Posted on 06/07/2007 4:07:42 AM PDT by markomalley
Now that is an interesting statement: "his cult originated very early in Rome". One would not use that to describe the church founded by the apostle Peter, but it would be fitting to use it to describe the followers of Simon Magus, who came to Rome during the reign of Claudius and had a 25 year bishopric. And since Vatican Hill was a pagan graveyard where sorcerers, magicians, soothsayers, and seers, like Simon Magus were buried, one would expect to find his body buried there --- not Peter's. Peter's bones are in an ossuary at Dominus Flevit on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem where you would expect them to be.
NOW I REMEMBER YOU.
OK, never mind. We've had the discussion before. I've proven you wrong before. And I won't waste any more time on you.
Have a great night. I will, however, pray for you that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes of understanding. In the meantime, may God bless you. I leave you with the words of St. Paul:
Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of partisanship, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice.
And I, too, rejoice.
The rest of this post is for the listening audience...who might not be familiar with the refutation given several months ago...
Clement of Rome (1st Epistle to Rome, ch 5, circa 95 AD):
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.
St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer, III.3, circa 175-180 AD)
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Hippolytus (Refut. Haer. 6.15 circa 200-223 AD)
The disciples, then, of this (Magus), celebrate magical rites, and resort to incantations. And (they profess to) transmit both love-spells and charms, and the demons said to be senders of dreams, for the purpose of distracting whomsoever they please. But they also employ those denominated Paredroi." And they have an image of Simon (fashioned) into the figure of Jupiter, and (an image) of Helen in the form of Minerva; and they pay adoration to these." But they call the one Lord and the other Lady. And if any one amongst them, on seeing the images of either Simon or Helen, would call them by name, he is cast off, as being ignorant of the mysteries. This Simon, deceiving many3 in Samaria by his sorceries, was reproved by the Apostles, and was laid under a curse, as it has been written in the Acts. But he afterwards abjured the faith, and attempted these (aforesaid practices). And journeying as far as Rome,3 he fell in with the Apostles; and to him, deceiving many by his sorceries, Peter offered repeated opposition. This man, ultimately repairing to Â… (and) sitting under a plane tree, continued to give instruction (in his doctrines). And in truth at last, when conviction was imminent, in case he delayed longer, be stated that, if he were buried alive, he would rise the third day. And accordingly, having ordered a trench to be dug by his disciples,3 he directed himself to be interred there. They, then, executed the injunction given; whereas he remained (in that grave) until this day, for he was not the Christ. This constitutes the legendary system advanced by Simon, and from this Valentinus derived a starting-point (for his own doctrine. This doctrine, in point of fact, was the same with the it Simonian, though Valentinus) denominated under different titles: for "Nous," and "Aletheia," and "Logos," and "Zoe," and "Anthropos," and "Ecclesia," and Aeons of Valentinus, are confessedly the six roots of Simon, viz., "Mind" and "Intelligence," "Voice" and "Name," "Ratiocination" and "Reflection." But since it seems to us that we have sufficiently explained Simon's tissue of legends, let us see what also Valentinus asserts.
emphasis mine
The reader will note from the emphasized text that Peter rebuked this Simon Magus in Rome.
Hippolytus (On the end of the world, 49.1)
1. Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner.
Tertullian (Prescr. Adv. Haer, 32)
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.
Emphasis mine
Ibid, ch 36
Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!…
And there's more. But I think any reasonable reader should be able to see that it was the common belief that Peter resided in Rome...and was martyred there.
The original autographs are long disappeared like the Ark of the Covenant. That we have what they contained is owing to Tradition, As for the Septuagent, I am unsure why you insist, with the rabbis, that only works in Hebrew are canonical. It suits their Tradition but not ours.
Please refer to my post post #43, where I explain in exhaustive detail that I am not referring to an extremely small subset of them.
My intention is hardly to smooth things out with schismatics (see my usage of the term in post 43). My intention is to encourage my fellow Christians to put on the whole Armor of God so that the schismatics (see my usage in post 43) cannot wile them away.
While I may be a fool, I am not deceitful.
It also is personal to call someone deceitful if you aren’t absolutely sure of that person has the intention to deceive.
Thanks.
Unlike some, I tried to thicken my skin before coming to Free Republic. So if somebody wishes to call me a fool, or deceitful, or worse, that's their business. Don't matter to me at all! A person who is hurt by name calling on an Internet board has no business posting on one.
But, again, thanks.
One can piece together the original using deductive analysis in comparing all extant early manuscripts.
The fact of the matter is that I accept that God has preserved his word through the ages. It is the most well documented book in the history of the earth.
I agree that the Bible is probably the most reliable text in history, thousands of copies as opposed to hundreds for other ancient texts. However, “piecing together” requires a “priecer,” and one must know first which of the books are to be included in the collection.
This might come as a shock but the writings of Irenaeus and Ignatius were not influenced by the splintering of Christendom over a millenium later following the Reformation.
You're carrying way too much baggage from the 16th century onwards and projecting it back in time. Your whole thinking is colored by the actions of Protestant reformers whom Ignatius and Irenaeus never even dreamed of. Forget Luther, Calvin and the ongoing debate about whether we are the Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, hop into your time machine and travel back to a time when the need to identify the spreading Christian religion as universal, or Catholic or catholic was not a pressing polemic issue. The exact point at which Christianity had spread sufficiently throughout the then known world for it to be named "catholic" or "Catholic" was not marked by an official declaration. Some writers may have used this term earlier than others. This does not sunder the connection of the present day Catholic Church to the first apostles. It simply indicates that there was not a synchronous adoption of the word "Catholic". And why would there need to be?
You've approached the topic with the preconceived idea that today's Catholic Church has no connection to the apostles and taken the fact that the name does not appear immediately, or is used sporadically in early Christian writings as proof of your hypothesis. Very loose logic. As if the early Church fathers knew they would have to prove apostolic succession to a generation of Protestant skeptics who would appear 20 centuries later and would have called themselves "The Catholic Church" from the get go, in the same way that I might name a newly formed organization "The Augusta Vintage Car Club".
Silly and very sloppy.
Do you know the name of God?
I know that his name is not P-Marlowe.
Do you know the name of God?
Seriously, which name do you want?
Never mind.
See Post #142.
you can add error-ridden to your list of concerns...
Nice avoidance of the issue put before you. None of those quotes say that Peter was Bishop of Rome for a day, or a year, much less 25 years. Furthermore, residing somewhere does not make one a bishop --- otherwise we could all assume that title.
All those quotes do is demonstrates the evolution of the legend of Peter in Rome --- with later writers adding their own little touches to the legend from apocryphal literature, culminating with Eusebius who can't find anybody to cite for his outrageous statement except the blue sky over Rome.
Where is this great legend in the early writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Justin Martur, Clement of Rome. How do you get any kind of Roman Bishopric for Peter out of what Irenaeus said. And neither Tertullian nor Hippolytus say anything about Peter being the Bishop of Rome. The legend of Peter grew out of the apocryphal literature of the time, showing that even church fathers were often incapable of separating fact from fiction.
There is more evidence that Simon Magus had the 25 year bishopric in Rome leaving a Christian cult behind when he died than there is that Simon Peter was there at all, much less a bishop there.
From Tertullian's quote as posted by markomalley:
For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind.
From this statement, we see that an Apostolic See was planted in Rome by St. Peter. Only the Apostles or their successors (the bishops) could consecrate a bishop. We do know that St. Clement regarded himself the successor to St. Peter in this regard based upon his writings.
There is more evidence that Simon Magus had the 25 year bishopric in Rome leaving a Christian cult behind when he died than there is that Simon Peter was there at all, much less a bishop there.
Yet modern historians (many of whom have no reason to support mainstream Christianity) seem to have missed this point; very curious indeed.
Yes, it was very silly and sloppy of Ignatius, Clement, Justin Matryr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, all the early patriarchs until Eusebius, who was under the employ of Pontiff Constantine [under whom the term "catholic Church" was capitalized and capitalized upon], to forget to write about Peter's mythological Bishopric in Rome.
That sloppiness required Eusebius [under the employ of Pontiff Constantine] to have to pluck that Bishopric out of the thin air over Vatican Hill, or dig it up from the shallow graves below, where of course the bones of Simon Magus [the Simon who was the Bishop of a Roman Christian cult] lie to this day.
Yes --- very silly and sloppy of those early patriarchs to say so much about Simon Magus there in Rome and so little about Peter. Their sloppiness made Eusebius and subsequent RCC propagandists work their poor little imaginations so hard to try to make something appear out of nothing.
Then Tertullian disagrees with Irenaeus who says that Peter and Paul, not Peter alone, appointed Linus as the first bishop of Rome --- not Clement. So who is right?
And many church historians say that until the middle of the 2nd century, the churches everywhere, even in Rome, were managed not by a single bishop or presbyter, but by a college of presbyters.
Yet modern historians (many of whom have no reason to support mainstream Christianity) seem to have missed this point; very curious indeed.
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, even Eusebius never missed it. Eusebius even complained that the disciples of Simon Magus, almost 300 years after his death, were pouring into the church of his day bringing their heresies and idolatries with them.
Also, Eusebius' complaints only make it clear that Simon Magus was in Rome and had heretical followers. It does not prove that Simon Peter was NOT in Rome, and it does not prove that the See of Peter, as led by Linus, Clement, and others, were the followers of Simon Magus. Besides, you missed my point, namely that many modern historians would probably love to use your argument to undermine Christianity in general and the Catholic Church specifically, yet they don't.
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.