- Nov 28, 2003
- 23,973
- 14,453
- 60
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
There were no patriarchs in the early church.That would be like denying your Patriarch.
Then you would be denying reality :shrug:Of course I would not do that.
All bishops are successors to the apostles, regardless of whether their particular parish took on greater honour and responsibility due to its size. I'm afraid your argument simply does not follow.Peter was an Apostle, one of the Twelve, also the one to whom scriptures states the Keys were to be given to. To deny that Peter is a Patriarch and that he had a successor is the same as someone saying your Patriarch was not connected as a successor (Apostolic Succession). What a terrible thing that would be. To have people trying to show your Patriarch has no Apostolic Succession.
The bolded word is ahistorical. Peter established many Churches other than Rome. Their bishops are equally successors of Peter and through him, the Apostles.For me and Catholics and many others (including EOC and OOC) the Pope is the successor of Peter and there is an Apostolic line to Peter.
What are ECHs?One would have to ignore the writings and many other proofs of ECHs and others.![]()
John
Upvote
0