clearly missing an opportunity to show reverence to other books.
Posted on 02/08/2006 1:14:31 PM PST by jecIIny
“He who grounds his faith on Scripture only has no faith”
The faith existing in the Church, from the beginning throughout all ages, is the infallible standard to determine the true sense of Scripture: and accordingly, it is certain, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the Redeemer is God, and hath filled us even with divine power. In fact, he who grounds his faith on Scripture only, that is, on the result of his exegetical studies, has no faith, can have none, and understands not its very nature. Must he not be always ready to receive better information; must he not admit the possibility, that by nature study of Scripture another result may be obtained, than that which has already been arrived at? The thought of this possibility precludes the establishment of any decided, perfectly undoubting, and unshaken faith, which, after all, is alone deserving of the name. He who says, ‘this is my faith,’ hath no faith. Faith, unity of faith, universality of faith, are one and the same; they are but different expressions of the same notion. He who, if even he should not believe the truth, yet believes truly, believes at the same time that he holds fast the doctrine of Christ, that he shares the faith with the Apostles, and with the Church founded by the Redeemer, that there is but one faith in all ages, and one only true one. This faith is alone rational, and alone worthy of man: every other should be called a mere opinion, and, in a practical point of view, is an utter impotency.
Ages passed by, and with them the ancient sects: new times arose, bringing along with them new schisms in the Church. The formal principles of all these productions of egotism were the same; all asserted that Holy Writ, abstracted from Tradition and from the Church, is at once the sole source of religious truth, and the sole standard of its knowledge for the individual. This formal principle, common to all parties separated from the Church;—to the Gnostic of the second century, and the Albigensian and Vaudois of the twelfth, to the Sabellian of the third, the Arian of the fourth, and the Nestorian of the fifth century—this principle, we say, led to the most contradictory belief. What indeed can be more opposite to each other, than Gnosticism and Pelagianism, than Sabellianism and Arianism? The very circumstance, indeed, that one and the same formal principle can be applied to every possible mode of belief; and rather that this belief, however contradictory it may be in itself, can sill make use of that formal principle, should alone convince everyone, that grievous errors must here lie concealed, and that between the individual and the Bible a mediating principle is wanting.
What is indeed more striking than the fact, that every later religious sect doth not deny that the Catholic Church, in respect to the parties that had previously seceded from her, has in substance right on her side, and even recognizes in these cases her dogmatic decisions; while on the other hand, it disputes her formal principles? Would this ecclesiastical doctrine, so formed and so approved of, have been possible, without the peculiar view of the Church entertained of herself? Doth not the one determine the other? With joy the Arian recognises what has decided by the Church against the Gnostics; but he does not keep in view the manner in which she proceeded against them; and he will not consider that those dogmas on which he agrees with the Church, she would not have saved and handed down to his time, had she acted according to those formal principles which he requires of her, and on which he stands. The Pelagian and the Nestorian embrace also, with the most undoubted faith, the decisions of the Church against the Arians. But as soon as the turn comes to either, he becomes as it were stupified, and is inconsiderate enough to desire the matter of Christian doctrine without the appropriate ecclesiastical form—without that form, consequently, by the very neglect whereof those parties, to which he is most heartily opposed, have fallen on the adoption of their articles of belief. It was the same with Luther and Calvin. The pure Christian dogmas, in opposition to the errors of the Gnostics, Paulicians, Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Monophysites and others, they received with the most praiseworthy firmness and fervency of faith. But, when they took a fancy to deliver their theses on the relations between faith and works, between free-will and grace, or however else they may be called, they trod (as to form) quite in the footsteps of those whom they execrated….
This accordingly is the doctrine of Catholics. Thou wilt obtain the knowledge full and entire of the Christian religion only in connection with its essential form, which is the Church. Look at the Scripture in an ecclesiastical spirit, and it will present thee an image perfectly resembling the Church. Contemplate Christ in, and with his creation—the Church—the only adequate authority—the only authority representing him, and thou wilt then stamp his image on thy soul….
[The Catholic] is freely convinced, that the Church is a divine institution, upheld by supernal aid, ‘which leads her into all truth;’ that, consequently, no doctrine rejected by her is contained in Scripture; that with the latter, on the contrary, her dogmas perfectly coincide, though many particulars may not be verbally set forth in Holy Writ. Accordingly he has the conviction, that the Scripture, for example doth not teach that Christ is a mere man; nay, he is certain that it represents him also as God. Inasmuch as he professes this belief, he is not free to profess the contrary, for he would contradict himself; in the same way as a man, who has resolved to remain chaste, cannot be unchaste, without violating his resolution. To this restriction, which everyone most probably will consider rational, the Catholic Church subjects her members, and consequently, also, the learned exegetists of Scripture. A Church which would authorize anyone to find what he pleased in Scripture, and without any foundation to declare it as unecclesiastical, such a Church would thereby declare, that it believed in nothing, and was devoid of all doctrines; for the mere possession of the Bible no more constitutes a Church, than the possession of the faculty of reason renders anyone really rational. Such a Church would in fact, as a moral entity, exhibit the contradiction just adverted to, which a physical being could not be guilty of. The individual cannot at one and the same time believe, and not believe, a particular point of doctrine. But if a Church, which consists of a union of many individuals, permitted every member, as such, to receive or to reject at his pleasure, any article of faith, it would fall into this very contradiction, and would be a monster of unbelief, indifferent to the most opposite doctrines, which we might indeed, on our behalf, honour with the finest epithets, but certainly not denominate a Church. The Church must train up souls for the kingdom of God, which is founded on definite facts and truths, that are eternally unchangeable; and so a Church, that knows no such immutable dogmas, is like to a teacher, that knows not what he should teach. The Church has to stamp the image of Christ on humanity; but Christ is not sometimes this, and sometimes that, but eternally the same. She has to breathe into the hearts of men the word of God, that came down from heaven: but this word is no vague, empty sound, wherof we can make what we will.
Johann Adam Möhler
clearly missing an opportunity to show reverence to other books.
The charcoal inscription reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" which means "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Mat 16:17 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.
The rest of it here... http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
Looks like someone could use one of these....
Interesting read...
Jo...I don't know and an curious...what clear evidence doe the RCC have that Peter was in Rome, at any time, and was the founder of the church there...Side note...that always seemed a strange claim to me because of the fact that Paul does address the leaders of the church but nothing about Peter anywhere...not that he had to note it, but Paul and Luke seemed to be very aware of noting the important names throughout all their writings...That being said, I don't think the RCC would hold Peter was not the first Pope even if buried in Jerusalem, but it definitely makes things a bit more 'questionable' for lack of a better term...look forward to your insight...
Clay...any insight, thoughts would be interesting to me as well...
God's blessings to both of you...
That picture is so deeply disturbing to me...If my pastor did something like that I'd be writing to have him removed from his duties!
Honestly, we all talk about our actions, works etc on here...what kind of message does/did that send to the RCC faithful?
Just my opinion...probably not one that is favored, but that was a very very very very very very poor choice by him. The guy on the right creeps me out...he looks like he is just drooling at seeing the most prominant leader in the Christian world pucker up to support the heresy of Islamic beliefs...almost like his look is saying "Yes, that's good John Paul, kiss it, hold it lovingly, that's a good man, feel the power of the dark side (that guy does resemble the empirer in Star Wars, no? )
The Jews were ordered out of Rome
Act 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Act 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
So the inspired word of God says that the Jewish community had been scattered.
Jo, you would be amazed what you can find in the scriptures :)
I am not implying anything of the sort. I apologize if my last post sounded like I was denying the whole thing, but I was not. "Alleged" or "claimed" are terms used by lawyers under such conditions. I am certain that there were a number of people who were indeed sodomized. But in many cases, the priests were never even taken to court. People made claims of abuse - and who really knows what percentage were just people trying to get a buck, knowing the Church was giving out free money with little examination of the evidence. Who knows how many people were just hopping on the bandwagon...But the fact of the matter is, no one really knows what happened but the accused and the defendant, regardless of the press's accusations. We are hopeful that the Church will better keep an eye on such things in the future.
Regards
Here we go again....ducking for cover :)
OK...I am Orthodox Christian, NOT RC, and the Church IS infallible. Not the Pope, but the Church. Orthodoxy and RC's neither one believe in "Sola Scriptura" and you cannot toss out 1000 years of Sacred and Holy Tradition.
Are you simply condemning Popes, or the entire Ancient Church itself?
Uh..Excuse me, I am Orthodox Christian. I don't give a plug nickel what the Pope says, but I DO care about Holy and Sacred Tradition. The Bible was made for the Church, not the other way around, and you cannot discount the wisdom of 1000 years, just because some Protestant Dingbats rebelled against Rome. Though some goals of the Reformation were admirable, the "baby was thrown out with the bathwater"..............
Good morning to the both of you. Apparently, St. Peter's Bascilica was built by Constantine on the site of an already existing shrine where he was supposedly buried.
I have two links for you. The first is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, that lays out all of the ancient manuscript evidence that Peter did, indeed, die in Rome. These men are the same men who recognized that the writings of Paul and Peter were from God.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV
If you believe this is biased, also check out this information from a "Church of YEHOVAH" site. Here is some information compiled on the subject matter...I didn't include the whole article, but this conclusion is clear - that Peter did die in Rome.
Peter had to die and be buried somewhere; and the OVERWHELMING CHRISTIAN TRADITION has been in agreement, from the EARLIEST TIMES, that it was actually in Rome that Peter died. F. J. Foakes-Jackson, in his book Peter: Prince of Apostles, states "that the tradition that the church [in Rome] had been founded by...Paul was well established by A.D. 178. From hence forth there is NO DOUBT whatever that, NOT ONLY AT ROME, but throughout the Christian church, Peter's visit to the city was an ESTABLISHED FACT, as was his martyrdom together with that of Paul" (New York, 1927. P. 155.).
Historian Arthur Stapylton Barnes agrees:
The strong point in the evidence of the [church] fathers is their UNANIMITY. It is QUITE CLEAR that no other place was known to them as claiming to have been the scene of St. Peter's death, and the repository of his relics. -- St. Peter in Rome, London, 1900. P. 7.
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge corroborates this by saying:
Tradition seems to maintain that Peter went to Rome toward the end of his life and there suffered martyrdom UNDER NERO. NO SOURCE describes the place of Peter's martyrdom as other than Rome. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr's death IN ROME TOWARD THE CLOSE OF NERO'S REIGN, sometime AFTER the cessation of the general persecution. -- Article, "Peter."
John Ignatius Dollinger claims that the evidence "St. Peter worked in Rome is a FACT SO ABUNDANTLY PROVED and so deeply imbedded in the earliest Christian history, that whoever treats it as a legend ought in consistency to treat the whole of the earliest church history as LEGENDARY, or, at least, QUITE UNCERTAIN" (The 1st Age of Christianity and the Church, London. 1867. P. 296).
As author James Hardy Ropes states:
The tradition, however, that Peter came to Rome, and suffered martyrdom under Nero (54-68 A.D.) either in the great persecution which followed the burning of the city or somewhat later, rests on a different and FIRMER basis....It is UNQUESTIONED that 150 years after Peter's death it was the COMMON BELIEF at Rome that he had died there, as had Paul. The "trophies" of the two great apostles could be seen on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way...a firm local tradition of the death at Rome of both apostles is attested for a time NOT TOO DISTANT FROM THE EVENT. -- The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.
The belief that Peter was martyred in Rome was NOT due to the vanity or ambition of the LOCAL Christians, but was ADMITTED, at an early date, THROUGHOUT THE CHURCH. No testimony later than the middle of the 3rd century really needs to be considered; by this time the Roman church claimed to have the body of the apostle and NO ONE DISPUTED THE FACT.
It is more than interesting to realize that there IS NOT ONE SINGLE PASSAGE or utterance to the contrary in ANY of the literary works dealing with the foundations of Christianity -- until AFTER the Reformation. Don't you think that's odd? Don't you think SOMEONE would have seized upon this claim of Rome, and used it as a point of contention if there were ANY doubt at all regarding its validity? Don't you think the eastern churches would have gotten UNLIMITED PROPAGANDA MILEAGE out of this claim if it were not true? For centuries the eastern churches were in almost CONSTANT conflict with Rome over Easter, the Sabbath, and many other doctrinal issues. If they could have seized upon Rome's claim that Peter had worked and died there, they SURELY would have used this against the Roman church! But they didn't. WHY? Because there was ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER about Rome being the site of Peter's death!
Adds William McBirnie:
We certainly do not even have the slightest reference that points to any other place besides Rome which could be considered as the scene of his death. And in favor of Rome, there are important traditions that he did actually die in Rome. In the second and third centuries when certain churches were in rivalry with those in Rome it never occurred to a single one of them to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. -- The Search for the Twelve Apostles. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois. 1973. P. 64.
Unger's Bible Dictionary states unequivocally that "the evidence for his [Peter's] martyrdom there [in Rome] is COMPLETE, while there is a TOTAL ABSENCE of any contrary statement in the writings of the early fathers" (3rd Edition, Chicago. 1960. P. 850).
George Edmundson, in his book The Church in Rome in the 1st Century, dogmatically repeats the same conclusion:
We do not have even the SLIGHTEST TRACE that points to any other place which could be considered as the scene of his [Peter's] death....It is a further important point that in the second and third centuries, when certain churches were in rivalry with the one in Rome, IT NEVER OCCURRED TO A SINGLE ONE OF THEM to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. Indeed, even MORE can be said; precisely in the east, as is clear from the pseudo-Clementine writings and the Petrine legends, above all those that deal with Peter's conflict with Simon the magician [Magus] THE TRADITION OF THE ROMAN RESIDENCE OF PETER HAD A PARTICULARLY STRONG HOLD. -- London. 1913. Pp. 114-115.
Jerome writes as follows: "Simon Peter, prince of the apostles, after an episcopate of the church at Antioch and preaching to the dispersion of those of the circumcision, who had believed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, IN THE 2ND YEAR OF CLAUDIUS GOES TO ROME TO OPPOSE SIMON MAGUS and there for 25 years beheld the sacerdotal chair until the LAST YEAR OF NERO, that is the 14th." Now here amidst a CERTAIN CONFUSION...a definite date is given for Peter's FIRST ARRIVAL IN ROME, and, be it noted, it is the date of his escape from Herod Agrippa's persecution and his disappearance from the narrative of the Acts. -- London. 1913. Pp. 50-51. According to George Edmundson, in his work The Church in Rome in the 1st Century:
Jerome claims the 14th year of Nero's reign was his last, and history records Nero died in June of 68, then, using the reckoning of Jerome, the 2nd year of Claudius must have been 43 A.D. This AGREES, as Mr. Edmundson noted, with the date of Peter's imprisonment and escape under Herod, and agrees with the historical dates for the reign of Claudius.
Chronologers agree that Herod died in 44 A.D.; and the Book of Acts shows that after Peter's escape, Herod went to Caesarea where he spent some time in negotiations with envoys from Tyre and other Phoenician cities before his death. This, coupled with the UNIVERSAL GREEK TRADITION that the apostles did not leave the Syro-Palestinian region UNTIL THE END OF 12 YEARS MINISTRY, fits in well with the dating of Eusebius and Jerome.
I think the evidence is quite clear, from those men who were there, that Peter did die in Rome. I see no reason to doubt the universal agreement of the first Christian writers who all say Peter was in Rome and eventually died in Rome. It is only after the Reformation that we begin to see any "doubt" of that.
Regards
I would like to add to that the fact that St. Peter's body was found in the 1940's right where it was supposed to be: under the high altar of Constantine's basilica, which, in turn, is directly under the high altar of the current St. Peter's basilica. An interesting and highly involving account of this archaeological find can be found in the book "The Bones of St. Peter," by John E. Walsh, Image Books (Doubleday), 1985.
They returned shortly after Claudius threw them out. As to Peter...
One honest Protestant historian and theologian -- Adolph Harnack -- wrote that "to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is NOT BLIND. The martyr death of peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice."
Here is some evidence that Peter was in Rome and was killed there:
Peter had to die and be buried somewhere; and the OVERWHELMING CHRISTIAN TRADITION has been in agreement, from the EARLIEST TIMES, that it was actually in Rome that Peter died. F. J. Foakes-Jackson, in his book Peter: Prince of Apostles, states "that the tradition that the church [in Rome] had been founded by...Paul was well established by A.D. 178. From hence forth there is NO DOUBT whatever that, NOT ONLY AT ROME, but throughout the Christian church, Peter's visit to the city was an ESTABLISHED FACT, as was his martyrdom together with that of Paul" (New York, 1927. P. 155.).
Historian Arthur Stapylton Barnes agrees:
The strong point in the evidence of the [church] fathers is their UNANIMITY. It is QUITE CLEAR that no other place was known to them as claiming to have been the scene of St. Peter's death, and the repository of his relics. -- St. Peter in Rome, London, 1900. P. 7.
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge corroborates this by saying:
Tradition seems to maintain that Peter went to Rome toward the end of his life and there suffered martyrdom UNDER NERO. NO SOURCE describes the place of Peter's martyrdom as other than Rome. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr's death IN ROME TOWARD THE CLOSE OF NERO'S REIGN, sometime AFTER the cessation of the general persecution. -- Article, "Peter."
John Ignatius Dollinger claims that the evidence "St. Peter worked in Rome is a FACT SO ABUNDANTLY PROVED and so deeply imbedded in the earliest Christian history, that whoever treats it as a legend ought in consistency to treat the whole of the earliest church history as LEGENDARY, or, at least, QUITE UNCERTAIN" (The 1st Age of Christianity and the Church, London. 1867. P. 296).
As author James Hardy Ropes states:
The tradition, however, that Peter came to Rome, and suffered martyrdom under Nero (54-68 A.D.) either in the great persecution which followed the burning of the city or somewhat later, rests on a different and FIRMER basis....It is UNQUESTIONED that 150 years after Peter's death it was the COMMON BELIEF at Rome that he had died there, as had Paul. The "trophies" of the two great apostles could be seen on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way...a firm local tradition of the death at Rome of both apostles is attested for a time NOT TOO DISTANT FROM THE EVENT. -- The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.
The belief that Peter was martyred in Rome was NOT due to the vanity or ambition of the LOCAL Christians, but was ADMITTED, at an early date, THROUGHOUT THE CHURCH. No testimony later than the middle of the 3rd century really needs to be considered; by this time the Roman church claimed to have the body of the apostle and NO ONE DISPUTED THE FACT.
It is more than interesting to realize that there IS NOT ONE SINGLE PASSAGE or utterance to the contrary in ANY of the literary works dealing with the foundations of Christianity -- until AFTER the Reformation. Don't you think that's odd? Don't you think SOMEONE would have seized upon this claim of Rome, and used it as a point of contention if there were ANY doubt at all regarding its validity? Don't you think the eastern churches would have gotten UNLIMITED PROPAGANDA MILEAGE out of this claim if it were not true? For centuries the eastern churches were in almost CONSTANT conflict with Rome over Easter, the Sabbath, and many other doctrinal issues. If they could have seized upon Rome's claim that Peter had worked and died there, they SURELY would have used this against the Roman church! But they didn't. WHY? Because there was ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER about Rome being the site of Peter's death!
Adds William McBirnie:
We certainly do not even have the slightest reference that points to any other place besides Rome which could be considered as the scene of his death. And in favor of Rome, there are important traditions that he did actually die in Rome. In the second and third centuries when certain churches were in rivalry with those in Rome it never occurred to a single one of them to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. -- The Search for the Twelve Apostles. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois. 1973. P. 64.
Unger's Bible Dictionary states unequivocally that "the evidence for his [Peter's] martyrdom there [in Rome] is COMPLETE, while there is a TOTAL ABSENCE of any contrary statement in the writings of the early fathers" (3rd Edition, Chicago. 1960. P. 850).
George Edmundson, in his book The Church in Rome in the 1st Century, dogmatically repeats the same conclusion:
We do not have even the SLIGHTEST TRACE that points to any other place which could be considered as the scene of his [Peter's] death....It is a further important point that in the second and third centuries, when certain churches were in rivalry with the one in Rome, IT NEVER OCCURRED TO A SINGLE ONE OF THEM to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. Indeed, even MORE can be said; precisely in the east, as is clear from the pseudo-Clementine writings and the Petrine legends, above all those that deal with Peter's conflict with Simon the magician [Magus] THE TRADITION OF THE ROMAN RESIDENCE OF PETER HAD A PARTICULARLY STRONG HOLD. -- London. 1913. Pp. 114-115.
____________
It seems to me that the historical evidence is quite clear. Peter was in Rome, and Peter died in Rome. Paul didn't go to Rome right away because he "didn't like to build on another's work".
Jo, you would be amazed what you can find in the scriptures :)
Yes, the first time I read the entire NT, I was amazed at what I found. Who would have thought that the Catholic Church was the true Church established by Christ? But there is was. And it is corroborated by ancient testimonies of the men who were there. People who disapprove of the evidence are just refusing to see what history presents - that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the seed planted by Christ, the mustard seed that grew into the largest of bushes.
Regards
yes, I remember hearing that, but didn't have the exact references.
Regards
Here's some stuff from New Advent regarding St. Peter's presence in Rome and his martyrdom there:
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, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). 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 (v): "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 chap. Iv). 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" (Ad. 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, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii).
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" (Adv. haer., III, iii; cf. III, i). 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, "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xiv), 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 Praescriptione", xxxv, 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" (scil. the Baptist). In "Scorpiace", xv, 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", ch. v) 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" (Adv. Marc., IV, v).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his "Dialogue with Proclus" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii) 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, Tubingen, 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.
End of excerpt
It's interesting to note, in particular, the priest Caius' account of the burial place of St. Peter. He writes about the "trophies" of the founders of the Church in Rome, Peter and Paul. The "trophy" or "tropaion" of St. Peter was discovered in the 1940's to be a small shrine, non-descript so as not to draw undue attention from the pagan Romans (keep in mind that, at the time, this was an above-ground site), with an altar slab directly over the remains of Peter. It "marked the spot" over which Constantine built his high altar in the original St. Peter's basilica. According to the Walsh book, "The Bones of St. Peter," there is good archaeological evidence to date the construction of this tropaion between 147 and 165 AD. Some tiles used in the construction of the overall monument had been stamped at a brickworks owned by Marcus Aurelius at a time when he was still "Caesar" and not yet full emperor. This window of time runs from 147 to 161, and an allowance of a few years is made to suppose tile stock would be used even beyond 161.
Another thing, more generic, that might be useful to add here is that the tropaion mirrors the veneration that many of the martyrs had in the early Church. Monuments serving as altars were built over the martyrs' graves regularly, showing at an early date that the martyrs were both venerated and "known to be in heaven," an early form of what we know as the canonization process today.
So much of the early witness of the Church to both its faith and practices is lost by non-Catholics who disdain everything written after the death of St. John till October 31, 1517 as irrelevant. So much is missed when this is done!
"The Bible was made for the Church, not the other way around, and you cannot discount the wisdom of 1000 years, just because some Protestant Dingbats rebelled against Rome."
__________________________________
I thank the LORD that there were men inspired by SCRIPTURE that saw how an institution of man had corrupted the truth.
It is hubris to think that the "Church" controls the word of GOD.
The Church is *supposed* to be "one," according to Jesus in John 17:20-21. Knowing what He was about to undergo in just a few hours, Jesus still prioritized unity in His prayer to His Father. Good ratification for the importance of the concept!
Further, it is the Church *alone* that is described in Scripture as the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (!Timothy 3:15. Unity AND truth are found in the Church. It is MEANT to "control" the Word of God. Not you. Not I. We can certainly read from it, using the lights that God gave us. But WE are not the end-all magisterial authority. Our "opinions" regarding Scripture or any other aspect of the Faith *must* conform with the Church, which *alone* as an institution is preserved from error.
To presume otherwise is arrogant and invites chaos. The evidence for which is all around you. Thousands of differing opinions within Protestantism alone are eloquent testimony to this. The "perspicuousness" of Scripture was the founding myth of Protestantism and its most obvious error. An inerrant source of information without in interpreting authority of equal inerrancy is useless. The mere fact that EVERY Scriptural thread on this forum has, at a minimum, three main streams of interpretation is eloquent testimony to this. More often, there are even more differing themes than just three.
You can't even demonstrate how the canon of Scripture came to be without acknowledging the authority of the early Church. The very Bible that you hold to be inerrant (as do we) you can't even demonstrate the inerrancy of with credibility. Your foundation for your beliefs is every bit composed of the shifting sands described in Matthew 7:24-27. It is not founded on the Rock. May God help you find bedrock upon which to build your foundation of faith!
"Uh..Excuse me, I am Orthodox......"
By holy tradition I trust you are referring to the Apostle Paul's admonition, "Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.", (1st Cor 11:2) and not the traditions of men. Or do you think it OK to go beyond the things that are written (1st Cor 4:6) and just make up our own traditions? If we are going by the Bible, then fine, but if we are going by the Bible plus church tradition, then we have nothing to visit about. Tradition just means something handed down and that could be good or bad. I will stick with the traditions handed down by Christ and the Apostles as revealed in the written word. Regards.
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.