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.
You wanna show a source for that, just so we will know you didn't make it up...
Then you must be sure that your interpretations are infallible? Where you differ with Christians other than Catholic, which of you is in error? And how sure are you then that the Church has delivered to you a complete and accurate Bible. Why do you accept the Letters to the Hebrews and reject the Shepherd of Hermes, accept Revelation and reject the Apocalypse of Peter, and accept James and Jude and reject First and Second Maccabees, if not by the infallible guidance of the Church that established the Canon?
Peace be with you
"The Bible is the Word..."Taken completely out of context.That sounds like idolatry,
The context was about the Gospel of John.
So my comment wasn't out of line as it seemed John 1 was dismissed as idolatry.
Your flesh and blood are nourished by eating Jesus flesh??? I can understand that...Your church fathers were African...There's a history of folks in Africa who get/got their nourishment from eating flesh...Just sayin'...
Since one set of Ignatius' writings mention nothing 'Catholic', we can assume you are quoting the known forged writings that were attributed to Ignatius???
"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present."
"Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
Assuming you mean the Catholic church, and not the church that is made of the body of believers who are born again, have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ and have eternal salvation, I strongly disagree.
The voice of the Holy Spirit can not be restricted like that.
The Holy Spirit speaks to the hearts of Christians very clearly without interference from any denomination.
If what you say is Catholic doctrine that's quite scary for that denomination.
Christ is never powerless, He simply chooses to let man do as man does...err in some things. He didn't interfere in the U.S. election either...probably should have, but didn't!
don't bring your fantasies into this, we're discussing religion!!!
Yes, said very well.
But who are the saints?
The Bible consistantly calls believers saints.
Sorry about the Puritans, they sound a bit Catholic.
The context in which John 1 was written was that of the language of Greek philosophy and in that the "Logos" does not mean the "word". From within Stoic philosophy the logos was the active reason or intelligence pervading and animating the universe. St. Jerome wrote of his frustration of not being able to find a suitable Latin word for Logos and was forced to use "in principio erat verbum". Luther's haste to translate all 8,000 versus of the New Testament in a single year caused him to cut some corners. It was he who rejected a number of Germanic constructs in favor of the single German word "wort" and that is the source of error for subsequent Protestant mistranslations of John.
Those who wish to reduce it to mean simply the words used to capture the written portion of the Sacred Deposit of Faith diminish what we are to believe God is.
Peace be with you.
Then why are there thousands of different denominations all differing from one another on issues of doctrine and interpretation? Does the Holy Spirit have thousands of versions of the truth or does your doctrine of sufficient self-interpretation have visible flaws?
Peace be with you
When people knew that any time a wave of the plague could come through and kill half of the population or even wipe out whole cities, they didn't think they way comfortable people unaccustomed to seeing corpses in the streets think.
Life was cheap under pagan Rome and in the entire pagan world after Rome fell. Even those who were Christian only had a thin veneer Christian doctrine that says life is precious. Given the million plus infants openly slaughtered by their own mothers every year in this "Christian" nation by "Christian" women, it's still only a paper thin veneer.
The "Ignorati" spew whatever the think has propaganda value the same way they have their little tantrums when things aren't' hateful and nasty enough to further their agenda on a given thread. They can play all the games they like, but the fact is that statistically speaking, the majority of such blabbermouths who are of child bearing age don't give murdering their own children in the womb with poison and flushing the corpse down their toilet a second thought. Nor does their "significant other".
the Holy Spirit certainly did not need a tape recorder, but the apostles were not the Holy Spirit...bring thier remembrance...that's what I said, they did not transcribe, at the time, each sermon they preached nor reaction to them. They remembered what happened and recorded it later. You said that I should stop useing the RCC as my source and actually study what Jesus said.....where else, but in the RCC sources, could anyone ever study what Jesus said and taught. Without the RCC you wouldn't even know who Jesus was. The bible is a book...it takes people to edit it, transcribe it, copy it, print it, bring it to your local book store.....and other than delivering it to your local store, you can thank Catholics for every other step, and maybe even the UPS guy was Catholic!
True, the Word is alive!
Stop using anti-Catholic websites as your sources and actually go to a university library. There are 15 extant letters allegedly authored by St. Ignatius. the seven epistles of Ignatius of Antioch were forged in the 3rd or 4th centuries. The other 8 are genuine. (note: The fact that some would seek to have forgeries associated with St. Ignatius only reinforced the value of his legitimate letters.) The term Catholic was used in The Epistle to the Smyrneans, one of the eight legitimate letters.
The term was also used by other second century authors in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, written in c. 155 AD, and in the Muratorian fragment written in c. 177 AD.
Peace be with you
the Christmas song says "don we now our gay apparal" and no one thinks that we are all gay.
Making stuff up (do you have MSU after your name?) brings us to the Strawman theory
That might come in handy in your battles with Protestantism.
The BIBLICAL Holy Spirit interprets just fine.
See a couple of my earlier posts to understand how to prepare for such a phenomonol experience.
If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God." - 1 John 4:15
oh please....
and the Catholic Church, Christ's church on Earth, gives sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, life to the dead. It is ONLY through the Catholic Church that you are exposed to the totality of what it means to be a Christian. You can partake of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and it is ONLY in the Catholic church that you can do so. Eyes to see, indeed.
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.