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.
Fine, you go to corruptible, men and depend on them for your salvation.
I’ll go to God as Jesus instructed us to in Luke 11, and know that he will forgive ALL my sins. (1 John 1:9)
"Fine, you go to corruptible, men and depend on them for your salvation."
Catholics sacramentally go to Jesus for forgiveness. The priest acts only in personna Christi.
Besides, haven't you been telling us for years that from the moment of your born again experience all of your sins, past and future, were forgiven? What could there possibly be left for you to confess?
Peace be with you
the incidence of man/boy situations is FAR more prevelant in protestant clergy than in the Catholic church. That being said, your statement was asinine at best.
The Other: who just one verse earlier acknwledged Him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God"?
What has ONE to do with the OTHER?
One made the Other redundant at best.
Why was it necessary to contrast Himself with Peter - who just four verses later was REBUKED soundly??
Another good question - both the acknowledgment and the rebuke make the supposed contrasting redundant at best.
the pope is indeed biblical, "on this rock I will build my church", feed my lambs, feed my sheep....etc etc etc etc. for 1,600 years christianity accepted the pope as titular head of the church....but along came the protestant bunch (Luther et. al.) and decided they they knew better that Christ and 1,600 years of tradition....O.K. I guess, but I'll stick with Christ and HIS church.
There is no excusing the abuse that went on in the Church, but to look at it with 20/20 hindsight is intellectually dishonest. It was, after all, believed to be a treatable and curable condition by the leading medical experts of the day and what is the Church but a hospital for sinners.
That said, the absolute safest place on earth for children now to be is in the presence of Catholic clergy. In the US Church, with over 60 million followers, there were only 7 credible claims of abuse last year. The information is not available as to the number of clergy involved and the age and gender of the victims, but that is orders of magnitude below any other similar family relationship, secular or religious institution.
Those who seek to form an automatic word association between Priest and Pedophile are only following the script written by the Nazi's in pursuing their so-called Morality Trials against the Church in the 1930s. I suspect that their ambitions and agendas are the same too.
Peace be with you
control yourself..."God would have done it without the catholic church"...perhaps that is the truth, but He chose the Catholic church as His surrogate. The Catholic church takes credit for nothing except following the guidance of the Holy Spirit and giving you a bible to read....say thanks!!
I said there was no excuse. Now look to your own life and organizations.
Luke 18:9-14
the authority was given to the Catholic church by Christ. If it is not universally accepted then Christ is not universally accepted....and He, unfortunately, is not.
you don't seem to understand the fact that they did not persevere means they they were not the chosen interpretations...God still has a hand in this and HE ALONE determined that the Catholic church would prevail....remember I will be with you until the end of time....He's still there!!!
Luther TRANSLATED the New Testament books from Greek INTO German (his native language). Why would it need to take more than a year to do that for someone who was fluent in Kione Greek and was already a religious scholar? I did notice that you have avoided answering the false assertion that Luther "removed" books from the Bible. Do you at least retract that? From the earlier site:
O.K., now I understand it...why didn't He just say shut up?
Ah, close but NO cigar. The comments shifted to protestants as being MORE culpable... which makes absolutely no sense given the literal status the Catholic doctrine preaches about protesters... Kinda of interesting that Christ Himself was a protester of His day of the common multi membered religious system.
While yours are highly spiritual; deeply thought out; and approved by Rome.
Yet you waste your time writing to me.
Strange...
Of course you will: what else ya gonna do?
The wonderful system that produces bad popes produces NO bad theology.
Yeah... Sure...
There's NOTHING that ROME hasn't spun; is there!
The entire new testament is based on oral tradition...do you really think that these teachinge went from one area to another on E-mail??? One group would accept the teachings of Paul, another might say "hey, he's not scriptural so let's ignore him"....it worked exactly that way which is why oral tradition is a very important part of Catholicism....everything was not written down as it happened, but was later gathered and interpreted, and written, and now you have the bible!!! Say Thanks Catholics!!!!
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.