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.
I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by posting half truths and out of context statements, but the acts lead the reasonable person to conclude intentional deception. If one waits long enough the same old lies are dredged up and cited again with some "eureka" like excitement as though a new truth to destroy the Church has been found. The book you cited; True Spouse of Christ is an instruction book written to and for novice nuns. It was not intended for the laity as you would imply. The citation is in an extended exposition on faith, which you apparently lack.
I will pray for a conversion of your heart and an emergence of true Christian benignity.
Peace be with you
So does He take the Holy Spirit away for confessions then and only allow the RCC priests to have it available for that?
And the polemic behind it, as showed (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=1222#1222), essentially invalidates the church.
"He" is the Holy Spirit, the third ousious of the Trinity. The question you should now be asking is, does the Holy Spirit forgive sins.
Peace be with you
Well, both Rome and the LDS reject the Christian Scriptures as the supreme authority, despite these being the standard for truth in the Bible, and operate under sola ecclesia, in which they can autocratically declare themselves the one true church and cannot be wrong in any conflict when they assuredly say that are right. Scripture, history, tradition can mean whatever they say that mean in order to support them.
Thus the classic quote of Manning,
“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness.” - Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
NO, the question you should be asking is how can any Catholic take the RCC for serious when there are blatant inconsistencies with what they teach and what scripture says. That nonsense about Catholic priests able to forgive sins when every Christian has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit already is ridiculous. Jesus told us to go “boldly before the Throne” in His name but the Catholic Church says Catholics need Mary and all sorts of intermediaries. There will be a price to pay for those who follow the RCC and it will be for eternity.
More bibliolatry. The Church accepts the author of Scripture and the Sacred Tradition as the authority (note the word root)
The Cardinal Manning citation is EXACTLY like the True Spouse of Christ citation above, partial, out of context, intended to mislead, and something that has been hashed out in this forum many times in the past. Do you all share some tickler file that triggers the reposting of the same old garbage when enough time has passed for the dust to settle?I know you fancy yourself quite the scholar, but this kind of sloppy or intentionally deceptive work would not get a passing grade in any class I have taken or taught. Let's go to instant replay and see what Cardinal manning actually said. Thew BOLD is the parts you left out. It paints a completely different picture from you you are implying.
The doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive. It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? No individual, no number of individuals can go back through eighteen hundred years to reach the doctrines of antiquity. We may say with the woman of Samaria, ‘Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with.’ No individual mind now has contact with the revelation of Pentecost, except through the Church. Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount at most to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition.
It is not enough that the fountain of our faith be Divine. It is necessary that the channel be divinely constituted and preserved…. The Church contains the fountain of faith in itself, and is not only the channel divinely created and sustained, but the very presence of the spring-head of the water of life, ever fresh and ever flowing in all ages of the world. I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. The Church is always primitive and always modern at one and the same time; and alone can expound its own mind, as an individual can declare its own thoughts. ‘For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.’ The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.
The teachings of the Church and Scriptures are never contradictory because they both proceed from the same Sacred Deposit of Faith. When you perceive them to differ it is your understanding of one or both that is in error.
Peace be with you
Wow! That didn’t change a thing as to what daniel1212 was getting at. It only reinforced it.
Your question is...Does God forgive sin? Get caught up, HE DID 2,000 years ago for ALL! Those who believe go to GOD, not man. Fyi to all catholics - man is not a substitute for God - even though 'they' play that role in Rome for the deceived.
I know that’s what the RCC indoctrinates with but it isn’t so. Anyone who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will understand the error without being much of a scholar at all. Scripture clearly states that Christ is our ONLY high priest and that the veil was rent at Christ’s death which eliminated any need for what the RCC regards as priests. The pagan hierarchy, rituals and symbols of the RCC are clearly evident to anyone who wants to find truth.
Word of mouth ≠ Word of God.
No, my question I advised you to ask yourself is "Does the Holy Spirit" forgive sins. When one person of the Trinity is discussed, the Holy Spirit in this case, a narrowing of the discussion is begged. I will ask it again, does the Holy Spirit forgive sins?
Peace be with you
It's not a matter of perception. It's a mater of comparing texts and seeing the obvious differences.
Reread it.
If the Holy Spirit forgives sins, then we don't need priests.
If the Holy Spirit doesn't forgive sins, then a mere man certainly can't, so RCC priests can't.
The teachings/doctrine of Rome/RCC are man made.
God's Word is inspired by His Spirit.
Saying man and God are the same is what satan would want anyone to believe. Satan deceived many. Christians are not part of his tribe.
God said the gates of Hell will not prevail against HIS CHURCH and hasn't but that didn't stop ROME/RCC from trying.
God's WORD is The Final Authority! Now who dare argue with that? Adam/Eve did - you know another taker that learned nothing from God's Word and got suckered by evil/man? Who would ever be so proud to think/say man is equal to God by saying they are never contradictory?
When you perceive them to differ it is your understanding of one or both that is in error. Some people struggle with simple English when it does not say what they want.
The Sacred Scripture proceeded from the oral Traditions of the Apostles preserved and handed down by the Church. The Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are but two parts of the same whole. They cannot contradict except in the interpretations and perceptions of errant and fallible humans. If you perceive them to differ the error is with you.
Peace be with you
It is Christ, acting through the priest, that forgives sins.
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.