- Apr 19, 2007
- 2,658
- 1,038
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
When I was reading this I was reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:10-17Constantine never apointed anyone bishop of Rome. The line of successors to St. Peter is actually well documented in early Christian sources, though there is some haziness about the first couple successors of Peter in Rome, with some sources placing Peter's successor as Clement, and others listing Linus who was then followed by Clement. And this isn't just in the case of Rome, the succession of bishops from the Apostles was something which we see brought up as a major defense against the early major heretics of the first few centuries of the Church. For example St. Irenaeus in his Against Heresies (c. 190 AD) is quite firm that Christian bishops have a legitimate and well recorded line of succession (which at the time was only several generations ago)--in contrast to the various heretical groups whose leaders claimed new revelation and new special knowledge.
"10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."
My first takeaway is that the different apostles went to different areas (some overlapping) and started different churches. Paul is warning the Christians that they should not identify with the founder of the church at the expense of division in the body of Christ. So the different lines of succession of Bishops should all be teaching the same thing and be part of the same community. So to state that Rome is of Paul or of Peter is purely a historical argument and shouldn't be a theological argument. I have been in Rome twice to celebrate their highest feast of the church, the Feast of Peter and Paul, showing that they honor both apostles as working to found the church in Rome. I think that over time man's pride has increased and built walls that Paul would have been very irate about.
The second takeaway is this rather strange second paragraph above about Paul not baptizing anyone. It seems at first an odd affirmation by Paul who started many churches. Then I remembered that at that time baptism was the culmination of a long catechisis process that often took a year or more. So a traveling evangelist might not spend that amount of time in one place to see the actual baptism. But his main point is that people saw their new birth coming from the man or woman that baptized them and not from Christ. Looking at today and how we identify as belonging to one group of Christianity versus another and often that identity is based on which church baptized us, I think Paul was very prescient in his remarks.
Upvote
0