R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I think this would be a good time to try to find the primacy of Rome. Lets see
Okay still looking for primacy
…looking…
- Status
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Is this a good time to talk about Irenaeus also corrected problems in the Church at Rome in OTHER cases or is this too soon to start a new topic? Not that you guys do not know about those cases. I am sure there is LOTS of information on how other churches corrected problems at Rome…
N
Nicea325
Guest
. **Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.
10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
*Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome,(ANOTHER DIOCESE IN ANOTHER REGION) immediately attempted to cut off (WHERE ARE THE PROTESTS FROM OTHER BISHOPS TELLING THE ROMAN BISHOP HE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO CUT-OFF ANY CHURCH OUTSIDE HIS DIOCESE?) from the common unity the parishes of all Asia (WHY DIDN’T THE SEE OF ALEXANDRIA CUT THEM OFF,WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE ROME?), with the churches that agreed with them (THOSE WHO WERE CALLED THE QUARTRODECIMANS), as heterodox (NOT AN ORTHODOX TEACHING AND AGAIN NO BISHOP QUESTIONS VICTOR’S JURISDICTION OUTSIDE HIS DIOCESE); and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren (WHERE ARE THE PROTESTS HE CANNOT EXCOMMUNICATE ANY OTHER BISHOP,IF ALL ARE EQUALS) there wholly excommunicate (AGAIN WHERE ARE THE SCORES OF COMPLAINTS THAT HE AS AN ‘EQUAL’ BISHOP HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY?) *
But you are that adamant NO primacy exists there?
By the way, you still FAIL to answer me and DENY my other case involving other bishops OUTSIDE the Roman Bishop’s diocese.
10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
- Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows: **
*Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome,(ANOTHER DIOCESE IN ANOTHER REGION) immediately attempted to cut off (WHERE ARE THE PROTESTS FROM OTHER BISHOPS TELLING THE ROMAN BISHOP HE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO CUT-OFF ANY CHURCH OUTSIDE HIS DIOCESE?) from the common unity the parishes of all Asia (WHY DIDN’T THE SEE OF ALEXANDRIA CUT THEM OFF,WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE ROME?), with the churches that agreed with them (THOSE WHO WERE CALLED THE QUARTRODECIMANS), as heterodox (NOT AN ORTHODOX TEACHING AND AGAIN NO BISHOP QUESTIONS VICTOR’S JURISDICTION OUTSIDE HIS DIOCESE); and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren (WHERE ARE THE PROTESTS HE CANNOT EXCOMMUNICATE ANY OTHER BISHOP,IF ALL ARE EQUALS) there wholly excommunicate (AGAIN WHERE ARE THE SCORES OF COMPLAINTS THAT HE AS AN ‘EQUAL’ BISHOP HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY?) *
But you are that adamant NO primacy exists there?
By the way, you still FAIL to answer me and DENY my other case involving other bishops OUTSIDE the Roman Bishop’s diocese.
N
Nicea325
Guest
**Is this a good time to talk about Irenaeus also corrected problems in the Church at Rome in OTHER cases or is this too soon to start a new topic? Not that you guys do not know about those cases. I am sure there is LOTS of information on how other churches corrected problems at Rome… **
BUT ON TOP OF THAT YOU STILL NEVER ANSWERED ME.
In the case I presented,why would a bishop URGE the Bishop of Rome to INTERVENE in order to EXCOMMUNICATE another bishop outside of the pope’s diocese? Time and time and time again throughout history?
But you see still reject any primacy?
D
DorianGregorian
Guest
The problem with Primacy is that it’s not a Biblical argument.
Matt 16:18 was rarely cited before the Reformation as a proof of Papal Supremacy. Also what I find curious is that the Gospel of Mark (with a probable Petrine influence) and the First Letter of Peter (again with a probable Petrine influence) do not have any mention of the Papacy. In fact Rome is called Babylon in 1 Peter, hardly a compliment to say the least.
Also if there were a Primacy of Peter (which I believe is fair to say, his name is mentioned over 100 times in the New Testament and clearly had a role of leadership as protos (chief) of the Apostles). Also remember Peter was not the first Apostle, Andrew was. There is no Scriptual precedent for a Petrine line of succession, Peter was never given that power. In the same way that Apostolic Succession is much more closely related to beliving what the Apostles’ did, and not simply handing off the baton.
Peter definitely had a Primacy of sorts, he was probably older than most of the Apostles, and the first 8 chapters of Acts would definitely support a statement. However even the Apostles’ disagreed amongst themselves, and at the Council of Jerusalem, it was James, not Peter, who made the decision that the Mosaic law was not binding. It was Paul who corrected Peter in his letter. It was John who wrote to the seven churches in Asia. This shows that even if Peter had a Primacy of honor, he did not have one of infallibility.
Church History even supports this. There were no Western Bishops, much less the Roman Pope (as opposed to the Pope in Alexandria who did and still claims that title) yet the Council of Constantinople is surely binding upon Catholics.
Sorry, I simply cannot believe a Dogma that was codified in the 19th Century, 1700 years after the death of the last Apostle, when Scripture and tradition (of which I personally do not find binding) speak the opposite of it.
Peace,
DG
Matt 16:18 was rarely cited before the Reformation as a proof of Papal Supremacy. Also what I find curious is that the Gospel of Mark (with a probable Petrine influence) and the First Letter of Peter (again with a probable Petrine influence) do not have any mention of the Papacy. In fact Rome is called Babylon in 1 Peter, hardly a compliment to say the least.
Also if there were a Primacy of Peter (which I believe is fair to say, his name is mentioned over 100 times in the New Testament and clearly had a role of leadership as protos (chief) of the Apostles). Also remember Peter was not the first Apostle, Andrew was. There is no Scriptual precedent for a Petrine line of succession, Peter was never given that power. In the same way that Apostolic Succession is much more closely related to beliving what the Apostles’ did, and not simply handing off the baton.
Peter definitely had a Primacy of sorts, he was probably older than most of the Apostles, and the first 8 chapters of Acts would definitely support a statement. However even the Apostles’ disagreed amongst themselves, and at the Council of Jerusalem, it was James, not Peter, who made the decision that the Mosaic law was not binding. It was Paul who corrected Peter in his letter. It was John who wrote to the seven churches in Asia. This shows that even if Peter had a Primacy of honor, he did not have one of infallibility.
Church History even supports this. There were no Western Bishops, much less the Roman Pope (as opposed to the Pope in Alexandria who did and still claims that title) yet the Council of Constantinople is surely binding upon Catholics.
Sorry, I simply cannot believe a Dogma that was codified in the 19th Century, 1700 years after the death of the last Apostle, when Scripture and tradition (of which I personally do not find binding) speak the opposite of it.
Peace,
DG
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Let me ask you something, what does excommunication constitute in this case? Perhaps this will help you understand it better.
C
CWBetts
Guest
The greeting of St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Romans indicates Primacy of Rome.
Pope Gregory the great (6th century) used Matthew 16:18 to defend the Papacy, as did Pope Leo the great.
“Babylon” in 1 Peter is in reference to Pagan Rome, not the Church in Rome.
Read Acts again. It was Peter who made the decision: James was of the pro-circumcision opinion, and he concedes to Peter’s decision. In fact all of the arguing stopped after Peter spoke.
The fact that Peter was not called first is irrelevant. What is important is that It was Peter who confessed that Jesus was the Messiah and SOn of God. It was Peter who was to strengthen his brethren. It was Peter who dominates the first half of the book of Acts, until he is forced underground and unable to preach openly. There is definitely a primacy of Peter.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Prove that.
C
CWBetts
Guest
(Quotes courtesy of the Faith Database)
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church [in Rome] which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him… and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father… (St. Ignatius of Antioch, AD 110)
“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (Tatian the Syrian, AD 170)
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Tertullian, AD 200)
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Tertullian, AD 220)
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, AD 251)
“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (St. Ambrose of Milan, AD 389)
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (St. Ambrose of Milan, AD 379)
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (St. Jerome, AD 396)
Do I really need to go on? The Primacy of Peter, and of Rome was a belief that existed from the earliest days of the Church, and was not “invented in the middle ages”
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church [in Rome] which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him… and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father… (St. Ignatius of Antioch, AD 110)
“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (Tatian the Syrian, AD 170)
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Tertullian, AD 200)
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Tertullian, AD 220)
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, AD 251)
“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (St. Ambrose of Milan, AD 389)
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (St. Ambrose of Milan, AD 379)
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (St. Jerome, AD 396)
Do I really need to go on? The Primacy of Peter, and of Rome was a belief that existed from the earliest days of the Church, and was not “invented in the middle ages”
N
Nicea325
Guest
The problem with Primacy is that it’s not a Biblical argument.
On the contrary, it is a biblical argument Protestants simply cannot handle and accept. No scripture to back it up? I can provide nearlt 50 scripture verses cleary showing who had a primacy among the apostles.
Matt 16:18 was rarely cited before the Reformation as a proof of Papal Supremacy. Also what I find curious is that the Gospel of Mark (with a probable Petrine influence) and the First Letter of Peter (again with a probable Petrine influence) do not have any mention of the Papacy. In fact Rome is called Babylon in 1 Peter, hardly a compliment to say the least.
Another Protestant error. Where does Scripture teach everything must be explicity taught from scripture? It does not! Care to show me where scripture explicitly explains the Incarnation? How about the canon of scripture? The exact whereabouts of all the apostles?
Also if there were a Primacy of Peter (which I believe is fair to say, his name is mentioned over 100 times in the New Testament and clearly had a role of leadership as protos (chief) of the Apostles). Also remember Peter was not the first Apostle, Andrew was. There is no Scriptual precedent for a Petrine line of succession, Peter was never given that power. In the same way that Apostolic Succession is much more closely related to beliving what the Apostles’ did, and not simply handing off the baton.
The question at hand is not who Christ first called to be an apostle,but who he GAVE the keys and primacy. Certainly was not Andrew. History is not your side about Petrine succession:
Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
Peter definitely had a Primacy of sorts, he was probably older than most of the Apostles, and the first 8 chapters of Acts would definitely support a statement. However even the Apostles’ disagreed amongst themselves, and at the Council of Jerusalem, it was James, not Peter, who made the decision that the Mosaic law was not binding. It was Paul who corrected Peter in his letter. It was John who wrote to the seven churches in Asia. This shows that even if Peter had a Primacy of honor, he did not have one of infallibility.
Nope! Sorry,simply because James decided the Mosaic Law was not binding in shape or form negate Peter’s primacy. Disagreements is also not a factor to deny Peter’s primacy.But who DECIDED to replace Judas office in the Book of Acts? If no succession exists as you claim,then why replace Judas at all? Peter did not have infallibility? Wrong again! Didn’t Peter write 2 letters? Are claiming they are FALLIBLE?
**Church History even supports this. There were no Western Bishops, much less the Roman Pope (as opposed to the Pope in Alexandria who did and still claims that title) yet the Council of Constantinople is surely binding upon Catholics. **
Totally inaccurate history. Very biased and distorted history you claim as history.
**Sorry, I simply cannot believe a Dogma that was codified in the 19th Century, 1700 years after the death of the last Apostle, when Scripture and tradition (of which I personally do not find binding) speak the opposite of it.
Peace,**
You cannot accept a dogma that was codified in the 19th century? Then why do accept a dogma codified in the year 325 called the Trinity? Why do you accept a doctrine made official in the 4th and 5th centuries called the canon of scripture? Sorry,but Scripture and Tradition are not in contradiction. Protestanism is notorious for pitting scripture against tradition. Scripture IS tradition simply penned.
On the contrary, it is a biblical argument Protestants simply cannot handle and accept. No scripture to back it up? I can provide nearlt 50 scripture verses cleary showing who had a primacy among the apostles.
Matt 16:18 was rarely cited before the Reformation as a proof of Papal Supremacy. Also what I find curious is that the Gospel of Mark (with a probable Petrine influence) and the First Letter of Peter (again with a probable Petrine influence) do not have any mention of the Papacy. In fact Rome is called Babylon in 1 Peter, hardly a compliment to say the least.
Another Protestant error. Where does Scripture teach everything must be explicity taught from scripture? It does not! Care to show me where scripture explicitly explains the Incarnation? How about the canon of scripture? The exact whereabouts of all the apostles?
Also if there were a Primacy of Peter (which I believe is fair to say, his name is mentioned over 100 times in the New Testament and clearly had a role of leadership as protos (chief) of the Apostles). Also remember Peter was not the first Apostle, Andrew was. There is no Scriptual precedent for a Petrine line of succession, Peter was never given that power. In the same way that Apostolic Succession is much more closely related to beliving what the Apostles’ did, and not simply handing off the baton.
The question at hand is not who Christ first called to be an apostle,but who he GAVE the keys and primacy. Certainly was not Andrew. History is not your side about Petrine succession:
Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
Peter definitely had a Primacy of sorts, he was probably older than most of the Apostles, and the first 8 chapters of Acts would definitely support a statement. However even the Apostles’ disagreed amongst themselves, and at the Council of Jerusalem, it was James, not Peter, who made the decision that the Mosaic law was not binding. It was Paul who corrected Peter in his letter. It was John who wrote to the seven churches in Asia. This shows that even if Peter had a Primacy of honor, he did not have one of infallibility.
Nope! Sorry,simply because James decided the Mosaic Law was not binding in shape or form negate Peter’s primacy. Disagreements is also not a factor to deny Peter’s primacy.But who DECIDED to replace Judas office in the Book of Acts? If no succession exists as you claim,then why replace Judas at all? Peter did not have infallibility? Wrong again! Didn’t Peter write 2 letters? Are claiming they are FALLIBLE?
**Church History even supports this. There were no Western Bishops, much less the Roman Pope (as opposed to the Pope in Alexandria who did and still claims that title) yet the Council of Constantinople is surely binding upon Catholics. **
Totally inaccurate history. Very biased and distorted history you claim as history.
**Sorry, I simply cannot believe a Dogma that was codified in the 19th Century, 1700 years after the death of the last Apostle, when Scripture and tradition (of which I personally do not find binding) speak the opposite of it.
Peace,**
You cannot accept a dogma that was codified in the 19th century? Then why do accept a dogma codified in the year 325 called the Trinity? Why do you accept a doctrine made official in the 4th and 5th centuries called the canon of scripture? Sorry,but Scripture and Tradition are not in contradiction. Protestanism is notorious for pitting scripture against tradition. Scripture IS tradition simply penned.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Quote:
No offense,but you apparently do not comprehend primacy at all very well. You either turn the blind eye or really do not comprehend. Let us look at the above statement you posted. Read the following:
Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome,(ANOTHER DIOCESE IN ANOTHER REGION) immediately attempted to cut off (WHERE ARE THE PROTESTS FROM OTHER BISHOPS TELLING THE ROMAN BISHOP HE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO CUT-OFF ANY CHURCH OUTSIDE HIS DIOCESE?) from the common unity the parishes of all Asia (WHY DIDN’T THE SEE OF ALEXANDRIA CUT THEM OFF,WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE ROME?), with the churches that agreed with them (THOSE WHO WERE CALLED THE QUARTRODECIMANS), as heterodox (NOT AN ORTHODOX TEACHING AND AGAIN NO BISHOP QUESTIONS VICTOR’S JURISDICTION OUTSIDE HIS DIOCESE); and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren (WHERE ARE THE PROTESTS HE CANNOT EXCOMMUNICATE ANY OTHER BISHOP,IF ALL ARE EQUALS) there wholly excommunicate (AGAIN WHERE ARE THE SCORES OF COMPLAINTS THAT HE AS AN ‘EQUAL’ BISHOP HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY?)
**Let me ask you something, what does excommunication constitute in this case? Perhaps this will help you understand it better. **
I am done answering you. Now you have yet to answer my question that I have been throwing at your for several days now.
If the Bishop of Rome as no such primacy or authority/jurisdiction over any other bishop,why does history clearly present quite the opposite? I gave ONE such case and you continue to dodge it over and over.
No offense,but you apparently do not comprehend primacy at all very well. You either turn the blind eye or really do not comprehend. Let us look at the above statement you posted. Read the following:
Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome,(ANOTHER DIOCESE IN ANOTHER REGION) immediately attempted to cut off (WHERE ARE THE PROTESTS FROM OTHER BISHOPS TELLING THE ROMAN BISHOP HE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO CUT-OFF ANY CHURCH OUTSIDE HIS DIOCESE?) from the common unity the parishes of all Asia (WHY DIDN’T THE SEE OF ALEXANDRIA CUT THEM OFF,WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE ROME?), with the churches that agreed with them (THOSE WHO WERE CALLED THE QUARTRODECIMANS), as heterodox (NOT AN ORTHODOX TEACHING AND AGAIN NO BISHOP QUESTIONS VICTOR’S JURISDICTION OUTSIDE HIS DIOCESE); and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren (WHERE ARE THE PROTESTS HE CANNOT EXCOMMUNICATE ANY OTHER BISHOP,IF ALL ARE EQUALS) there wholly excommunicate (AGAIN WHERE ARE THE SCORES OF COMPLAINTS THAT HE AS AN ‘EQUAL’ BISHOP HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY?)
**Let me ask you something, what does excommunication constitute in this case? Perhaps this will help you understand it better. **
I am done answering you. Now you have yet to answer my question that I have been throwing at your for several days now.
If the Bishop of Rome as no such primacy or authority/jurisdiction over any other bishop,why does history clearly present quite the opposite? I gave ONE such case and you continue to dodge it over and over.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Dionysius of Corinth
You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).
Irenaeus
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).episcopatum episcopatum
Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
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. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).
Peter of Alexandria
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius
When Nero was already reigning 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. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
Damasus
The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple aDon’t judge His Church by the people.nd an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).
Irenaeus
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).episcopatum episcopatum
Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
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. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).
Peter of Alexandria
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius
When Nero was already reigning 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. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
Damasus
The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple aDon’t judge His Church by the people.nd an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The primacy most certainly in Rome. Pulling pieces out to try and prove an incorrectness, or this to be inaccurate leaves one to provide sources where the primacy was. It was not scattered about in thousands of denominations, or Churches with different applications…
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
You did not answer me because you either looked up what constitutes excommunication in this case and found out I was right or cannot find an answer. Its tough like that when the internet is your primary source.
Now to your question. Have I, at anytime, asserted anything specifically about Roman primacy beyond the Victor? Every answer I have given has been specifically related to your misinformation about Victor. Originally it was stated that the Eastern Bishops WENT to Rome. They did not. It was stated Clement writing to some other church was unusual. I broughy up Polycarp and Irenaeus doing the same. Time and time again I went back to the Victor case though.
Now, do a little research on this particular thread and notice what statements I have made about Victor. Remember, I did not bring him up. He was brought up as a case to prove a point. A point that any fair observer would see was not made.
You still have time to answer my excommunication question.
So I ask you, did I (Rightlydivide) give a statement as it relates to my view of primacy beyond Victor? You see, I am prepared to talk about the next stage in history. I want to be clear though. What have I said?
J
jmcrae
Guest
When did either Polycarp or Irenaeus write instructional messages to churches that were not within their jurisdictions?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp-intro.htmlWhen did either Polycarp or Irenaeus write instructional messages to churches that were not within their jurisdictions?
Eusebius
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
There is no truth being shared when one does not promote a specific Church, but instead posts against one particular Church.
N
Nicea325
Guest
You did not answer me because you either looked up what constitutes excommunication in this case and found out I was right or cannot find an answer. Its tough like that when the internet is your primary source.
Please! I looked it up? As I stated, I love how non-Catholics always seem to know more about Catholicism,than Catholic themselves! You were not right at all and your constant refusal to answer me has led to the conclusion history does not support your novelty.
**Now to your question. Have I, at anytime, asserted anything specifically about Roman primacy beyond the Victor? Every answer I have given has been specifically related to your misinformation about Victor. **
Misinformation about Victor? I do recal providing a few sources which contain scores and scores of ancient sources clearly showing about other bishops either writing to the Bishop of Rome or making a visitation in regards to doctrinal issues or other appeals. And you still DENY the fact that not ONE bishop questions his jurisdiction over other bishops to excommunicate to them.The simple fact because they dislike his decision is not a reflection towards his primacy.
Originally it was stated that the Eastern Bishops WENT to Rome. They did not. It was stated Clement writing to some other church was unusual. I broughy up Polycarp and Irenaeus doing the same. Time and time again I went back to the Victor case though.
Okay,I might have got confused Victor with another pope,but the fact remains the same,they wanted the bishop of Rome to settle the issue. As I stated with Victor’s case,why didn’t those bishops go or write to the See of Alexandria which was must closer? Again,if Rome had no jurisdiction over any other diocese or region,why does history say otherwise? I gave one such case and I am not about to write them all down here.The sources exist and anyone can look it them up.
What about Polycarp and Irenaeus? It is not a question them writing to other bishops/dioceses.It is a question as to WHO was expected to settle disputes,issues,etc.Sorry,but Rome is the one.Again,I can write case after case and so on. If Rome had no say in such matters,again why no arguments against Clement’s decision to send two legates to Corinth to get things squared away? Where are the protests from the bishops of Corinth excaliming Clement had no such authority?
**Now, do a little research on this particular thread and notice what statements I have made about Victor. **
No offense,but I have done more than a little research.Now why don’t you do a lot more research acknowledge case after case Rome is the center of jurisdiction. Frankly, I do not care what you want to believe,history does not support your argument.
**Remember, I did not bring him up. He was brought up as a case to prove a point. A point that any fair observer would see was not made.
You still have time to answer my excommunication question.
So I ask you, did I (Rightlydivide) give a statement as it relates to my view of primacy beyond Victor? You see, I am prepared to talk about the next stage in history. I want to be clear though. What have I said? **__________________
No! You are wrong in regards to primacy beyond Victor. Since you refuse to do research beyond Victor,I’ll give another such case.Denis of Alexandria was suspect of false doctrine,the second patriarch of Christendom,suspect and accused. Consequence? Many from his diocese went to Rome to mention it to the bishop of Rome.
Now if the pope has no primacy at all,why would the second most imporant See in Christendom have to appeal to Rome? Where does Denis of Alexadria defend himself? At Rome. Should I give another case?
Please! I looked it up? As I stated, I love how non-Catholics always seem to know more about Catholicism,than Catholic themselves! You were not right at all and your constant refusal to answer me has led to the conclusion history does not support your novelty.
**Now to your question. Have I, at anytime, asserted anything specifically about Roman primacy beyond the Victor? Every answer I have given has been specifically related to your misinformation about Victor. **
Misinformation about Victor? I do recal providing a few sources which contain scores and scores of ancient sources clearly showing about other bishops either writing to the Bishop of Rome or making a visitation in regards to doctrinal issues or other appeals. And you still DENY the fact that not ONE bishop questions his jurisdiction over other bishops to excommunicate to them.The simple fact because they dislike his decision is not a reflection towards his primacy.
Originally it was stated that the Eastern Bishops WENT to Rome. They did not. It was stated Clement writing to some other church was unusual. I broughy up Polycarp and Irenaeus doing the same. Time and time again I went back to the Victor case though.
Okay,I might have got confused Victor with another pope,but the fact remains the same,they wanted the bishop of Rome to settle the issue. As I stated with Victor’s case,why didn’t those bishops go or write to the See of Alexandria which was must closer? Again,if Rome had no jurisdiction over any other diocese or region,why does history say otherwise? I gave one such case and I am not about to write them all down here.The sources exist and anyone can look it them up.
What about Polycarp and Irenaeus? It is not a question them writing to other bishops/dioceses.It is a question as to WHO was expected to settle disputes,issues,etc.Sorry,but Rome is the one.Again,I can write case after case and so on. If Rome had no say in such matters,again why no arguments against Clement’s decision to send two legates to Corinth to get things squared away? Where are the protests from the bishops of Corinth excaliming Clement had no such authority?
**Now, do a little research on this particular thread and notice what statements I have made about Victor. **
No offense,but I have done more than a little research.Now why don’t you do a lot more research acknowledge case after case Rome is the center of jurisdiction. Frankly, I do not care what you want to believe,history does not support your argument.
**Remember, I did not bring him up. He was brought up as a case to prove a point. A point that any fair observer would see was not made.
You still have time to answer my excommunication question.
So I ask you, did I (Rightlydivide) give a statement as it relates to my view of primacy beyond Victor? You see, I am prepared to talk about the next stage in history. I want to be clear though. What have I said? **__________________
No! You are wrong in regards to primacy beyond Victor. Since you refuse to do research beyond Victor,I’ll give another such case.Denis of Alexandria was suspect of false doctrine,the second patriarch of Christendom,suspect and accused. Consequence? Many from his diocese went to Rome to mention it to the bishop of Rome.
Now if the pope has no primacy at all,why would the second most imporant See in Christendom have to appeal to Rome? Where does Denis of Alexadria defend himself? At Rome. Should I give another case?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
How…can I be wrong about primacy beyond Victor…when I have not stated my view?
If I have, please show me. Have I given my view?
Next, as it relates to Victor, you stated the following in this post
No. In the case of Victor, they did not go to him or write him to settle the case. That did not occur.
- Status