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.
Once again you give the impreession that ROME teaches what Christ taught.
"Mom; you are sinless - how can I ever compete with that?"
probably he does — maybe quix or quix was one of his followers. Had a lot of pro-Jesse folks running with the standard non-orthodox bunch.
Simon Peter - Parthia [Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia], Britain. No indication that he ministered to Rome. Now there are writings, not scripture, that claim because in Acts 12:17 it says that after getting out of prison Peter “went to another place’. That place is not recorded in scripture so many attempt to place Peter in Rome after that. Problem with that is that any reference to Peter being in Rome is based on speculation and writings of second generation writers after the apostles were all dead.
Now, there was a man by the name of Simon Magus that was a counterfeit preacher who established a very large following in Rome. If one relies on the later writings to prove that Peter was in Rome than they must also come to understand that it was Simon Magus who spent 25 years in the “sacerdotal chair” in Rome. It was also he who joined pagan practices into his “universal church”.
Also if these later writings are to be relied on one has to believe that Peter had a daughter by the name of PETRONILLA since those same “histories” including archeological evidence show her as his daughter.
Once again, if rather than relying on scripture we rely on the later writings to establish Peter’s presence in Rome we see that he only visited there twice with 25 years between the two times and it was Simon Magus who established the Roman Universal (Catholic) Church in Rome.
ex-Catholics make the best MORMONs.
And still they accuse non Catholics of picking and choosing and making up their own interpretations. Go figure.
Thanks for this document. It comprises a summary of most of the basic errors upon which the flawed doctrine of catholicity rests.
(just a bookmarking notation)
case in point " Joseph Smith was the first latter-day prophet because he restored the gospel to earth after it had been lost in the apostasy. "
So, the various theories in the 1800s due to the 3rd to 6th generations led to the Mormon hoax.
So the further reformatting led to the Mormon hoax
Those directly responsible for Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists are the religions/sects in generations 3 to 6.
For example the Great Apostasy theory of the Mormons comes from the original ideas of the reformed who said it happened in the 1500s, then the Baptists said, no, in the 2nd century
the Mormons took that and went with "nah, it started right from the Apostles itself"
yup, you, Mormons, derivatives....
Matthew 16-19 from KJVAnd Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Elsie: Matt 16:19 that he will give the keys to Peter. the disciples
Sorry Elsie, you are making up your own scripture, right? Just like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses....
You addressed your comment to “all” and so I feel justified in replying. So....
In Matt. 16:19 Jesus said he would give the keys to Peter sometime in the future, “I will give..” Not “I am giving.,..”. Peter getting the keys was a future event.
In Act 10:15 Peter in vision is told to stop calling defiled “the things God has (the decision has been made and is in effect) cleansed.”
There is a sequence of time here. Peter is not opening up a new opportunity or making any decision for Cornelius and those like him, that has already been made in heaven.
What role then does Peter have with the “keys”? He is one through whom heavens decision is made, Cornelius is sent to him, to Peter.
At Acts 15:6-11 Peters shows how he had a key as he says it was, “through my mouth” that the message was given that people of nations would be treated without distinction and without having the old Law imposed on them.
Peters used of the keys then was as one announcing heaven's decision not making decisions on any of these matters himself and when he had done so he had used the keys. Others like Paul would take up the message but Peter had a privilege just as John the baptizer did.
Peter used the keys, there are no more for Peter use.
case in point " Joseph Smith was the first latter-day prophet because he restored the gospel to earth after it had been lost in the apostasy. "
So, the various theories in the 1800s due to the 3rd to 6th generations led to the Mormon hoax.
So the further reformatting led to the Mormon hoax
Those directly responsible for Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists are the religions/sects in generations 3 to 6.
For example the Great Apostasy theory of the Mormons comes from the original ideas of the reformed who said it happened in the 1500s, then the Baptists said, no, in the 2nd century
the Mormons took that and went with "nah, it started right from the Apostles itself"
Excuse me? Have you not been keeping up? Or is it that you simply don’t understand? I have consistently shown that where Catholics try to insert the word priest where the word presbuteros is used in scripture. Trying to make that mean priest is a egregious error. I have also shown where the word Hierus, which does translate to priest, is used and never is it used in regards to church leadership in the New Testament church. If you contend that the word Hierus does not mean priest you need to show that. Presbuteros does not translate to priest other than through manipulation via entomology.
But you still don't explain why the person who quoted
“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matt 16:19 that he will give the keys to Peter. He does not say he has two kinds of keys, but he gives to Peter the keys he himself has and no others. It is as if he [Christ] were saying:’ why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is my mouth, and his tongue is my key case. His office is my office, his binding and loosing are my binding and loosing’ ”had a " The lack of understanding of Matt. "
However, it could be "making it personal" if it redirects the thread away from the issues and towards individual Freepers.
Roman Catholic systematic theology does not allow it ... they have no need of biblical theology to form any kind of foundation for the systematics ... they really believe there is no need to exegete the scriptures ... the church has done it for them ... they just need to step in line. It is spiritual bondage that can only be broken by true regeneration, which is not to be found in their rituals.
It doesn’t matter, it is still making the thread “about” an individual Freeper. It is “making it personal.”
The Church has survived only due to God's grace
I have no idea who you attribute those words to. But Peter used the keys by announcing heaven’s decision, there are no more. That is evidence of Scripture. Make of it what you will.
It occurred to me this morning that, in those two passages (repeated below) God takes credit for being the author and preserver of His own words. And HE also takes credit for their publication, distribution, receipt and effectiveness:
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
Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. - 2 Cor 3:1-3
Surely you understand what etymology means?
The meaning of words change over time to mean what they did not originally mean. That says that in order to understand the writings of the time we need to understand what was meant by that word at that time. What the Catholic Church is doing is trying to inject a meaning for the word priest as they want it to mean onto the usage of a word in scripture and it doesn’t work with anyone who is honestly trying to find truth.
>>Next you'll say that Joseph was gay as in the KJV it says that he was gaily apparelled -- right?<<
And that would be the stupidity of using etymology to inject the word priest onto the word presbuteros. As we can’t use today’s meaning of the word gay onto the use of that word in history. It is equally as stupid to use the meaning of the word presbuteros during the time of the scriptures to mean priest. There were different words that meant priest during that time.
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.