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.

[metmom]

AMEN!!!

The lesson of Herod in Acts 12 seems to be lost on many.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, dear sister in Christ, thank you for your encouragements!

[Syncro]

No, the Bible is a book.

That is your answer to this?

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.

I agree with your next sentence:

Christ is God made man, and with the Father and the Spirit, the living God.

The Bible is much more than just a book. It is The Word:

John 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

² The same was in the beginning with God.

³ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

⁴ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

⁵ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

...

14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word made flesh.

Jesus is the word.

Cross referrencing to This Post, here are some scriptures from it:

The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. – Psalms 12:6-7

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

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some [others], epistles of commendation to you, or [letters] of commendation from you?

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

Thank you Alamo-Girl for posting those scriptures.

[editor-surveyor]

Your question is a nonsequitur.

A book of the Bible can only be written ‘originally’ in a language of its author. They then can be translated into other tongues.

[Alamo-Girl]

You are quite welcome, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for that beautiful passage from John and for sharing your insights!

Following are a few more Scriptures to underscore the point that the words of God are not merely text on paper (or papyrus.)

For one thing, Christ replied "it is written" to each temptation wrought by the devil (Matthew 4) and the devil did not question the authority of the words of God.

For another, the words of God, unlike the words of men, are Spirit and life.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12

And again,

So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. – Matt 4:4

Give us this day our daily bread. – Matt 6:11

I am that bread of life. – John 6:48

His words being Spirit and life can only be heard by those who have the gift of "ears to hear." In the following passage, the people Jesus is addressing are physically hearing Him but they cannot spiritually hear Him:

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

But His sheep know the difference and cannot be fooled:

To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:3-5

The following passage makes the point early in Scripture. The evidence was right there before their eyes, even on their feet and their backs - but because they did not have "ears to hear" it went right over their heads:

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. - Deuteronomy 29:2-5

And again,

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Corinthians 2:14

God's Name is I AM.

[Natural Law]

"It made quite an impact for the Gospel:"

Luther's translation had quite an impact on the perception of the Gospel, deflecting it towards a secular friendly, solo mio, environment in which Church property could easily be confiscated and divided up among Luther's backers.

Luther is said to have claimed that our total depravity makes justification nothing more than fresh snow covering a dungheap. However, no matter the snow job the reformation tries to pull, the dungheap that is Luther's theology still stinks.

As for his eliminating books, St. Jerome's Vulgate contained the entire Canon as determined by the Church in 381 AD.

Peace be with you.

[imardmd1]

What's given and protected by the Holy Spirit is hardly flawed.

That is true, and is why the understanding of what the Holy Spirit says by His method of transmission, utilizing the literal/historical/grammatical/cultural hermeneutic, reveals the flaws listed in the initial post.

And that is why the churches loyal to the Real Christ have existed apart from catholicity since the beginning.

Don't expect more wrangling with your apparent intentions.

[RobbyS]

The Bible is still a book, its words written by men and it must be interpreted. It is indeed a book unlike any other book, but this i Only know by faith.

[Syncro]

Thanks for expanding on the topic with more pertinent and timely Scriptures.

The Gospel of John is close to my favorite part of the Bible.

It was while reading it that I became a Christian.

When the pages dried out they were all wrinkled...

There is no more powerful experience one can have then Jesus Christ revealing Himself to you through the Word via the Holy Spirit and bringing you into His eternal kingdom.

[Natural Law]

"The Bible is the Word..."

That sounds like idolatry, more specifically, specifically Protestant bibliolatry.

The Gospel of John begins with; "In the beginning was the "Logos",". Although translated as "Word" it is a theological reference to the identity of God as a complete system of knowledge and understanding. The Bible is a divinely inspired book, but it is still a book.

Peace be with you

[Syncro]

**sigh**

The "men" who authored the Bible--God breathed the words through them via the Holy Spirit. That is why we pray for the Holy Spirit to quicken understanding to us when we read this book.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all thine
heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Key to understanding: The Holy Spirit interprets.

[Natural Law]

"Key to understanding: The Holy Spirit interprets."

Then why does Protestantism deny the possibility of the Holy Spirit interpreting by or through the Magisterium, in effect denying the Episcopacy of the Catholic Church what it claims for every other believer, and insist that it only be done by the individual while ignoring the thousands of different interpretations produced?

Peace and Blessings.

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome, dear brother in Christ, thank you for your encouragement!

The Gospel of John is close to my favorite part of the Bible.

It was while reading it that I became a Christian.

Thank you for your testimony! And I agree. Indeed, whenever a new Christian or seeker asks, I tell them to read the Gospel of John first - it is a love letter from God.

[Syncro]

LOL!

Thanks for your input.

John 1 is anathema to Catholicism

Idolatry however is rampant.

[Syncro]

Indeed, whenever a new Christian or seeker asks, I tell them to read the Gospel of John first - it is a love letter from God.

Me too, we are on the same page there.

A man once said that the whole Bible is a letter to Christians.

But the Holy Spirit can quicken understanding to those that are sincerely seeking.

[Syncro]

I don't follow Protestantism closely nor join the dispute that Catholics are deeply involved in with them.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Peace and Blessings back atcha.

[metmom]

Trying to explain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to the unsaved is like trying to explain light to a blind man.

Someone who is blind can feel the heat of the sun and so know it exists, but cannot conceive of light and color.

Some things in Scripture can be understood by the unsaved, but the rest to the unsaved heart is like light to the blind.

Eyes to see, indeed.

[metmom]

Then why does Protestantism deny the possibility of the Holy Spirit interpreting by or through the Magisterium, in effect denying the Episcopacy of the Catholic Church what it claims for every other believer, and insist that it only be done by the individual while ignoring the thousands of different interpretations produced?

Who, then, is going to interpret the interpretation of the magisterium? Otherwise, we'd have thousands of interpretations of the magisterium.

And how do we know THEIR interpretation is correct and that the people are interpreting that correctly?

We could then build a case that the magisterium's interpretation needs to be interpreted and need a body to interpret that correctly, and so it goes.

Turtles all the way down.

[Natural Law]

"John 1 is anathema to Catholicism"

Would you care to explain yourself or substantiate your assertion, because at face value that comment is just hateful.

I am certain that the genesis of the sentiment expressed is reflexive arising from some maleducation regarding the Church, but it is hate that is anathema to the Catholic Church. Catholics proclaim that Jesus is truly the Son of God.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

God Is Love

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us. If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also." - 1 John 4:1-21

[metmom]

That sounds like idolatry, more specifically, specifically Protestant bibliolatry.

As opposed to Catholicism which claims a bit of wheat wafer really DOES become Jesus, and they have it on their altar, bow down to it, and then eat it.

Catholic attempts at charging non-Cathoics with idolatry would be funny if the irony weren't so sad.