Skip to comments.11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity Is Centered on St. Peter and Rome
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.
how many times are you going to repost that inane bad Popes list????Probably until Catholics step up and aknowledge that what they did was horrible instead of just saying, Oh there are sinners in every denomination-- and might also deny that they should still be venerated as Holy (Could be excommunicated if done? No one knows who you are on the www..)
how many times are you going to repost that inane "Catholic church brought you the Bible and is the only true church AND that God chose the Catholic church to carry His message to the world???"
The Church accepts the author of Scripture and the Sacred Tradition as the authority (note the word root).
Pure sophistry. In Roman Catholicism, what Scripture and Sacred Tradition say only have the authority Rome gives them, and no evidence to the contrary can be allowed based upon that premise. According to her interpretation, or decree, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
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.
That is a lie, and once again (linked for the mod at least) you evidence you cannot refrain from charging those who expose Rome with lying, besides attributing intent to mislead.
The fact is that there is nothing in the additional context that is contrary to what i described, and instead it affirms i, as will be shown.
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.
This is getting old. Like one of your comrades who is also prone to make rash accusations, you also have been exposed before as making false allegations What i intended to do was just what Manning supports, which others can see but which you do not or will not, despite your claims to be a teacher.
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.
Rather than a completely different picture, what Manning is stating is just what i said, that Scripture is not the supreme authority for Rome, but she is the ultimate judge of what the Scriptures and the past means, and having autocratically declared she cannot be wrong in any conflict when she assuredly says that she is right, then Scripture, history, tradition can mean whatever they say that mean in order to support them. No amount of evidence against praying to the departed will deter her from affirming this Tradition, for Scriptural warrant is not necessary and in Rome's constrained eyesight she sees nothing forbidding such. The Orthodox rejection of the IM of Mary, papal infallibility, etc. does not deter her either, as she has infallibly declared that she is infallible when speaking according to her infallible defined scope and content-based criteria.
Let us now examine the completely different picture that your Roman eyesight sees:
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.
The problem here is not invoking historical legacy, but than rather than trying to make a epistemological case, Manning presumes Rome has assured veracity, essentially blithely dismissing all contrary evidence as no more than opinion, based upon the very premise which i stated, that of Rome's assured veracity. In contrast, the church began in dissent from those who likewise presumed a level of veracity above that which is written (interpreting themselves to have such), while the claims of Christ and the church were established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. We for our part cannot claim assured infallibility, but must depend on the Scriptural manifestation of the truth.
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.
This is simply argument by assertion. The Tradition-based Orthodox contrary view of Peter is dismissed as are all others, based upon Rome's high opinion of herself, not the merits of the case.
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.
Thus by implication only what Rome says is true in any conflict and nothing contrary can possible be true, for Rome is a Christian oracle infallibly channeling the past which no one else can do. Thus for the Roman Catholic, assurance is not based upon Scripture substantiation, else they would be like an SS type Protestant evangelical, but it rests upon the premise of Rome's assured infallibility. And therefore many of her Roman Catholic apologists also engage in arguments by assertion, being driven to dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary, and who often resort to ad hominem attacks in their knee-jerk reactions against anything that seems to impugn Rome. All of which is an argument against the very church they seek to defend.
You have once more been exposed as making false charges, and rather than engage in more sophistry and damage control, just repent and apologize.
Not with all those pagan rituals, ceremonies, and symbols their not.
From the RCC favorite book of the Bible....
James 1:26-27 26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
Hmmm, looks like the Catholic hierarchy is having more than a bit of trouble with the *keep oneself unstained from the world.* part of the verse.
Oh, Elsie, about that *inane* list of bad popes. Perhaps we need to add all those priests their church has been having trouble with as well.
It's generally a different reaction when it's non-Catholic clergy involved in some moral failure.
Catholics are big on *Do as I say, not as I do*.
Very reminiscent of the Pharisees, as I recall.
When you pray to God to be rescued from a flood, and a fireman comes along in a boat, take the ride with him....chances are that God Himself is not going to walk on the water to rescue you...He uses others to do His will, and He used the Catholic church to bring you Christianity and the Bible....say thanks, Catholics!!
yes always....if you do it right!!! I say something in jest and suddenly ir becomes dogma....A male goat is the Billy as in Billy GOAT Gruff...you get to name your goat whatever you want, the goat couldn't care less.
Elijah foretold Jesus, he did not introduce Him.
That is what the premise leads to.
Here is a lesson in the Catholic concept of Both / And. Both John 8:7 and Luke 18:11 apply
Of course He does and He uses the Catholic Church to do it.
Peace be with you
in the year 256...if you were a Christian and not a Catholic, what were you???
The Tradition IS God breathed.
"2 Timothy 3:14-16"
You do know St. Paul was referring to the Septuagint, don't you.
lots of Pope Pauls....but only 1 Pope Peter...he has a special place...numero uno!
Yes, the Pharisetical scriptures speak directly to the Catholic belief system.
I am not interested in suffering through another of your "if you don't believe me just ask me" posts replete with links to your earlier masterpieces. Frankly they are unreliable and not worth the time spent.
No he didn't.
Christianity was brought to me DIRECTLY from Jesus through the Holy Spirit.
If YOU git your Christianity from the Catholic church, there is a simple prayer that can bring you into the Kingdom of God and give you a born again personal relationship with Jesus.
Or you can pray to Mary for salvation, as your popes say that will work. Mary can save you and you can pray to her according to your Popes.
Leo and Pius for starters, look it up.
Or search this thread for the quotes directly from Catholic doctrine.
That is neither repentance or an apology.
How could sex inside of marriage be a sin ???
I thought marriage was a sacrament of the Catholic Church ???
But whether or not it is God recommends sex and invented the practice...
and then theres this
“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’?” And He said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ The LORD Jesus Christ, Matthew 19:5
The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:3
The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:4
Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:5
I'm sorry I read your post and promise never to do it again.
since protestanism is already in a state of error, the Catholic church is the logical target because only that church is in truth, without error, or possibllity of error....
I am a Christian, NOT a Catholic!
Those were your words, not mine.
**only Catholics existed as Christians then**
Be more careful with what you attribute to me.
Christian posters, don't be decieved by this leftist tactic.
thanks for the warning but I'll take my chances that a 2,000 year old church is right and that you are wrong.
Only in the minds of it's deluded creators.
The problem with that is that there are tons of groups claiming extra-Biblical revelation and THEY also claim to have it from God but it contradicts another groups claimed extra-Biblical revelation. So who's right?
Each group says *WE are because we said so.*
And each group makes that claim on it's own self-declared authority.
Don't work because they can't all be right.
So we're back to square one where Scripture is the only unchanging standard of truth by which to measure everything else.
If one claims they are speaking infallible truth then no argument contrary can be seriously considered nor examined with the possibility of a change of opinion. It follows therefore that objections to this so called “infallible truth” can only be error, sincere or not, no matter what evidence from any source, Catholic or not. Infallible is infallible!
From this flows the justification for any act for actions flow from belief. And the belief is that “the Church” is error free and that any errors were simply the result of fallible men being fallible men.
Forgotten is Jesus’ words to fallible men, ‘The kingdom will be taken from you and given to a nation producing its fruits’.
I'm not talking about nor am I concerned with "tons" of divergent and false denominations. I am only concerned with the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which has the continuity of Apostolic succession from the first Pentecost until today.
Peace be with you
I dont want to take my chances. I rely on the words of Christ and His assurance that my salvation is secure.
1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Romans 8:38-39 say, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Nothing can separate a child of God from their Father.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
2 Corinthians 1:22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
2 Corinthians 5:5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
See, we have a guarantee. We dont need to take our chances. All Catholics need to do is renounce the RCC teaching and turn to Christ.
I noticed you posted that as if it was all quoted from Daniel.
Freud would say that's what he should have posted to you.
I think his suggestion should be pondered prayerfully Natural Law.
[It appears] You have once more been exposed as making false charges, and rather than engage in more sophistry and damage control, just repent and apologize.Many of us have noticed that.
Catholics, Mormon, and Muslims all have their visions and revelations. Rather than rely on the words of God they rely on the words of man. They are all in the same boat when it comes to eternity.
From experience I've noticed that when a Catholic poster meets his match... and is exposed by scripture...they usually bow out of any more dialogue, or post a short Catholic style curt condescending reply.
Shifting sands comes to mind.
IOW, *We're right and everyone else is wrong because we said so.*
Thanks for proving my point.
the Catholic church...only that church is in truth, without error, or possibllity of error....So it was not an error for Popes to cut off fingers, have sex with nuns, have a pope the son of a pope, loving the screams of those being tortured?
Yea, no error there. No possibility of error there.
Those and many other ERRORS are actually the reasons the LDS are able to harvest so many confused souls from Catholicism.
Catholic church, be ashamed!!!
Now there is a place where that fits, not posted to a poster for not making an error.
LOL. Scripture is not the exclusive domain and possession of Protestants and I have not seen any legitimate Scriptural evidence presented by Protestants in these threads other than the contrived interpretations to justify their personal judgment. I will discuss error, but I will not engage intellectual dishonesty presented under the guise of scholarship.
Peace be with you.
You got it right.
And NOT a Catholic.
Even though Catholicism killed many Christians, there have always been many from the first day of Pentacost.
They couldn’t get them all with their stake fires and torture chambers
Thanks metmom, I was going to pass on this foolish question...
256 was a good year!
Or engage in more sophistry and damage control.
He didn't and neither did she.
And covering up for priests who molested little boys.
Heretic, dontcha know, NOBODY is perfect.
Oh, wait a minute, they claim they are.
tc;the Catholic church...only that church is in truth, without error, or possibllity of error....
What kind of blows the mind is Catholics seem to think that everyone else is as brainwashed as they are and is in as much a denial of reality as they are if they honestly think that people don't see their church for what it is. They sure have a blind spot about it. It doesn't seem to occur to them that others don't.
That is what can happen when men presume too much.
And why wouldn’t he?
Mary didn’t need to stay a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus. Prophecy had been fulfilled and she was free to be a normal wife to her normal husband.
The angel DID tell Joseph to not be afraid to take her as his WIFE.
Sex comes with. It’s a package deal.
How can you be sure? Were you there watching them 24/7?
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Still don't understand the concept of born again Christians? Everyone that is not a Catholic is a Genti...oops...Protestant?
Want to discuss that error?
Or maybe These Errors <--------- click
I will not engage intellectual dishonesty presented under the guise of scholarship.Projection? Well, never the less, that will NOT cause me to not post to you...I like to expose Catholic "errors" under the guise of teachings persented as gospel.
Its becoming more clear who that is addressed to.
There is no big deal to deception - it goes as low as the pit.
Rome doesn't get to touch God's Word - not add or subtract. They are to hear and obey IT - or not.
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matt 5:18