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.
Clueless is the correct word
First some said they would not read links that reprove Rome, and now it is posts. Well, Rome once generally forbid laity from engaging in public debates on questions of dogmatic or moral theology:
“We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, and still in force at the time when the the (my source) Catholic Encyclopedia was written, which adds, “This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy.” [who themselves needed due authorization]. - www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm
Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: That a layman must not publicly make a speech or teach, thus investing himself with the dignity of a teacher, but, instead, must submit to the ordinance handed down by the Lord, and to open his ear wide to them who have received the grace of teaching ability, and to be taught by them the divine facts thoroughly.
"Do not converse with heretics even for the sake of defending the faith, for fear lest their words instil their poison in your mind". Bl. Isaias Boner of Krakow (Polish, Augustinian priest, theologian, professor of Scripture, d. 1471)
For back in the "good ol days" Rome could deal with theological nonconformists (lapsed Catholics at least) by bodily compulsion,
St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century). "On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received". — Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
Innocent’s Bull Ad Extirpanda prescribes that captured heretics, being "murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb." — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.)
The bull conceded to the State a portion of the property to be confiscated from convicted heretics. The State in return assumed the burden of carrying out the penalty.
We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith ... Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues...
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.
But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled by lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.
The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)
Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302: Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52].
Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors): “[It is error to believe that] The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus Issued in 1864, Section VI, Errors About Civil Society, Considered Both in Itself and in its Relation to the Church, #55. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM
[It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” Section X, Errors Having Reference to Modern Liberalism, #78;
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
100% correct...God used all these people to advance His agenda, and to bring the word to the modern world, He chose the Catholic Church....
Was your Bible handed out at Pentecost?
If not, who determined what books belonged in your collection of books, that you call the Bible?
Was this authority fallible or infallible?
sorry, didn't mean to........wonder when I did??
history
Waiting for a catholic view of a non-antagonistic answer to an honest question.
Are non catholics going to hell? Are protestants evil?
Especially concerning morals!
They are corrupt to the bottoms of their hearts.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.--Luke 6:45Those men should have NEVER spoken for God, or been allowed to continue on as "vicars" of Christ.
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.--Matthew 15:18
You brood of snakes! How could evil men like you speak what is good and right? For whatever is in your heart determines what you say.--Matthew 12:34
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?--Jeremiah 17:9
But *sigh* Catholic Tradition trudged along with dregs of the earth as leaders.
you really can't discern between personal behavior and teaching from the chair of Peter????? pathetic....
Oh yes I did.
Excellent!
The church is the body of believers. The body of Christ. Made up of all born again saved Christians.
It is NOT the Catholic church being noted in that scripture.
Well by golly I was right!I'm sure there is a trick definition of "faith and moral" that makes all of that OK.
you really can't discern between personal behavior and teaching from the chair of Peter????? pathetic....
What's in a mans heart is what comes out of his mouth.
Popes with such black and corrupt hearts should NEVER be allowed to represent a Church.
As they are accepted as Holy Sees no matter their personal lives, that is what is pathetic!
Christian churches would NEVER let someone that corrupt...murderers, adulters, etc etc...speak for their churches.
Read this, posted a few minutes ago but possibly not read by you:
Nothing should be accepted from Popes that engaged in those despicable actions.
Especially concerning morals!
They are corrupt to the bottoms of their hearts.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.--Luke 6:45But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.--Matthew 15:18
You brood of snakes! How could evil men like you speak what is good and right? For whatever is in your heart determines what you say.--Matthew 12:34
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?--Jeremiah 17:9
Those men should have NEVER spoken for God, or been allowed to continue on as "vicars" of Christ.
But *sigh* Catholic Tradition trudged along with dregs of the earth as leaders.
Can we at least clarify something here? When you, Terycarl, use the word "Catholic church" do you mean the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today?
The reason I ask, is that is the impression I am getting from your numerous posts. It appears that you believe the Roman Catholic Church is the same church as the one God began at Pentecost by the giving of the Holy Spirit to all those who received Jesus Christ and believed in and followed him. The word "catholic", however, was NOT a word used by the Apostles nor does it appear anywhere in Scripture. It really was a word that had been in use for some time by many Greek philosophers which simply meant "universal". It gradually was used to mean the universal faith of Christians who belonged to a universal church, of the Body of Christ of ALL believers.
If you want to imply that the Roman Catholic Church of today - or from the fourth century to today - is the SAME one as first began at Pentecost, then you are provably incorrect. I CAN agree, though, that the universal church of all believers in Jesus Christ, that existed at the start, and which God alone is able to separate the wheat from the chaff, can be referred to as "catholic" in its adjective form, but I do not agree that it has always been the same and only church that is called the Roman Catholic Church today. There are too many differences and too much history to pretend they are one and the same.
I suspect, however, that this is really NOT an issue of mere semantics. I know many people that strongly insist that the Roman Catholic Church IS the same church that has existed for two thousand years. Maybe you could clarify this point for me. Thank you.
NL:"By their fruit you will recognize them."- Matthew 7:16
Our point exactly. The fruit of the clergy in the Catholic church has been rotten for centuries.
You just answered the question of who they're working for.
Now, what are the ramifications of the Catholic hierarchy being apostates?
18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
The church, which Greek word means *assembly*, is simply the local body of believers as it is believers which make up the body. Jesus said where ever 2-3 are gathered together, He is there in the midst, IOW, there is church.
There is absolutely no indication that it needs to go to some governing authority.
The true church is an organism, not an organization. 1 Corinthians 12.
I’ve got the Word of God on my side.
Catholics have word of mouth.
Excuses, excuses....
When it’s Protestants with differences, it’s evidence of their wrong interpretation of Scripture, that they’re not the *true* church, whatever, but when it’s Catholics, oh well, what’s a difference of opinion among brothers?
There’s a word for that kind of behavior.
It’s called *hypocrisy*.
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.