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.
Amen, Amen, and Amen!
Oh brother!!!
1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.
Written NT scriptures to the Thessalonians and ALL the holy brethren...
Col 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
Written scripture to the Collosians and Ladodiceans...
Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Written scripture to the Ephesians...
Man, invest in a bible, would ya???
See there; you DO know that PETER was not the foundation!
Quite a confession, eh???
He said Hebrew came FIRST, not that Matthew was ONLY in Hebrew ... he's wrong ... but it fits your purpose.
it would be good to read the Bible for one ...
I have translated most of the NT ... this is not the undergrad forum you are on ...
I don't believe I ever said I was a Baptist...I never said I was a Pentecostal...I never said I was a Modalist...You accused me of being a Modalist...
Why don't you just grow up and be an adult...
Jesus was saying that while you Peter are a rock, solid as a rock, albeit a little rock, I will build my church on this massive mountain of a rock, ME...
Jesus was saying that while you Peter are a rock, solid as a rock, albeit a little rock, I will build my church on this massive mountain of a rock, ME...
Why was it necessary to contrast Himself with Peter - who just one verse earlier acknwledged Him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God"?
Your attempt to replace Yeshua with a pagan proxy you call peter is definitely agitprop.
You must know well that you are usiong corrupted scriptures, and that the entire Bible declares Yeshua to be the Rock.
End the pagan agitprop please.
The only part of the entire Bible that was originally written in any language but YHVH’s Hebrew is Daniel ch 4, which was written by Nebuchadnezar, who had no other language but that of Aram.
Please, no more pagan catholic agitprop.
If you get away from the Greek translations that were prepared by the Nicolaitans, and read it from a direct translation from the original Hebrew to English, you can see that he told Peter that he was called a hard pebble, then the true meaning of the verse comes to light, and it is obvious that he who had been called “The Rock” for 1500 years was the head of the church.
I notice you didn't answer my question. Why is that?
I don’t answer agitprop.
A question is "agitprop"? What a cowardly evasion.
Your attempt to replace Yeshua with a pagan proxy you call peter is definitely agitprop.
You're projecting - the agitprop is your gross mischaracterization of me as "attempting to replace Yeshua with a pagan proxy I call peter."
Please discontinue posting pagan agitprop to me.
It's YOU who initially addressed me, in post #454.
Again, the errors of anti-Catholicism require an even wider web of errors to defend.
St. Paul's ministry to Thessolonia and Berea happened about 55 AD, before any of the Gospels were written. Since Thessolonia and Berea were in Greek speaking regions the Scripture they would have read were the Greek Septuagint, in contradiction to Protestant doctrine. St. Paul could not have been imploring them to read what had not yet been written.
Further, Acts 17 brings to the fore the initial teaching of the Church of WHO Jesus was, not what He taught. The teaching to both the Jews and Gentiles concentrated on Jesus being the prophesied Christ who was foretold over 450 times in the "Scripture". The Bereans verified the authenticity of Jesus as the Christ from the Septuagint and were therefore receptive to His teachings. The Thessolonians did not.
Peace be with you
Absolutely is not...
ἱερεύς
hiereus
hee-er-yooce'
From G2413; a priest (literally or figuratively): - (high) priest.
πρεσβύτερος
presbuteros
pres-boo'-ter-os
Comparative of πρέσβυς presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specifically an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”: - elder (-est), old.
hiereus is priest as in Matt. 8:4...
presbuteros is an old man or an elder as in Luke 15:25 and Acts 15:4...
And of course 1Tim. 4:14 shows us what presbytery is...
πρεσβυτέριον
presbuterion
pres-boo-ter'-ee-on
Neuter of a presumed derivative of G4245; the order of elders, that is, (specifically) Israelite Sanhedrim or Christian “presbytery”: - (estate of) elder (-s), presbytery.
More old men...
At least you are consistant...Consistantly wrong...
They would be seen as protesting towards the Catholic church, then huh? So they are Protestant.No, I was being literalNow you are the one categorising.
...your earlier post based on a headline is wrong.
No it wasn't.
Perhaps would like to debate it on this thread:
Skip to comments.Pope: Other Christian Denominations Not True Churches
Fox News ^ | July 10, 2007 | associated press
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2012 3:13:39 PM by RnMomof7
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — For the second time in a week, Pope Benedict XVI has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, reasserting the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church and saying other Christian communities were either defective or not true churches.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Excellent point, how true!
Trying to restrict the presence of Christ to a single place and time is unscriptural and dishonest. [Amen]Hmmm, so Catholic priests are Presbyterians? (It's all greek to me...)>>NOTE: the English term "priest" is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros (presbyster/elder)<<
What is your point, even the law of gravity is not universally accepted.
The ongoing issues on these threads are that, in the absence of an accepted teaching authority, each person's truth is what they choose it to be. The sincerity to which beliefs are held is not in question because personal perception can be the only reality to many who lack faith.
Each personal reality, regardless of how distorted it may appear to others, is none the less a reality. Psychologist Dr. Jerome Bruner developed a model of perception in which people go through the a process to form opinions in which the more they think they know about a subject, the less receptive they are to new ideas or different perspectives:
1. When one open to learning encounters an unfamiliar subject or idea they are open to different informational cues and want to learn more about the target.
2. In the second stage, as they collect more information about the target they begin to associate or categorize the target within what they already believe to be true or false, real or unreal.
3. It is at this stage the those who believe they already hold the truth the cues become less and less relevant and in their place we try to conform the object to a preconception and confirm the categorization of the target. At this stage we also actively ignore and even distort cues that violate our own initial perceptions. Our perception becomes more selective and we finally paint a consistent picture of the target conforming it to our perceived reality.
The unfortunate result is a population that believes that within their own reality they see the truths no one else can and is completely closed to dialog. This paradigm is negated by Christ's call to Christian unity and facilitated by Communion with the body of the Church and a reliance on the Magisterium over self as the foundation of faith.
Peace be with you.
ya want ME to mind read GOD??
No thanks.
Mormonism ensnares more Catholics than it does Protestants.
WHY do you still beat your wife?
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.