing portions in every language were studied as were the widely distributed Greek translations with every existing sort of copy being compared to make the best possible Latin translation.

I know it's tough for the crowd who like to post pictures of themselves throwing feces to understand, but when the originals didn't exist, no one could use originals that didn't exist.

Of course, anyone who even read a children's book of how we got the Bible would know this so it must be tangent time to avoid the main point which is that the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible correctly translates the word "overseers" as "prelates".

Until Martin Luther threw out portions of the Old Testament and wanted to throw out Hebrews (which would have sidestepped this and other issues for him), James (which contains direct contradictions of Luther's doctrines), Jude (which warns against Luther's doctrines), and Revelation (which contains epistles from Christ Himself), everyone knew and accepted that perlates were leaders in the church who had been properly ordained by someone with a direct connection back to Christ through ordination traced directly back to Christ just like a legal chain of evidence can trace something back to the point of origin.

King James saw the obvious benefits of retaining Luther's new definition of "overseer" as something other than the narrow meaning it had always had since Christianity began. Telling the peasants they had to obey the king and nobility as they would obey Christ Himself was quite useful and being useful that's what it was altered to mean.

The fact is, though, overseers are those who have a direct ordination connection all the way back to Jesus Christ Himself who established the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to provide ordained shepherds to guide and direct His sheep to the Truth and keep them from going astray.

Those who cannot accept the Latin and the Douay-Rheims can, naturally, continue to preach their belief that, at the moment, it's King Barry who they must obey as being responsible for their souls. That makes it a lot easier for them to be guilt free while they go along to get along with his mandate that everyone help pay to further his eugenics based infanticide machine.

The only other alternative to the "King Barry is in charge of my soul" pretense is either the verse means "obey your Self", or that the verse means what the Catholic Church teaches it means and has taught it means for two thousand years.

Redefinition of terms is a favorite tactic of the fascist left that wants to destroy Christianity in this country so it's always interesting to see who else relies heavily on that tactic.

Likewise, it's interesting to see people use the same sort of diversion tactics with absurd questions like, "why didn't they use originals that didn't exist?".

It's little wonder the "obey yourself" lie suits the anti-Catholic boiler room crew, though. They're the sort of folks who claim claim murdering your children is, "Christian Liberty" and so churches shouldn't bother denouncing the murder of infants with abortificiant contraceptives.

[Cronos]

it's drivel if you can't argue with facts, eh?

Cynical bear: Trying to carry over the Old Testament meaning of priest

The Bible: Exodus 19:6 and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

and 1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God

Sorry, the Bible contradicts what you are saying

[svcw]

Pick up some historical perspective.

[Cronos]

it's drivel if you can't argue with facts, eh?

Cynical bear: Trying to carry over the Old Testament meaning of priest

The Bible: Exodus 19:6 and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

and 1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God

Sorry, the Bible contradicts what you are saying

just as with the ancient Israelites, we are all a "nation of priests" and just as the ancient Israelites had ministerial priests set aside (Levites), so too do we have in the Church

The same structure -- with the difference that the High Priest is eternal Jesus Christ who is present at each Eucharist, each Mass

the Israelites abdicated their role as a “nation of priests” with their little foray into gold-calf making. -- sorry, that doesn't hold as we read in Exodus 16 how Aaron and Moses preach to the Israelites

Even in Exodus 19 with the pronouncement of you[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ -- these come from God through Moses and in Exodus 19:22 you read And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.

This was before Moses went up into Mt. Sinai

during the Eucharist, Christ IS present as the High Priest

Christ is the High Priest and we are all His priestly nation -- whether lay priests or ministerial priests

The High Priest, Jesus Christ is the High Priest and the one-time Sacrifice -- note, this is a participation in the One-Time sacrifice

So, like all of us in orthodoxy, i'd rather follow Christ's teaching than yours

[Cronos]

I have. And this was written not for gubmint as the verse goes on to say for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account -- the Church leadership have to give account for the souls, not the gubmint, sorry.

[CynicalBear]

Oh nice try! But alas it falls tragically short of proving the Catholic position of assigning “priesthood” to the New Testament church leadership. What you have just pointed to is the prophecy of what would be in the New Testament church. Not for the leadership in the church but for all believers. I surely hope there wasn’t a feeling of gotcha in that post because it flopped in dramatic fashion. In fact it only served to justify the position that all believers are a “royal priesthood” and no where in the New Testament are any of the “elders” referred to as priests.

[CynicalBear]

It’s interesting that you highlight “One Holy Catholic Church” and include the capitalization! It’s obvious to us who renounce the views of that organization that Catholics continually express belief in the “Church” rather than in Christ alone. Oh, they give lip service to Jesus but very quickly revert to their organization and venerated saints and Mary as their true source. Very telling.

[CynicalBear]

>> just as the ancient Israelites had ministerial priests set aside (Levites), so too do we have in the Church<<

Then show from scripture that New Testament church leadership was given a separate title of priest.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not carry over disputes from previous threads.

[RobbyS]

Put it another way. Constantine made Christianity HIS religion, and what the big-cheese says, is what matters. Having done that, he then intervenes in the Arian controversy in order to create unity in the Church. He sends his mother to Jerusalem as a start to a make-over and builds basilicas there and in Rome for the new faith. Not only that but he mixes politics and piety by moving his capital from pagan Rome to the heavenly Christian east.

De facto usually beats de jure,

[editor-surveyor]

What the Greek corrupted translation says is irrelevent.

Its the Hebrew original gospel that counts, and that calls him a “throwing rock.”

[RobbyS]

Of course, priest is just a variant of presbyter, or elder. The new order is the order of Melchizedek, of the unbloody sacrifice.

[editor-surveyor]

Cute little tale, but it lacks truthful substance.

The early NT writings were definitely in Hebrew, and they were not all destroyed by the Roman thugs. Importantly, those original ms were translated into Galic and Gothic languages, and found their way to the northern reaches of the British isles in about 65 AD.

Those translations were at the basis of early Bibles in pre-english dialects, and did play into pre Geneva/KJV codices in the isles.

The complete gospels will come out, as the Lord has protected them in this manner from the ‘catholic’ corruption of the 4th and later centuries.

[Syncro]

What you quoted is a headline

Uh, no. The headline is

Pope: Other denominations not true churches

To make it perfectly clear I did NOT quote a headline and expect you to read it and be fulfilled.

Quoted about the Orthodox:

...the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church

Well, that's a start. They would be seen as protesting towards the Catholic church, then huh? So they are Protestant.

Still too much extraneous dogma clogging up the minds of people so they have to struggle to get the simple message of salvation, being born again, and having a close PERSONAL relationship with Jesus Christ.

...check what the Pope or Cardinal actually said rather than a headline from a news article please

What you call a "headline" is the first words of the article, linked so you can read the whole thing.

I read it and find it quite accurate.

Ironic that you thought you were reading a headline, well now you can it's right at the top of this post.

Read the article if you wish also.

Just so there is no further misunderstanding, here is what I posted that you thought(?)[I don't know why] was a headline:

msnbc.com news services

updated     7/10/2007 9:52:43 AM ET

 

 

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

(Roll your cursor over the text and you will find a clickable link. On my computer the text becomes underlined and the cursor turns into a hand with the index finger extended)

[dartuser]

Manuscripts talk ... BS walks ...

Post the facsimile of the manuscript for the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew (or any other language) ... and the lexicographical data that proves it predates p67.

I don't expect to hear back from you ...

Unless its the usual "quote" ... "from a quote" ...

[Elsie]

Not answering your red herring of a question is not bobbing and weaving, but failing to play your game.

Try another tack.

[Elsie]

Luke shows up in MY bible AFTER Matthew...

[CynicalBear]

Fell for the false teaching of the RCC ey? Tsk, tsk, tsk.