First ask yourself who was the first to claim it, then work from there...Not a trick question, just curious. I don't know the answer.
I know who that is if you'd like to know.
The Apostles themselves denied the primacy of Peter and his successors (at least as far as the RC belief about the primacy of Peter) by choosing James to be the first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. If the Apostles had the same understanding of the primacy of Peter, then Peter would have been the first bishop and not James. Also, James presided over the first council of all the Apostles, not Peter.
Not a trick question, just curious. I don't know the answer.
Hi Katerine this seems to contradict Orthowiki
The holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostle Peter is the leader of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ
Apostle Peter - OrthodoxWiki
Is the EO split on who was the leader of the Apostles?
Thanks
No, that's true. There was no explicit rejection of Peter's primacy by the apostles. It was certainly implied however and I think that was Katherine's point.There is no explicit rejection of Peter's primacy by the apostles.
There is no chief apostle.
I do think many Protestants refuse to believe that Peter was the leader or leader of sorts simply because that would be lending some form of credance to the Catholic Church who base the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) leadership as the line of Peter.
You can still believe Peter was the leader and still not be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, look at the EO's and the Anglicans.
No, that's true. There was no explicit rejection of Peter's primacy by the apostles. It was certainly implied however and I think that was Katherine's point.
Had Peter been first he would have been treated as the first. Besides can anyone really envision Peter gallivanting around in adornments of men?
So, chestertonrules, you see the Catholic/Orthodox statement in 2008 says no one in the West or East explicitly rejected the Roman Bishop's primacy for at least the first millennium.
Would someone please direct me to the biblical references on this issue? Thank you.
We still don't reject the primacy of honor held by the Bishop of Rome. When Rome went into schism there was no longer an Orthodox Bishop of Rome though. There has to be an Orthodox Bishop of Rome in order for him to have that primacy.
I can't find anything in 1 and 2 Peter where he claimed any special role, authority or power over the church. I would think that Peter would have said something if he had been in such a position. I can't find anything in Scripture saying that Peter or any other apostle state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors either. Would someone please direct me to the biblical references on this issue? Thank you.
Here we go again... I cant access page 4 of this thread either now, I need to respond from page 1 so if anyone responds to me I cannot seee it if it lands on page 4... what on earth? This keeps happening to me
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?