Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

Chapter 11 of the Acts of the Apostles says that Antioch was the city in which, for the first time, the disciples of Jesus were called “Christians.” Tradition has enthroned Peter as the founder of the Church of Antioch, following the narration of the very same Book of Acts, which tells not only of the arrival of Peter and Barnabas to the Turkish city, but also of their preaching.

Moreover, this very same tradition claims that it was in the Knisset Mar Semaan Kefa (“Grotto of St. Peter” in Aramaic) where Peter would celebrate the Eucharist for this community. That is to say, this little cave could be the first place of worship of the ancient Church of Antioch.

Located in one of the slopes of Mount Starius, the cave has a depth of just thirteen meters and a height of seven, from floor to ceiling. The oldest parts of the building we see today, built around the original, simple cave dug in the mountain, are from the 4th and 5th centuries, and include a series of mosaic floors and a few frescoes which have been preserved on the right side of the altar.

Centuries ago, a series of small aqueducts brought water (considered miraculous) from nearby springs into a small designated area where baptisms were celebrated, but a series of relatively recent earthquakes rendered these channels useless.

When the Crusaders took Antioch during the First Crusade in 1098, a facade was added to the cave, which was rebuilt eight centuries later, in 1863, by Capuchin friars, by order of Pope Pius IX.

Today, the cave is only used as a museum, but, with permission, some religious ceremonies are held, especially on Feb. 21, the day on which Antioch celebrates the feast of their patron, Saint Peter.

Today, the cave is only used as a museum, but, with permission, some religious ceremonies are held, especially on Feb. 21, the day which celebrates the region San Pedro as their patron.

Galatians 2:11-21

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

For before that certain Gentiles came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them, which were of the circumcision.

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ a minister of sin? God forbid.

For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet, not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”

The Mass can be traced through Scripture and other documents, and Peter did worship as all early Christians did — through the Mass.

And it ALL can be found; right HERE!!!

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem

¹ Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." ² This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ³ The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. ⁴ When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

⁵ Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."

⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

¹² The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. ¹³ When they finished, James spoke up. "Brothers," he said, "listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

¹⁶ "'After this I will return
   and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
¹⁸ things known from long ago.

¹⁹ "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers

²² Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

³⁰ So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. ³¹ The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. ³² Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. ³³ After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. ^[34] ³⁵ But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas

³⁶ Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." ³⁷ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, ³⁸ but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. ³⁹ They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. ⁴¹ He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

Holy Euharist is Mass. The apostles and Christians after them celebrated Holy Eucharist. It’s in the Bible, it’s in the writings and history of early Christians as far back as we have and continuous to the present. You believe otherwise; you’re welcome to your opinion.

So I go thru the life of the NT church showing the absolute absence of that mere assertion, and you simply invoke an error that manifestly developed later? Thank God the NT did not have that for its basis. The very ideas of presbuteros and episkopos being separate offices, and a distinct class of sacerdotal priests due to the Lord's supper coming to be seen as a sacrifice for sins requiring this priesthood, were all later developments in contrast to the NT church.

The fourth century Roman Catholic scholar Jerome (347-420) himself confirms,

“The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters....If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. - (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).

Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states

Beginning in the late 5th century, priests began wearing a long tunic to distinguish them from the laity, who wore a short one...As Christianity swept through the Germanic lands, the church adopted the feudalistic structures of culture and politics that had evolved in Europe. Precise ranking, with exact privileges and responsibilities, was determined for kings, lords, knights, and, on the bottom, the peasants. A parallel ranking made clear distinction among bishops, abbots, priests, monks, and the laity on the bottom.

"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."

Soon all presbyters were considered priests because they offered the Eucharistic sacrifice. (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

The "Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism" provides additional confirmation:

In the New Testament. the Greek word that is usually translated into English as "priest" is the word 'hiereus'. The use of it and of its cognates in the New Testament is threefold: it is used, first, of Old Testament (Levitical) priests (e.g., Luke 1:5; Heb. 7:5); second, of Jesus Christ as "priest after the order of Melchizedek" (e.g., Heb. 7:17); and third, derivatively, of all believers as together holding a "priesthood" (l Pet. 2:5, 2:9; cf. Rev. 1:6. 5:10). It is never used in the New Testament to denote ordained ministers of the church.

Despite this consistent New Testament usage, from the 2nd century onward the hiereus terminology began to be applied to the ordained ministers - initially only to bishops. but later to presbyters also. The growth in church history of this misapplication of the New Testament usage matched a comparable growth in the understanding of the Eucharist as a distinct ritual offering of a sacrifice to God. (Colin Buchanan, Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism, p. 483)

And for the Lord's supper becoming the Catholic corruption, see here by the grace of God.

The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or real flesh and blood?

(Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses

Table of Contents

Preface

1Cor. 10,11

Metaphorical versus literal language

Supper accounts and John 6: Conformity to Scripture, and consequences of the literalistic interpretation.

The uniqueness of the Catholic interpretation

The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice for sins

Absence of the sacerdotal Eucharistic priesthood

Metaphorical view of Jn. 6 is not new.

Endocannibalism

>>>”So I go thru the life of the NT church ..”

I read your opinion of history and scripture and I think it’s a hard stretch to avoid the Holy Eucharist in both. And you’ve gone off topic in this post.

I think it a much harder task to frame Holy Scripture and history of the Church into Evangelicalism that began in the 17th Century.

I have no doubt you and others do so, I just see it as a pretzel path. I read Holy Scripture, the early Christian documents, the history of Roman catacombs, etc, etc. and it’s quite plain that the Holy Eucharist is the central worship of Christians from the beginning up to the current day.

It’s there, very plainly, and the basic concept, the Real Presence in Holy Eucharist, was there until Zwingli over 1400 years after Christ.

This history is very plain; if not, there is nothing for Zwingli - and those who took it farther afield - to have changed. And it was a very big change from all before it; to deny that it was, is to ignore history.

Anyone can put together proof texts and partial snippets to prove whatever they wish, but the Holy Eucharist is overwhelmingly there from the beginning and forever, whatever effort one makes to try to make it not so.

thanks for your reply.

I read your opinion of history and scripture and I think it’s a hard stretch to avoid the Holy Eucharist in both. And you’ve gone off topic in this post.

In reality, it’s a hard stretch, as shown, to place the Eucharist in the life of the NT church in Scripture, which is the judge of post Scriptural history, the latter of which testifies to the promise of perverse things being taught from within the church. (Acts 20:20)

I think it a much harder task to frame Holy Scripture and history of the Church into Evangelicalism that began in the 17th Century.

Rather, it a much harder task to frame Holy Scripture into Catholicism that began in the 2nd century. while evangelicalism began in the 1st, and the partial recovery of its became more manifest in the 17th. Thanks be to God.

I read Holy Scripture, the early Christian documents, the history of Roman catacombs, etc, etc. and it’s quite plain that the Holy Eucharist is the central worship of Christians from the beginning up to the current day.

That you see it in the history and teaching of life of the NT church in Scripture testifies to the deception that is Catholicism, as it simply is not there. Nonetheless, as the Lord saves those who are a broken (of pride) and contrite heart (Ps. 34:18) who cast all their faith on the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, some can be Christian despite holding to the Eucharistic error. I was one.

It’s there, very plainly, and the basic concept, the Real Presence in Holy Eucharist, was there until Zwingli over 1400 years after Christ.

No, it was not in the NT church, but it was in paganism from of old. Note also that according to one of your own "Real Presence" was originally an Anglican term for a different concept.

This history is very plain;

That the Eucharistic error did develop is indeed plain in post Scriptural history, in contrast to the life of the NT church in Scripture. That God latter corrected this error after Scripture regained its Scriptural primacy and was freely accessed (which Rome much hindered) is a testimony to its power, and God's mercy and grace.

Anyone can put together proof texts and partial snippets to prove whatever they wish

As Caths abundantly evidence.

but the Holy Eucharist is overwhelmingly there from the beginning and forever, whatever effort one makes to try to make it not so.

That assertion remains absurd, and once again i challenge you to show in the life of the NT church in Scripture, interpretive of the gospels, this central sacrament of sacrifice for sin at the hands of priest prelates whose primary active function is that of changing bread and wine into the "real" body and blood of Christ, to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life. And that instead of RCs having to do this, that i put together proof texts and partial snippets to prove what is not the reality.

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.