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 shudder to think the look Catholics will get from Christ when they explain how they followed all that the “Church” taught.
A hand full of bad apples? Calling what had to be the complicit approval of the entire organization with hiding those priests’ actions rather than exorcising them from the organization and reporting them for prosecution is tantamount to claiming the entire Democratic party is made up of staunch God fearing Christians.
Of course!
It's found right in the middle of Acts, chapter 15!
Ya can't make this stuff UP!
but you ROME followers want to rake poor ol' Luther over the coals.
Go figger!
But if you want to read an in-credible Catholic account of a women who was looked to as a very devout and extraordinary saint (being pregnant while still a virgin, and fasting for years, among other things), and was very well-known throughout Christendom in the 16th and 17th centuries, yet they say was possessed, see here: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2011/12/sister-magdalena-of-cross-nun-who-made.html
Oh my goodness, good try terycarl.I find it ironic that the same church that condemns masturbation does not condemn the priests who homosexually raped children. Instead they moved them around to different parishes and provided them with new victims.
egad woman, you have such a 1 track mind that your opinions are becoming totally useless....not that ANY of them had any credence before that.
Those are facts, not opinions.
Of course a good Catholic ignores the aberrant behaviour of his/her superiors and goes blithely on their way as if it never happened.
Fortunately there are those of us here that are familiar with the great sin of essentially putting the seal of approval on priests that force young children to have sick perverted sex with them
Of course you may argue all of that was in the past and is fixed now.
The effects of that are still producing more aberrant behaviors even to this day.
In the news today is a story about a prominent Catholic priest, Monsignor Kevin Wallin of Bridgeport, Conn., who is facing trial at this time.
He was suspended from duties at Bridgeport’s St. Augustine Cathedral in May.
The reason was that he was having sex with men in the church rectory
Of course they kept paying him, and only stopped when he was arrested Jan3 of this year.
Wallin was respected for his extensive charity work and his charming sermons. [good works...as a Catholic this should get him into heaven]
Charming sermons? Is that the goal of Catholics priests, to be charming?
Wallin was also an owner of a North Haven, Conn., sex-toy and drug-paraphernalia shop called Land of Oz, which may have been used as a money-laundering front.
Wallin worked as a personal secretary to Edward Cardinal Egan for years when Egan was a Bishop
Egan had continued the archdiocese’s tradition [There is the so revered Catholic Tradition(s)] of shuffling priests accused of sex crimes against children and of discounting the pain of the victimized. He reviewed the file of one priest named Laurence Brett, whose many young victims included a 10-year-old who had been violated by being shown a crucifix and told that if he did certain exercises [exercises??] he could have abs like Christ.
All of this apparently didn't bother the Catholic church that much, because they didn't really get on his case until he was arrested. (Actually stopped paying him!)
For selling drugs.
Methamphetamine, $9,000 worth a week.
Now those are facts, which dispute your opinion that facts are opinions.
There also happens to be a thread about this on Free Republic, posted just recently.
Two will fix this.
One to lift up the rug and the other to sweep it under it.
**Poof** problem solved.
The RCC did not bring us the Bible or the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and the immorality of the Catholic clergy and hierarchy has rampant and widespread for well over a thousand years.
A virtual handful of bad apples?!?!
Sexual immorality been endemic in Catholicism for almost as long as the Catholic Church has existed.
There’s one born every minute.
The naivety of someone who would actually believe this nonsense is staggering.
Is there something in there that we’re supposed to thank the Catholic church for?
She was branded a false prophet and not a Saint by the Church. Her story is a that of repentant in the end and shows even the worst of sinners are forgiven
From New Advent...Impostors
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07698b.htm
Falling dangerously ill in 1543, Magdalena confessed to a long career of hypocrisy, ascribing most of the marvels to the action of demons by which she was possessed, but maintaining their reality. She was sentenced by the Inquisition, in an auto-da-fé at Cordova, in 1546, to perpetual imprisonment in a convent of her order, and there she is believed to have ended her days most piously amid marks of the sincerest repentance
Probably get a reply brushing it off as not relevant because the Catholic brought us the scripture we would have nothing of scripture and know nothing about Jesus if not for the Catholic church which started 2013 years ago and brought us the scriptures and peter was the first pope and now popes all sit in the catbird seat.
PLEASE tell me that you know the difference..........
1 person gratifcation
2 person gratification
I distinctly said that she "was looked to as a very devout and extraordinary saint," and the story states that "at age 22, she already has a reputation for sainthood...;" "they too had exalted in having what was believed to be such an extraordinary saint in their midst..;" "Magdalena had arrived so high in her reputation for sainthood that she had been the counseller of kings, emperors, and above all, of the great Church dignitaries..;" "Many see her as a living saint- for who else but a saint could do such extraordinary penances?;" "At this point most do not yet actually doubt her sainthood..;." And then there is all the generous donations that have been flowing in in honor of the "living saint..."
Rather than being like certain other RCs who will not read links, if you had then you could have know this and that what you stated was also included, while the point of this fantastic story remains. Her demons showed no real fear of priests as , and for 40 years was lauded as a great saintly women, and was very devout when she was possessed. And now you want us to believe an apparently self-professed former satanist turned psychologist who claims great power in her former life, and as proof of Rome's authenticity claims Rome only has good words for who oppose her, ignoring the past. Maybe we are sppsd to give such 40 years, but i do not need that long.
So, look at how devious this is, convince people that ONLY Catholic priests can excise demons, that no non-Catholic Christians have any power with which to deliver you AND lift up and glorify Mary, NOT Jesus, and give HER all the credit for the work. It is literally killing three birds with one stone: Convincing the gullible to believe only Catholic priests can free a soul from demonic oppression; that NO non-Catholic Christians could also do so (saying their faith is not legitimately Christian); and making Mary the one to turn to for deliverance. Those ensnared in believing these lies will be kept from accepting the true Gospel of salvation by grace through faith, they are NOT truly delivered from demons - only tricked into thinking they have been and going along their merry way down the path further away from Christ. I can see why Satan has used this ploy so often. It STILL works!
You're joking, right??? I've heard some pretty dumb reasons for rejecting others personal thoughts about things, but Daniel's post contained ACTUAL quotations from books OTHERS wrote of THEIR experiences. Why not just be honest and come out and say y'all don't believe anything anyone says who isn't a bonafide, straight-down-the-line, faithful to everything EVER said by the "Church", matching the Catechism word for word, Roman Catholic? That's REALLY what happens whenever a source is given you guys don't like. Kill the messenger 'cause you sure can't kill the message!
Besides your spelling, i think one could be called a unilateral sexual act and the other is a bilateral, but the point here is that they are indeed both acts of sex, and i think some RCS would agree.
I think they REALLY like it when people omit things so they can twist someones words and discredit everything he might say. I went to the link you gave - thanks! Here's what it really concluded with:
Conclusion
The goal of the Christian life is to be pure in thought and deed. I believe that the issue of masturbation comes down to this. Therefore, I believe that though masturbation under certain circumstances may not be sinful, the desire to be sexual pure and holy should move the Christian to avoid it. Instead, he or she should seek to master the body and not give into its desires. The fight against masturbation can be a lesson in controlling the body which can have great spiritual benefits. Giving in to masturbation can have spiritual consequences and mastering the body can bring great spiritual benefit. Perhaps God did not mention masturbation the Bible because He is so aware of our sinful tendencies, our situations, our difficulties, etc., and desires that we seek holiness and purity by seeking to master our own flesh. If God had declared that it was not a sin, then we can rest assured that we would misuse the act and become enslaved by it.
If, however, you are bound by masturbation and war against it because it masters you, then you continually need to go to the cross and ask the Lord to forgive you. Also, pray and ask the Lord to provide you a spouse so that you would not fall into bondage of the flesh.
So, does this mean you concede that some purported Catholic "miracles" can come from demons?
It sure would be refreshing to see some integrity in quoting people instead of cherry picking to make them look bad.
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.