Peter, Keys, Catholicism and the Pope discussion

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I would like to restart this earlier discussion concerning the Primacy of the RCC's Pope.
Doesn't much of Catholicism's primacy power rest on the keys given to Peter?

The following quotes are from a now closed thread on this topic:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/peter-and-the-keys-catholicism-and-the-pope.7259458/
The following is the view of a Greek Orthodox priest, who is part of the Orthodox Research Institute. I'd share the link but I don't think that's allowed anymore. The whole article is extensive but it simply develops these thoughts more fully. The Father is exploring the text about Jesus, the "keys," Peter's Confession and Peter and the concept of "pope." I found it interesting and perhaps worthy of an ecumenical discussion...

Now let us see what we can learn from the original account of the events in question:

(a) We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt. 16) when He asked His Disciples: “Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for the flesh and blood hath not revealed it into thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:13-18)

It is quite evident from these words of our Lord that He built His Church not upon Peter for then He would have clearly said, “Thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my Church,” but upon the rock of the true Faith which Peter confessed. Christ our Lord clearly said that His Church is built upon the truth which Peter declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Only through considerable distortion of the text can one draw the conclusion of the Roman Catholics, that Christ built the Church upon Peter.

(b) It is also clear from the Scriptures that St. Peter had no authority over the Apostles. In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul states that when he saw Peter was not thinking correctly, he corrected him in the presence of others, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11) Further down St. Paul elaborates by saying, “ . . . when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all) if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:14) On the basis of these words of St. Paul we may justly question, “Is there even a trace of recognition here of Peter’s authority to teach without the possibility of error?”

(c) Concerning the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony that it was not accomplished by St. Peter. It was established by Christians who settled in Rome. Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church. He mentioned this in his epistle to the Romans, “. . . from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation ... for which, cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey.” (Rom. 15:19-20, 22-23)

From this passage, therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that Peter was in Rome or that St. Peter had founded the Church there. On the contrary, he says that he feels obliged to preach the gospel where no other Apostle taught so that he would not build upon the foundation laid by another. Surely this is an explicit testimony that St. Peter was in no way connected with the foundation of the Church of Rome. Actually St. Peter served the Church for many years in Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.

(d) In conclusion it should be pointed out that the order of precedence given to the Apostolic Sees was determined exclusively by the political importance of various cities. The Bishop of Rome was recognized as first because Rome was capital of the empire, nothing more. Originally, the Bishop of Constantinople was designated as second by the Second Ecumenical Council. Subsequently, when Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire and was referred to as New Rome, the Fourth Ecumenical Council proclaimed the Bishop of Constantinople equal in rank with the Bishop of Rome.

Rebuttal:

Opinions - opinions and more opinions -----Let's take a look at what modern Orthodox scholars do concede to the Catholic understanding of papal primacy, authority, and infallibility.

Taken from THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992

1) There is no systematic doctrine of Church government in the Orthodox Church and therefore it is not enough to refute Universal Primacy
"As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government. And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy." (Afanassieff, page 92)
========================================================================
(2) The earliest Fathers recognized the primacy of Rome (or what might be called "priority") and Orthodox scholars generally concede this
on ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (c. 96 AD)

"Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of 'church-with-priority' at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor...Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)....we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome...We know that Clement was 'president' of the Roman Church...." (page 124)
"The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth's eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority....Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument." (page 125-126)
on ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 AD)
"We find the first direct evidence about the priority of the Roman Church in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius uses the phrase 'which presides' in two passages.... The Roman Church 'presides' in love, that is, in the concord based on love between all the local churches. The term 'which presides' [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the 'first place' at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church...[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the 'first place.' So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord....In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome." (page 126-127)
on ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)
"We shall find other evidence about the Roman position in Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. His -Adversus Heareses- contains a famous passage, which has provoked a great many arguments. This is unquestionably the most important document of all with regard to the position of the Roman Chuch....Irenaeus calls on Apostolic Tradition to correct the mistaken heretics. This Tradition, he says, is guarded in every local church by the succession of bishops. It was not in his power to find proof of this in each local church, so he confines himself to one set of bishops only, and enumerates the bishops of Rome, a church in which Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind have been guarded up to his own times....Irenaeus believed he could confine himself to enumerating the succession in a single church, viz. the Roman Church, although he might have enumerated the successive bishops in every local church, as he says himself. He gives his own explanation for choosing the Church of Rome: he saw it as
'the very great and the very ancient church, known to all, which the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul founded and constituted.'
"...Irenaeus insists that anyone looking for the truth can find it in the Tradition of the Apostles, which every local church has preserved. So we must suppose he thought that the Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind were preserved in the Roman Church more fully than in others, or, at least, in a more manifest way. Later, Irenaeus points to this Church -- Rome -- as the one to which all other churches must -convenire-....I think a likelier sense of -convenire- here is 'address oneself to,' 'turn to,' 'have recourse to.' The sense of the remark would then be: every local church should have recourse to the Church of Rome....This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches."
"Rome's vocation [in the "pre-Nicene period"] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome...." (page 128f, 133)
on ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)
"...according to his doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church....According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter's throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]." (page 98-99)
========================================================================
(3) There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this -- and to deny this is based purely on "anti-Roman prejudice"
"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local 'centers of agreement' or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy....
"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome -- 'presiding in agape,' according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.
"It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history -- an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations." (Schmemann, page 163-164)
 

Tangible

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato
May 29, 2009
9,837
1,416
cruce tectum
Visit site
✟59,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” [...] 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.

John 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
    1. Origen (185 - 254)
      1. "And if we too have said like Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, 'Thou art Peter,' etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, 'The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,' hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, 'Upon this rock I will build My church'? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, 'Receive ye the Holy Spirit,' etc....And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was." (Commentary on Matthew, 12:10-11)
    1. Cyprian (200? - 258):
      1. "The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, 'I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whosoever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;' yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity." (On the Unity of the Church, 4)
    1. Chrysostom (349 - 407):
      1. "Peter, James, and John, were all first called, and held a primacy among the disciples" (Commentary on Galatians, 1, vv. 1-3). How then is Peter alone the primary apostle?
    1. Augustine (354 - 430):
      1. "In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Now if it is true that Peter should have Primacy as first Bishop of the Church then the Scriptures and History lie which tell us it was James...and if one says "the first gentile Church" then one should know apart from there being zero evidence Peter was ever Bishop in Rome there is solid evidence that decades before he was most definitely the first Bishop of Antioch (which if RC logic dictates would be the true Mother Church and their Patriarchate the true Pope).
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Now if it is true that Peter should have Primacy as first Bishop of the Church then the Scriptures and History lie which tell us it was James...and if one says "the first gentile Church" then one should know apart from there being zero evidence Peter was ever Bishop in Rome there is solid evidence that decades before he was most definitely the first Bishop of Antioch (which if RC logic dictates would be the true Mother Church and their Patriarchate the true Pope).
Now that would make for a great discussion thread!
I myself do not believe Peter ever made it to Rome. Does believing that affect my salvation in Jesus? Of course not! It seems to only matter to certain Denominations, particularly the RCC and EOC, if I am not mistaken. Thoughts?

The quote below was way too long to post, so I posted just part of it:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/did-the-apostle-peter-ever-go-to-rome-part-i.7894269/
Did the Apostle Peter Ever Go To Rome? Part I

Ok, let's trace Peter's movement with the Scriptures. Certain dates and events militate against the supposition that Peter was ever in Rome..................

*snip*

From this point in history, all inspired or even secular history about either Paul or Peter comes to an end. The next mention of Peter's whereabouts will not appear for another eighty years. And for uninspired writers, whose writings are critically rejected for other reasons, their suggestion that he was in Rome leaves much doubt about their reliability.

All history of Peter's travels in the New Testament do not place him in Rome, but definitely place him elsewhere.

So Peter's definite location in too many other definite locations at too many other defnite times definitely exclude the possibility that he spent 25 years in Rome or even went there in the first place.
Dang, the poll just closed........sigh

Did the Apostle Peter go to Rome?
Poll closed Jul 20, 2015.
  1. Yes
    2 vote(s)
    33.3%
  2. No
    4 vote(s)
    66.7%
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
pshun2404,
Most of these arguments fail because they raise a false paradox. If I say your eyes are beautiful, that doesn't mean that I think your face is ugly. If ECF's extol Peter's confession, that does not mean that they did not believe in Peter having a primacy in the early church. What that primacy entails is debatable; but most of the ECF's acknowledged it.

As one example, the text from Cyprian is not meant to be a treatise on Peter and the keys. It is meant as a defense against the Novatians. In it he says that all apostles and so all bishops have a similar power given them by Jesus. This power, in his viewpoint, is to be used to show the true faith and to combat heresy. On this I hope we can agree.

But in the middle of the text, right after saying that all the apostles have the same power he states about Peter, "yet, that He (Jesus) might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one (Peter). Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity."

I don't think it is off base to read this and say that the foundation of church unity was initially, at least, in Peter. Saying that other bishops have a similar role now does not negate that Peter was the first given that role and does not somehow diminish the role of Peter in the early church. At the time of Cyprian writing this, I am sure he was trying to gain support for his position against the Novatians. It seems logical for him to call on all bishops to gather behind him. This does not dismiss the Pope; but includes him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shane R
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
then one should know apart from there being zero evidence Peter was ever Bishop in Rome there is solid evidence that decades before he was most definitely the first Bishop of Antioch (which if RC logic dictates would be the true Mother Church and their Patriarchate the true Pope).

Strange that you would accept extra-biblical evidence of Peter being Bishop of Antioch (which I agree with) and not accept evidence that he was Bishop of Rome after that.
Further, if you read Ignatius, the Church is wherever the Bishop is. So it moves with the Bishop.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Strange that you would accept extra-biblical evidence of Peter being Bishop of Antioch (which I agree with) and not accept evidence that he was Bishop of Rome after that.
Further, if you read Ignatius, the Church is wherever the Bishop is. So it moves with the Bishop.

So, what happens in a city where there is more than one bishop residing? In my city I know of two bishops from two different Apostolic denominations. Or, what happens in a city where there are many churches and many Christians, but no bishop?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The Orthodox Church of Antioch was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul too, and since then, to today, it's an Orthodox Church, so why is Rome more important then Antioch, which was founded earlier?

Or Jerusalem, for that matter? The RCC position IMHO is flimsy, at best.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, what happens in a city where there is more than one bishop residing? In my city I know of two bishops from two different Apostolic denominations.
To quote from Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans -

He who honours the bishop shall be honoured by God, even as he that dishonours him shall be punished by God. For if he that rises up against kings is justly held worthy of punishment, inasmuch as he dissolves public order, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who presumes to do anything without the bishop, thus both destroying the [Church's] unity, and throwing its order into confusion?

So if there are two bishops in a city, this is a mark of disunity and we should be working to resolve this confusion. Unfortunately, man being a prideful creature, this is difficult to do.

Or, what happens in a city where there are many churches and many Christians, but no bishop?

I acknowledge that at the time of Ignatius there was probably not the formal, longstanding church buildings that we currently have. So his comment about the church being where the bishop is might be reflective of the times and his circumstances. However, I think he would see today's many churches that totally reject the authority of bishops as being heretical and not a church at all.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Orthodox Church of Antioch was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul too, and since then, to today, it's an Orthodox Church, so why is Rome more important then Antioch, which was founded earlier?
Do you really want to make the church in Antioch the most important Christian church? Look at the history of the early Patriarchates. Of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, the only one that is still in a predominantly Christian area is Rome. I left Constantinople out because it fails your criteria as the worst of the five.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
To quote from Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans -

He who honours the bishop shall be honoured by God, even as he that dishonours him shall be punished by God. For if he that rises up against kings is justly held worthy of punishment, inasmuch as he dissolves public order, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who presumes to do anything without the bishop, thus both destroying the [Church's] unity, and throwing its order into confusion?

So if there are two bishops in a city, this is a mark of disunity and we should be working to resolve this confusion. Unfortunately, man being a prideful creature, this is difficult to do.

I acknowledge that at the time of Ignatius there was probably not the formal, longstanding church buildings that we currently have. So his comment about the church being where the bishop is might be reflective of the times and his circumstances. However, I think he would see today's many churches that totally reject the authority of bishops as being heretical and not a church at all.

Thank you for the clarification. It seems odd to me to equate the church with a mortal man.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Do you really want to make the church in Antioch the most important Christian church? Look at the history of the early Patriarchates. Of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, the only one that is still in a predominantly Christian area is Rome. I left Constantinople out because it fails your criteria as the worst of the five.

Just so there is no confusion, while I think that antiquity is one important measure of a church's authority, I think that the pentarchy of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople was created when these churches were the most important in Christendom. Obviously, that has changed over time. I think that is why we do not hear too many people crying for a return to the old pentarchy. Does Rome, as the last major survivor merit primacy because of that? I don't think so, but I don't think we can ignore the hand of God in preserving his church in both the East and the West.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aspect

Active Member
Supporter
Mar 6, 2020
48
14
California
✟50,171.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
there being zero evidence Peter was ever Bishop in Rome there is solid evidence that decades before he was most definitely the first Bishop of Antioch (which if RC logic dictates would be the true Mother Church and their Patriarchate the true Pope).

That's not true. The Eastern Orthodox themselves admit St. Peter was first bishop in Rome.

Greek liturgical offices commemorate St. Peter’s episcopate in Rome. Texts for the feast of St. Peter’s chains, on January 16, proclaim:

"Supreme foundation of the apostles, You left all things, following the Master, Crying out to him, “With thee I shall die, So as to live the life of the blessed.” And you became the first bishop of Rome, Foundation and pillar of the most orthodox of cities, and firmament of the Church of Christ. And the gates of hell shall not shake it, As Christ proclaimed." [Ed. J.B. Pitra. Hymnographie de l’Eglise Grècque, Rome 1867, LVII].

Instead of listing the succession of bishops in each apostolic church, St. Irenaeus gave a sort of short cut: the succession in the Roman Church. The saint wrote:
..."because it would take too long, in this sort of book, to list the successions of all the Churches, by indicating the apostolic tradition and faith announced to mankind, which has reached our own time through successions of bishops, in the greatest, most ancient church known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, we confound all who in any way— either for self-pleasing or vainglory, or blindness or evil teaching— gather otherwise than they ought. For to this church on account of the more powerful principality it is necessary that every church convene, that is the faithful from all sides, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the apostles has been preserved by those who are from all parts." [PG 7: 848-9].
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
That's not true. The Eastern Orthodox themselves admit St. Peter was first bishop in Rome.

Greek liturgical offices commemorate St. Peter’s episcopate in Rome. Texts for the feast of St. Peter’s chains, on January 16, proclaim:

"Supreme foundation of the apostles, You left all things, following the Master, Crying out to him, “With thee I shall die, So as to live the life of the blessed.” And you became the first bishop of Rome, Foundation and pillar of the most orthodox of cities, and firmament of the Church of Christ. And the gates of hell shall not shake it, As Christ proclaimed." [Ed. J.B. Pitra. Hymnographie de l’Eglise Grècque, Rome 1867, LVII].

Instead of listing the succession of bishops in each apostolic church, St. Irenaeus gave a sort of short cut: the succession in the Roman Church. The saint wrote:
..."because it would take too long, in this sort of book, to list the successions of all the Churches, by indicating the apostolic tradition and faith announced to mankind, which has reached our own time through successions of bishops, in the greatest, most ancient church known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, we confound all who in any way— either for self-pleasing or vainglory, or blindness or evil teaching— gather otherwise than they ought. For to this church on account of the more powerful principality it is necessary that every church convene, that is the faithful from all sides, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the apostles has been preserved by those who are from all parts." [PG 7: 848-9].

Wow! I was amazed that this thread has been revived after such a long coma.
 
Upvote 0