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.
If is upon frauds like this that the belief that Joseph had children before his marriage to Mary rests and the pictures of the infant in a cave with animals round about.
According to this second century fraud Salome thrusts her finger into Mary’s nether parts to verify Mary is a virgin and such nonsense as that that forms that so called “deposit of faith”.
Throw in the tradition that Anna’s house (Mary’s mother, unnamed in Scripture) was picked up by angels and transported from the Middle East to Italy with some stops along the way.
This is what passes as tradition equal to Scripture.
Whell I am a professional thypoist so I can spell anuy word in a numbar of wheys.
Being close to as old as dirt, when I sought and recieved the Saviour, savior was spelled the old fashoned way.
And for that shame was cast upon me.
I guess I could have quoted myself with it cleverly spelled the Catholic way as if that was the way I originally posted it, but doing that here (no edit feature sorry lib types!) would be exposed by some smart poster.
I haven't had shame cast upon me for spilling dialogue the "protestant" way yet but the day is young...
Kind of mind boggling, isn't it?
LOL. Protestantism cannot agree on when or if the alleged Rapture is going to take place, pre-trib, post-trib, trumpet blasts, twinkling, etc., but you are all united in whatever it is, was, or will be, it could not include Mary.....LOL
(Tell me again how it is the Holy Spirit that is telling all of you a different Truth).
Peace be with you.
Purgatory is only a place if you are talking about a town in Utah.
In all the discussion about the Catholic dogma of the Assumption of Mary not one has explained how Mary could be assumed bodily into heaven when Paul said flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom.Here is something that should help explain that, and This is the link:"The Catholic believer must now either accept Scripture with Paul's simple statement or accept as infallible a statement to the contrary by a Pope.
"What sort of double think of faith, morals and intellect must this take."
According to the Bible, Enoch and Elijah are the only two people God took to heaven without them dying. Genesis 5:24 tells us, "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away." Second Kings 2:11 tells us, "Suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind."
Enoch is described as a man who "walked with God for 300 years" (Genesis 5:23). Elijah was perhaps the most powerful of God's prophets in the Old Testament. There are also prophecies of Elijah's return (Malachi 4:5-6).
Catholic doctrine states the Mary died, and was put in a tomb.
When at some later date, they believe that the tomb was opened and the body was gone.
So apparently they teach that Mary was taken to heaven in the same way Jesus was.
This of course is not backed up by scripture, but Catholic teaching seems to venerate what I call the Second Gospel of Catholicism-their traditions--more than the Bible sometimes.
Very similar to the LDS with their BOM
It is my opinion from study of the Bible that a body that is taken up to heaven, such as the accurate examples above, that God supernaturally transforms the body of flesh, blood and bones into a spiritual (immortal) body of flesh and bone.
Blood seems to be an earthly part of the body, but will not be part of the immortal body of flesh and bone.
Mary of course was not "assumed" into heaven, but we are supposed to "assume" that she was.
Not scriptural at all.
Well, at least you didn’t cite the Donation of Constantine.
There is a big difference. If we disagree on when the Rapture will occur it doesn’t affect our salvation. If Catholics disagree with the RCC on Mary they are declared anathema.
Anathema:
a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
any imprecation of divine punishment.
a curse; execration.
What the Holy Spirit tells us is that we have assurance of salvation through the shed blood of Christ and to reject all cults and false teachings of man.
Tell me again how the holy spirit directed Christians to murder and torture other Christians and engage in murderous crusades.
Tell me again how condoning these murders does not make a person equally guilty.
Yeah, tell everyone.
One cannot disagree with a dogmatic teaching of the Church and actually be in communion with the Church. It is definitional. (hint: look up what dogma means)
You have again looked to a secular dictionary to try to determine what the Church means in its declarations. It would be simpler (and a whole lot less embarrassing for you) if you simply looked to how the Church defines its terms if you honestly want to know what it is trying to say. An Anathema is simply the highest or most severe form of Excommunication. Whereas, Excommunication is an instruction to no longer participate in Church activities and most Sacraments (reconciliation being the exception) and is only applicable to the excommunicated individual. Anathema is an instruction to the Church to effectively exile the individual from the community of the Church. Nowhere does the Church claim the authority to damn or judge anyone.
Peace be with you
Chrise ascended into Heaven with a glorified body...Mary was assumed into Heaven with a glorified body....NEITHER OF THEIR ORIGINAL BODIES REMAIN ON EARTH, I don't know how its done, but that's what happened!!!
a merciful God would condemn a creation of His to Hell because he had never heard of Jesus.....wow, you protestants are TOUGH!!!
english is the usual language used here unless translations are necessary for content or clarity
According to whom? Glorified body? What does that mean? Who says Mary was “assumed” into heaven?
My dictionary says savior or saviour are acceptable...2 ways of spelling the same word....
What modern science has proven is that, in a process known as microchimerism, cells from the fetus colonize the mother's body and remain within it through the rest of her life. That means that from the moment the Holy Spirit came upon her until her dormition she carried the still living cells of Jesus. If we believe that Jesus' body ascended into heaven we have to accept that Mary would eventually accompany Him.
Peace be with you.
arrogance?????As Muhammad Ali once said, it ain't bragging if you can do it.
Catholicism was a church for one thousand six hundred years before ANYONE was a protestant....now 1600 years is a very long time, they were the original church, founded by Christ on the Apostles...they have the four marks of the true church....they are One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic...no other "denomination" on Earth shares those "marks".
Oh; it WILL include Mary!
She'll get AWAKENED when ALL the 'dead in Christ' do.
And then, those that remain will be caught up with them in the air.
(It's right there in the book.)
However; one doesn't HAVE to believe one way or the other for it to work out the way GOD said it is going to.
yes, Mary is dead, she was assumed into Heaven by God. And please be more respectful of the first Pope in the Catholic church.
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.