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.
Assert all you want, you are not an expert in Bible translation. Obviously, the translation Luther was able to do was extremely well received and it became a force in shaping the modern High German language. It made quite an impact for the Gospel:
Luther's German Bible and its widespread circulation facilitated the emergence of a standard, modern German language for the German-speaking peoples throughout the Holy Roman Empire, an empire extending through and beyond present-day Germany. It is also considered a landmark in German literature, with Luther's vernacular style often praised by modern German sources for the forceful vigor ("kraftvolles Deutsch")[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] with which he translated the Holy Scripture.
A large part of Luther's significance was his influence on the emergence of the German language and national identity. This stemmed predominantly from his translation of the Bible into the vernacular, which was potentially as revolutionary as canon law and the burning of the papal bull.[24] Luther's goal was to equip every German-speaking Christian with the ability to hear the Word of God, and his completing his translation of the Old and New Testaments from Hebrew and Greek into the vernacular by 1534 was one of the most significant acts of the Reformation.[25] Although Luther was not the first to attempt such a translation, his was superior to all its predecessors. Previous translations had contained poor German, and had been from the Vulgate Latin translation, i.e. translations of a translation rather than a direct translation into German from the originals.[24] Luther sought to translate as closely to the original text as possible, but at the same time his translation was guided by how people spoke in the home, on the street and in the marketplace.[26] Luther's faithfulness to the language spoken by the common people was to produce a work which they could relate to.[27] This led German writers such as Goethe and Nietzsche to praise Luther's Bible.[28] Moreover, the fact that the vernacular Bible was printed also enabled it to spread rapidly and be read by all. Hans Lufft, the Bible printer in Wittenberg, printed over one hundred thousand copies between 1534 and 1574, which went on to be read by millions.[29] Luther's vernacular Bible was present in virtually every German-speaking Protestant’s home; and there can be no doubts regarding the Biblical knowledge attained by the German common masses.[30] Luther even had large-print Bibles made for those who had failing eyesight.[28] German humanist Johann Cochlaeus complained that:
The spread of Luther's Bible translation had implications for the German language. The German language had developed into so many dialects that German speakers from different states could barely understand each other. This led Luther to conclude that “I have so far read no book or letter in which the German language is properly handled. Nobody seems to care sufficiently for it; and every preacher thinks he has a right to change it at pleasure and to invent new terms."[32] Scholars preferred to write in the Latin which they all understood. Luther popularized the Saxon dialect of German and adapted it for theology and religion; which subsequently made it the common literary language used in books. He enriched the vocabulary with that of German poets and chroniclers.[32] For this accomplishment a contemporary of Luther's, Erasmus Albertus, labeled him the German Cicero, as he reformed not only religion but the German language also. Luther's Bible has been hailed as the first German 'classic', comparable to the English King James version of the Bible, which became one of the first English 'classics'. German-speaking Protestant writers and poets such as Klopstock, Herder and Lessing owe stylistic qualities to Luther's vernacular Bible.[33] Luther adapted words to the capacity of the German public and through the pervasiveness of his German Bible created and spread the modern German language.[34]
Luther's vernacular Bible also had a role in the creation of a German national identity. Because it penetrated every German-speaking Protestant home, the language of his translation became part of a German national heritage.[35] Luther's program of exposure to the words of the Bible was extended into every sphere of daily life and work, illuminating moral considerations for Germans. It gradually became infused into the blood of the whole nation and occupied a permanent space in a German history.[36] The popularity and influence of his translation gave Luther confidence to act as a spokesperson of a nation and as the leader of an anti-Roman movement throughout Germany.[37] It made it possible for him to be a prophet of a new German national identity[38] and helped form the spirit of a new epoch in German history.
In a sense the vernacular Bible also empowered and liberated all Protestants who had access to it. The existence of the translation was a public affirmation of reform, such as might deprive any elite or priestly class of exclusive control over words, as well as over the word of God.[24] Through the translation Luther was intending to make it easier for "simple people" to understand what he was teaching. In some major controversies of the time, even some evangelicals, let alone the commoners, did not understand the reasons for disagreement; and Luther wanted to help those who were confused to see that the disagreement between himself and the Roman Catholic Church was real and had significance. So translation of the Bible would allow the common people to become aware of the issues at hand and develop an informed opinion.[40] The common individual would thus be given the right to have a mind, spirit and opinion, to exist not as an economic functionary but as subject to complex and conflicting aspirations and motives. In this sense, Luther's vernacular Bible acted as a force towards the liberation of the German people. The combination of Luther's social teachings and the vernacular Bible undoubtedly had a role in the slow emancipation of western European society from a long phase of clerical domination.[41] Luther gave men a new vision of perhaps the exaltation of the human self.[42] Luther's vernacular Bible broke the domination and unity of the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe. He had claimed Holy Scripture to be the sole authority, and through his translation every individual would be able to abide by its authority, and might nullifying his or her need for a monarchical pope. As Bishop Fisher put it, Luther's Bible had “stirred a mighty storm and tempest in the church” empowering the no longer clerically dominated public.[43]
Although not as significantly as on German linguistics, Luther's Bible also made a large impression on educational reform throughout Germany. Luther's goal of a readable, accurate translation of the Bible became a stimulus towards universal education, since everyone should be able to read in order to understand the Bible.[24] Luther believed that mankind had fallen from grace and was ruled by selfishness, but had not lost moral consciousness: all were sinners and needed to be educated. Thus his vernacular Bible could become a means of establishing a form of law, order and morality which everyone could abide by, if all could read and understand it. The possibility of understanding the vernacular Bible allowed Luther to found a State Church and educate his followers into a law-abiding community.[44] The Protestant states of Germany became educational states, which encouraged the spirit of teaching which was ultimately fueled by Luther's vernacular Bible.
Finally, Luther's translated Bible also had international significance in the spread of Christianity. Luther's translation influenced the English translations by William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale who in turn inspired many other translations of the Bible such as the Bishops' Bible of 1568, the Douay–Rheims Bible of 1582–1609, and the King James Version of 1611.[28] It also inspired translations as far as Scandinavia and the Netherlands. In a metaphor, it was Luther who 'broke the walls' of translation in western Europe and once such walls had fallen, the way was open to all, including some who were quite opposed to Luther's beliefs.[45] Luther's Bible spread its influence for the remolding of Western European culture in the ferment of the sixteenth century. The worldwide implications of the translation far surpassed the expectations of even Luther himself.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
I haven't missed that you failed to retract your false claim that Luther removed books from the Bible. Still working on your "sources"?
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. - Isaiah 55:11
you really know nothing about the Catholic church do you?? Catholics do not bow to the pope as a man, we bow to his position as vicar of Christ, as the representative of Christ on earth. A soldier does not salute a general because he is John Smith...they salute his EARNED office.
the Pope is a man, he is the bishop of Rome, he was elected by his peers to be pope, he is as human as you and I and is subject to every weaakness that we are.
you are totally unrealistic in your arguements...the Catholic church is NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BIBLE...GOD IS. However, the Catholic church IS responsible for having edited, transcribed, cherished, copied (by hand), preserved, etc. etc. the bible. You have a copy of the bible in your hand because, to make it easy for you to comprehend, GOD WROTE IT, and the Catholic church preserved it for you....that's O.K....no charge!!
no, it is a fact, and if you want to research it, feel free to do so on your own.....you won't be disappointed!!!
#706
So, people who call themselves members of the Roman Catholic Church, or as they prefer, the Catholic Church, are not actually using the word translated into English, which would be Universal Church, but stick to a second century Greek word. The word for "church" is ecclesia, but instead of claiming sole ownership of the label Catholic Ecclesia - which would be the correct combination - we have "Catholic Church" which is a combination of Greek and English words and the word "catholic" changes from simply a lower case adjective to a proper noun.
While the Scriptures are quite clear that the Body of Christ is a universal and spiritual house consisting of all born again believers in Jesus Christ, we have those who want to make it an exclusive and private club with its own set of rules and beliefs, some from Scripture, some not, and which EVERYONE else MUST belong if they want any chance at eternal life in heaven. Somehow, I do NOT think this is what Ignatius had in mind. Though there WAS a catholic faith spoken of, it meant one which was faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles.
As an executive with over 35 years of experience I am an expert on human work output. Being able to scope the work and the resources available is a significant part of what I do for a living. Anyone who believes that 200+ verses were properly researched and translated everyday for over a year with out any modern tools is simply being foolish.
I will again assert that Luther threw out 7 books.
How so? Please explain. Thank you.
Yet, there is no "official" Roman Catholic Church Bible Commentary. Yes, there are many "Catholic" ones, but they are the works of individuals or certain groups who identify as Catholic - some with nihil obstat, some without. There are also frequent contradictions between them even as we see happening with current Catholic apologists in their various online blogs, discussion boards and books. In truth, there is much left up to the individual Catholic to figure out in his own concerning much of the Bible as very few verses HAVE an official interpretation. It might surprise you to know that, not only is there no "official" Roman Catholic Bible commentary, there is not even an official infallible list of all the infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Well, it is the worship of a book, which is dissected and examined syllable by syllable, as if there by to read the mind of God. Human beings cannot do this. Our faith must be in a person who chose to be silent about many things and sent the Spirit to serve as our guide. Still the Spirit moves us in ways we can never predict, not by reading the Bible nor by reading the theologians.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. (Mark 13:31)
Apparently, your modern experience gives you no basis to judge what, in fact, WAS done over five hundred years ago. I find it interesting in all the foofaraw over Luther's "quickie" translation of the New Testament, Catholics have found only ONE fault by which to complain - that Luther added the word "alone" to a verse in Romans - and that one which numerous others also included. Why, in all these years, do we not hear of any other verses that Luther supposedly slanted by his haste? Go ahead, name your favorite five. Jerome made a hurried translation of the Apocryphal books when he translated them for inclusion in the Latin Vulgate - books he did not accept as canonical - and he was NOT a scholar of Hebrew. Why no disdain for Jerome? Could it be because he was doing what the Catholic Pope commanded he do, whether he agreed with it or not?
I will again assert that Luther threw out 7 books.
An assertion with NO proof other than wishful thinking? Here's a thought...get ahold of a Martin Luther Bible and check if ANY of those books are not found within the covers. Until you have done that, you have not "properly researched" your opinion and it will remain a faulty one.
Now, as I said — the English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter. It is not derived from Hierus no matter how much your post twists and trys
You are right, that can't be done.
Nor is it necessary.
There is a better way which takes total submission to Jesus Christ I would imagine.
I posted from several versions hoping one of them is the Catholic Bible.King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:American King James Version
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:American Standard Version
Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:Douay-Rheims Bible
For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:Darby Bible Translation
For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus;English Revised Version
Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:Webster's Bible Translation
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Young's Literal Translation
For, let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus,
Here is the continuation:
5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.Very difficult to do, become like Christ in order to "have the mind of Christ."
The instructions continue:
Phew... a difficult task but necessary in order to completely receive the mind of Christ.King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Our faith must be in a person who...sent the Spirit to serve as our guide. Still the Spirit moves us in ways we can never predict, not by reading the Bible nor...IMO it should be "not by ONLY reading the Bible..."
The Bible is the Word, Jesus is the Word made flesh. The Holy Spirit guides us as we totally immerse ourselves in the Bible so it becomes clear to us.
The High Priest, Jesus Christ is the High Priest and the one-time Sacrifice -- note, this is a participation in the One-Time sacrifice
He is present at each Eucharist
The English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as "elder" or "presbyter --> your own phrase of "commonly" is properly termed as "modern English" -- neglecting the facts of it's etymological origin
Next you'll say that Joseph was gay as in the KJV it says that he was gaily apparelled -- right?
No, the Bible is a book. Christ is God made man, and with the Father and the Spirit, the living God. Interesting that Zwingli placed a Bible on the altar, or table, as we have from time to time, a tabernacle. The Jews do something similar in synagogues. A reformer who did not believe in the Real Presence instead made a book as an object of worship. Of course, being a rationalist, he might call it a symbol. No wonder Luther was perflexed. That same book said, “is”.
Here "One thing that is absolutely certain at this point is that the original language of the gospels was Hebrew, not Greek." --> the "original" / only language was Hebrew as per the poster and these were transliterated by the same
Now do go back and read and realise how many of your beliefs are equally wrong
Oops! “Well, Jerome had a couple of advantages over Luther.”
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.