- Apr 17, 2006
- 16,461
- 1,919
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
From a group of brain wizards complaining about it on another forum. I'd love to find the whole White vs. Pacwa debate.From a fellowship of brothers to a monolithic hierarchy.
Then from supremacy to infallability.
How'd ya find that, Simon?
THE reason why Rome was granted so much honor: at one council or another, they decided that since Rome was the capital of the extinct Roman Empire, Rome should also be the place whose bishop shall have primacy among his fellow bishops. However, due to Rome's isolation from the other four patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) a few popes got a bit prideful and decided that Rome's patriarch should enjoy supremacy as opposed to primacy.
If the basis was on where Peter was, than it would be Antioch and not Rome. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he ever saw Rome.It would seem that the reason Rome or rather the spot of the Vatican has such high regard is because it is where Peter is. This is where Peter and Paul were martyred and their bodies laid to rest. Since Peter was the first to be given the Keys to the Kingdom while the King was away it would seem the next guy in line for the Keys would also be where Peter is.
If the basis was on where Peter was, than it would be Antioch and not Rome. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he ever saw Rome.
One of the councils before the 6th century did state that the bishop of Rome shall enjoy a primacy of honor and not authority over all. If I could find which council and what canon, I'll let you know. But, the reason why Rome had such honor was not because of Peter.
Jack,It would seem that the reason Rome or rather the spot of the Vatican has such high regard is because it is where Peter is. This is where Peter and Paul were martyred and their bodies laid to rest. Since Peter was the first to be given the Keys to the Kingdom while the King was away it would seem the next guy in line for the Keys would also be where Peter is.
Show me from scripture where Peter was informed that his universal apostolic authority over all of Christ Church would be passed on to Rome.Ah! I see the problem!
Simon, this is a Scriptural belief and it may not be spelled out by the early Church fathers because it is clear from Scriptures.
And I have! With the help of people in TAW.
Please go here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33188053&postcount=8
Jack,
If what you state above is true then you should be able to point to us in ECW's where this Bishopric was handed directly from Peter ALONE to the next Pope, and Jack lets keep it to the first and second century...
There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.
Show me from scripture where Peter was informed that his universal apostolic authority over all of Christ Church would be passed on to Rome.
Quotes from a Catholic Source:
"In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome."
and
"Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peters successor, (Jack shall we take your word on this?) that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome."
and
"Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesareas Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, 'When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.'"
and
"Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that 'When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 5468), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.'"
The first two are as you requested and the last two are still worth viewing even if after the 1st and 2nd century.