WarriorAngel said:
THEN YOU tell us why Rome was called upon when the Church was evidently closer to the Patriarch.. and the Apostle John.
Your original idea just doesnt work.
Tell us all.
If you wish to not read my post's I can reitirate one more time for you.
But first I must point this out, from 1st Vat. Council.
"Therefore whoever succeeds
to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council.
There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would primacy over the whole church.
This did not happen. None of the quotes from the early fathers show that the person who succeeded Peter and Paul in Rome, or Peter in Antioch was viewed as being the successor of the whole church. All of the quotes about Peter and Paul relate only to Rome and nothing about the universal church.
Because Catholicism claims, which Christians who also trace their roots as far back as you guys disagree, that Rome has primacy for Catholicism now, which no one denies of course, they tend to project their beliefs back to that era. What is most important is THEY(ECF's) are saying it Peter and Paul, not me guys. Yes, based upon what they are saying, I do think they viewed them equally. That is an opinion that personally I would not be prone to share EXCEPT they do keep saying, Peter and Paul. I will put together a post at sometime about how the Bible views authority but not yet.
Now on with your question...
The insistence on Clement is interesting. I provided early quotes which said it was viewed as advice:
1. Bishop Dionysius writing to Pope Soter
Referring to the letter Clement wrote to Corinth
"Which we will read for its valuable advice"
Dionysius was Bishop in Corinth writing to the Bishop in Rome 70 years or so after Clements letter. What you want me to believe is that Dionysius does not know how Corinth viewed it.
2. Eusebius is full of letters written from bishops to bishops, page after page, including some where a Bishop in another city(I do not have the book with me but could provide the exact quote ) writes to handle a heretical situation in Rome even.
We know that Clement does not speak of himself as the head of the universal church. To say that the readers would have assumed it, contradicts what their Corinthian Bishop says 70 years later.
I have included a quote where Clement specifically mentions that the authority of their church rests with their presbyters. Have you guys not read some of the letters that other bishops wrote the first 200 years??
3. I spoke about John.
One must prove that disputes were handled by John in other situations before you can say he should have handled this.
One must prove when the letter was written. Not theory. PROVE
They must prove that John was not on Patmos when it was written, unless you think he was getting his mail at that time.
They must PROVE when John died.
We already know from Holy Scripture though that people wrote letters to people outside their jurisdiction. Once again, Eusebius is full of examples.
4. Warriorangel, are you
actually contending ONLY Rome sent representatives to vaious councils or other churches!?!?!.
5.
I have concluded, as I remember an Orthodox priest/professor, recollection is vague, saying in a lecture, the only people who could read Eusebius and see Papal Primacy, did not read it".
That is your choice.
question. Anyone have a copy of the book and would like to discuss it further in PM or on another thread.
I can see how someone could read early Christian history and be Orthodox, I get that, different thread why I am not though. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could read early Christian history and choose a faith that contradicts the shared authority of the bishops or how they did things the first 200 to 300 years. I have never understood it. Suffice to say, when I bring out the Roman Catholic scholars, not even they see it either. I will put together some quotes if I can. Not that it will matter, people see history how they want to. I do wish, if you have not actually read some of the books mentioned, you will do so. Warrior I get your nickname I must compliment you on a fight till death attitude most would hide away.