catholic not Roman Catholic in the Apostles' Creed

[Atreyu]

Please see this link: clicky. Many Protestants recite the Apostles’ Creed (as stated in the above link), but when they reach the line:
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
They must put a footnote next to the word “catholic” (as indeed has been done at the above link), and explain that:

*The word “catholic” refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

My question (which is to be aimed at Protestants who do recite the Apostles’ Creed) is this:

The Apostles’ Creed is extra-Biblical and comes from Tradition. Therefore, I would like to see where - in Tradition - the definition of “catholic” is as “not… the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ”. I can give examples to the contrary (ie, where people have stated that the catholic church is what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church), and so I would like to know if there are actually any examples of any early church fathers who maintain that “catholic” does not refer to what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Atreyu:

Please see this link: clicky. Many Protestants recite the Apostles’ Creed (as stated in the above link), but when they reach the line:I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,They must put a footnote next to the word “catholic” (as indeed has been done at the above link), and explain that:

My question (which is to be aimed at Protestants who do recite the Apostles’ Creed) is this:

The Apostles’ Creed is extra-Biblical and comes from Tradition. Therefore, I would like to see where - in Tradition - the definition of “catholic” is as “not… the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ”. I can give examples to the contrary (ie, where people have stated that the catholic church is what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church), and so I would like to know if there are actually any examples of any early church fathers who maintain that “catholic” does not refer to what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church.

The term ‘roman’ did not come into usage until the 15th centuries after the protestant reformation, until then everyone was catholic.

 

[Atreyu]

Semper Fi:

The term ‘roman’ did not come into usage until the 15th centuries after the protestant reformation, until then everyone was catholic.

As for the first part of your sentence, yes I know. This is why I used the clarifying “what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church”. As for the second part of your sentence, well this is just not correct. There were heretics and schismatics even from the start of the Church.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Atreyu, this is a good question, I think.

I consider myself Anglo-Catholic. By this I mean that I am not in communion with the Bishop of Rome and make a distinction between the Roman Church institution and catholic tradition. Now, I will agree that the Roman Church has been a keeper of Catholic tradition (much more so than many of the protestant churches). But the Roman Church, as I see it, does not have a monopoly on Christian truth–nor, therefore, does it have a monopoly on Christian tradition. The Roman Church may disagree with me on this point. The Roman Church may define the Roman Church institutional authority as part of catholic tradition. I would agree with it insofar as we are speaking of a general and basic tri-partite division of clergy that forms the basis of the Roman instutional structure of authority–that is catholic tradition. But, for me, the local Roman Church institutional authority is just that–the local Roman Church institutional authority.

Now, to be honest, I have great respect for the Bishop of Rome–I pray for him and consider him a great leader of the church. But what has been obscured through the course of history is that he is primus inter pares. What has been obscured is the inter pares part of that formula, I think. And I think this obscuration occurred through a (perhaps inevitable) identification of imperial Roman authority with the Bishop of the local church in Rome. And this assured the ascendancy of the local Roman Church to a position of power that was not always accepted, acknowledged, or appreciated by her sister churches (hence the Great Schism in 1054 which effectively saw the See of Rome break with the other Great Patriarchal Sees and start on the road to becoming the Church of the West and, later, the Roman Catholic Church with the advent of the protestant reformation and the subsequent schisms).

Also, regarding the word catholic, we must remember that it means “universal”. Presumably, the Eastern Orthodox churches include the word catholic (or katholikos or some such) when they recite the creed and are not concerned with any associations the word may have with Western ecclesiastical tradition.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Atreyu, this is a good question, I think.

I consider myself Anglo-Catholic. By this I mean that I am not in communion with the Bishop of Rome and make a distinction between the Roman Church institution and catholic tradition. Now, I will agree that the Roman Church has been a keeper of Catholic tradition (much more so than many of the protestant churches). But the Roman Church, as I see it, does not have a monopoly on Christian truth–nor, therefore, does it have a monopoly on Christian tradition. The Roman Church may disagree with me on this point. The Roman Church may define the Roman Church institutional authority as part of catholic tradition. I would agree with it insofar as we are speaking of a general and basic tri-partite division of clergy that forms the basis of the Roman instutional structure of authority–that is catholic tradition. But, for me, the local Roman Church institutional authority is just that–the local Roman Church institutional authority.

Now, to be honest, I have great respect for the Bishop of Rome–I pray for him and consider him a great leader of the church. But what has been obscured through the course of history is that he is primus inter pares. What has been obscured is the inter pares part of that formula, I think. And I think this obscuration occurred through a (perhaps inevitable) identification of imperial Roman authority with the Bishop of the local church in Rome. And this assured the ascendancy of the local Roman Church to a position of power that was not always accepted, acknowledged, or appreciated by her sister churches (hence the Great Schism in 1054 which effectively saw the See of Rome break with the other Great Patriarchal Sees and start on the road to becoming the Church of the West and, later, the Roman Catholic Church with the advent of the protestant reformation and the subsequent schisms).

Also, regarding the word catholic, we must remember that it means “universal”. Presumably, the Eastern Orthodox churches include the word catholic (or katholikos or some such) when they recite the creed and are not concerned with any associations the word may have with Western ecclesiastical tradition.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Let’s not discuss the Great Schism in this thread, there’s already way too many threads addressing the issue. As far as the primacy of Peter, I believe it is evident throughout Christological history and addressed by the Church Fathers as well as Bishops of Rome from the earliest centuries of Christianity. It wasn’t a problem up and until 1054 (the bishop of Rome has claimed primacy centuries before 1054, so why wait so long to break communion if the papacy had become a heresy?), way after Constantinople had been over ran by Ottoman Turks, and I think politics and relations with their Muslim neighbors played a major shift in the Constantinople Patriarchate.

 

[Atreyu]

As I understand it, the Eastern Orthodox would have the same understanding of the word “catholic” as does the Roman Catholic Church, with one small difference. They believe that the word “catholic” refers to what is known today as the Eastern Orthodox Church (or something like that), as we believe the word “catholic” refers to what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, I believe that many of the Eastern Churches refer to themselves as the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, or something similar.

The point of my question is this: I believe that the word catholic in the Apostles’ creed refers to the Catholic Church (whether that is now the Roman Catholic Church or one of the Orthodox Churches). I have evidence from the early church fathers that they held the same opinion as to the meaning of the word catholic. And yes, I know that it means universal. I want to know what evidence there is - if any - from the early church fathers, that the word catholic does not refer to an institution, but rather to the body of all believers. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox believe that their own Church is the catholic church referred to in the Apostles’ Creed, only strengthens my argument that this is what is meant in the Apostles’ Creed.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!
Semper Fi:

Let’s not discuss the Great Schism in this thread, there’s already way too many threads addressing the issue. As far as the primacy of Peter, I believe it is evident throughout Christological history and addressed by the Church Fathers as well as Bishops of Rome from the earliest centuries of Christianity. It wasn’t a problem up and until 1054 (the bishop of Rome has claimed primacy centuries before 1054, so why wait so long to break communion if the papacy had become a heresy?), way after Constantinople had been over ran by Ottoman Turks, and I think politics and relations with their Muslim neighbors played a major shift in the Constantinople Patriarchate.

Point taken. Still, I find it hard to identify the church catholic exclusively with the Roman Church. While ecclesiastical history does bear out a primacy assumed by the Bishop of Rome, the earliest form of this is expressed by the formula “primus inter pares”. And the Jerusalem council in Acts presents a number of authoritative voices, Peter’s being an influential one, though the council itself seems to be overseen by James. And, again, in Jerusalem.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Atreyu:

I believe that the word catholic in the Apostles’ creed refers to the Catholic Church (whether that is now the Roman Catholic Church or one of the Orthodox Churches). I have evidence from the early church fathers that they held the same opinion as to the meaning of the word catholic. And yes, I know that it means universal. I want to know what evidence there is - if any - from the early church fathers, that the word catholic does not refer to an institution, but rather to the body of all believers. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox believe that their own Church is the catholic church referred to in the Apostles’ Creed, only strengthens my argument that this is what is meant in the Apostles’ Creed.

Atreyu, at a time when the institution was the body of believers, I think it would be difficult to find evidence in Patristic writings of a distinction made between them. When it was later seen that catholic tradition is not necessarily exclusively the property of Rome (after the Reformation) then we enter into a different understanding of what catholic can mean (German Lutherans, for instance, sometimes refer to themselves as Evangelical Catholics–clearly, they claim catholic tradition as their own, but are not in communion with Rome. Witness also the Old Catholic churches).

Let us consider, though, that to read “Roman Catholic Church” into Patristic discussions of Catholicity may just be an exercise in eisegesis and not revelatory of a general agreement on behalf of the church fathers on the limitation of universal ecclesiastical belief to the authority of Rome.

There is an article here (anglicanhistory.org/usa/fgavin/liberal/10.html) called “Freedom and Authority in the Catholic Tradition” on the ideas of Apostolicity and Catholicity that may be helpful.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Point taken. Still, I find it hard to identify the church catholic exclusively with the Roman Church. While ecclesiastical history does bear out a primacy assumed by the Bishop of Rome, the earliest form of this is expressed by the formula “primus inter pares”. And the Jerusalem council in Acts presents a number of authoritative voices, Peter’s being an influential one, though the council itself seems to be overseen by James. And, again, in Jerusalem.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

The council may have been called by James, because Jerusalem was his diocese (the pope just made a recent trip to Brazil too, I believe to oversee their local synod). However, Peter settled the issue in James, and if you read it carefully, James was the overseer of the “Jewish Christians”. Also, let’s read Acts 15 carefully. It states that Paul was dissenting (who could he be dissenting from, if all bishops are equal in an eccelestial sense?) Look at Acts 15:7

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

We can see that Peter is the first one to settle the issue, and that James accepts his decision. James is kin of Jesus, yet Peter made the decision and he accepted. I think it’s pretty clear…

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!
Semper Fi:

We can see that Peter is the first one to settle the issue, and that James accepts his decision. James is kin of Jesus, yet Peter made the decision and he accepted. I think it’s pretty clear…

Semper Fi, I think it shows that Peter was certainly a figure of authority and influence. But the context of the council is not merely synodal, as you would suggest, but is ecumenical. Acts 15:4 makes this clear (or at least as clear as a belief in Peter’s supremacy at this council): “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.” Verse 15 makes it even clearer: “** Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church **, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:”

Also note that it is not Peter who has the last word in the council, but James (who speaks in verse 13).

I don’t dispute that Peter was a person of great authority. I don’t dispute that the Bishops of Rome are or could be his successors. I dispute the assertion that the Bishop of Rome has always held supreme authority (under God) in the church as opposed to the model of primus inter pares, the basis of which is not a translation of imperial power into the ecclesiastical realm.

To claim that the Bishop of Rome has always been seen as the supreme authority (under Christ) serves, to me, to underscore that such a belief (because at the heart of it is the maintenance or justification of power) is the result of an ascendency of the Roman Church to a position of greater political power that was necessarily mirrored in the ecclesiastical realm given the nature of humans and the progress of history. I do not, therefore, identify it with catholicity as such, though it has become part of Roman Catholic tradition and, because of this, has become confused with catholic tradition as a whole. For me, catholicity must be posited first. I.e., the belief that the Bishop of Rome is the supreme authority (under God) is not a hallmark of catholicity. Rather, catholicity should determine the hallmarks of the Bishop of Rome’s authority, as it determines the hallmarks of all local manifestations of church authority (most generally through the tri-partite division of clergy). In this way, catholic tradition is not the servant of the Pope, but the Pope is a keeper (and an authoritative one, at that) of catholic tradition.

I really wish for the unity of the church–that Protestants reclaim catholic tradition, that they submit themselves to the Pope as Patriarch of the West, that the Roman Catholic Church recognize the gifts of reform (not innovation) that Protestants can bring (and have brought) to the church through our Lord the Spirit, that the Orthodox churches and the Western Church re-unite, and that the Great Patriarchal Sees are once more re-established with the Pope (the Western Patriarch/Bishop of Rome) returned to Primus inter Pares. I don’t think this will happen very soon, however, because it requires a return to a notion of catholicity that I do not think the Protestants, the Orthodox, or the Roman Catholics are willing to sign on to just yet. And until they do, until everyone is willing to seek unity (and not just on their own respective terms), we will continue to have a lack of ecclesiastical harmony and a situation in which it is possible to discern a difference between catholic tradition and the catholic institutions that preserve or abide by it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Tonks40]

Problem is, the word “catholic” in a protestant church doesn’t imply the oneness of belief, as it does in the Catholic Church, which is what I profess to believe in when I say the Creed.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Semper Fi, I think it shows that Peter was certainly a figure of authority and influence. But the context of the council is not merely synodal, as you would suggest, but is ecumenical. Acts 15:4 makes this clear (or at least as clear as a belief in Peter’s supremacy at this council): “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.” Verse 15 makes it even clearer: “** Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church **, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:”

Also note that it is not Peter who has the last word in the council, but James (who speaks in verse 13).

I don’t dispute that Peter was a person of great authority. I don’t dispute that the Bishops of Rome are or could be his successors. I dispute the assertion that the Bishop of Rome has always held supreme authority (under God) in the church as opposed to the model of primus inter pares, the basis of which is not a translation of imperial power into the ecclesiastical realm.

To claim that the Bishop of Rome has always been seen as the supreme authority (under Christ) serves, to me, to underscore that such a belief (because at the heart of it is the maintenance or justification of power) is the result of an ascendency of the Roman Church to a position of greater political power that was necessarily mirrored in the ecclesiastical realm given the nature of humans and the progress of history. I do not, therefore, identify it with catholicity as such, though it has become part of Roman Catholic tradition and, because of this, has become confused with catholic tradition as a whole. For me, catholicity must be posited first. I.e., the belief that the Bishop of Rome is the supreme authority (under God) is not a hallmark of catholicity. Rather, catholicity should determine the hallmarks of the Bishop of Rome’s authority, as it determines the hallmarks of all local manifestations of church authority (most generally through the tri-partite division of clergy). In this way, catholic tradition is not the servant of the Pope, but the Pope is a keeper (and an authoritative one, at that) of catholic tradition.

I really wish for the unity of the church–that Protestants reclaim catholic tradition, that they submit themselves to the Pope as Patriarch of the West, that the Roman Catholic Church recognize the gifts of reform (not innovation) that Protestants can bring (and have brought) to the church through our Lord the Spirit, that the Orthodox churches and the Western Church re-unite, and that the Great Patriarchal Sees are once more re-established with the Pope (the Western Patriarch/Bishop of Rome) returned to Primus inter Pares. I don’t think this will happen very soon, however, because it requires a return to a notion of catholicity that I do not think the Protestants, the Orthodox, or the Roman Catholics are willing to sign on to just yet. And until they do, until everyone is willing to seek unity (and not just on their own respective terms), we will continue to have a lack of ecclesiastical harmony and a situation in which it is possible to discern a difference between catholic tradition and the catholic institutions that preserve or abide by it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

I did not suggest the council was synodal, because it was not (I was merely pointing out that the Pope still travels to other diocese to deliver a message and debate, which their bishops convey to the laity). But neither was it ecumenical in a sense that the Orthodox today think it was (they only accept 1 Nicea to the 2nd Council of Nicea as Ecumenical i.e. the first 7 Ecumenical Councils), rather, it was addressing the issue of some of James’ disciples who were teaching heresy. James had the final word in the council because it agreed with Peter’s ruling, and because he was the bishop of Jerusalem and of the Jewish Christians. Essentially, James delivered Peter’s ruling to the Jews.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Deo Volente,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I too have shared your concerns before when I wasn’t very well catechized (so I’ve been down the same road). I am curious as to what your response to St John Chrysostom’s words would be, the man who formulated the Divine Liturgy which is in use by most Byzantine churches (Catholic and Orthodox):
St John Chrysostom:

Here again He alludeth to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

Note also, that I am using a version of the ECFs translated by Protestants in Edinburgh, Scotland, so there’s no tampering which would be biased by Catholics.

Here we have one of the earliest Doctors of the Catholic Church claiming that James was given a diocese by Peter using power he received directly from Jesus as leader of the whole Church on Earth.

 

[AquinasXVI]

It is what it is. When the creed was hammered out, there’s no other but the Catholic Church…I think our separated bretheren need to “footnote” this to justify their stance for the evidence is much too apparent. I’ve even seen it edited as Christian. Nothing agianst the word Christian but it’s still a tampering of the creed. Sad.

in XT.

 

[Brain]

The creed is extra-biblical. how can protestants even use it? SS seems not to allow such a dogmatic creed.

 

[Atreyu]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Point taken. Still, I find it hard to identify the church catholic exclusively with the Roman Church. While ecclesiastical history does bear out a primacy assumed by the Bishop of Rome, the earliest form of this is expressed by the formula “primus inter pares”. And the Jerusalem council in Acts presents a number of authoritative voices, Peter’s being an influential one, though the council itself seems to be overseen by James. And, again, in Jerusalem.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Where is the evidence of this earliest formula? I would like to quote what Irenaeus said, with respect to the church at Rome. He said:
“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 [A.D. 189]).
Here, Irenaeus says that every church in the world must agree with the Church of Rome. Deo Volente, my question to you is, for what reason does Irenaeus say that every church in the world must agree with the Church of Rome? To me, being obligated to agree with the Church of Rome doesn’t imply simply first among equals (although I don’t disagree that this is an appropriate title for the bishop of Rome), but it implies the Church of Rome does have a more significant primacy.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I’m sorry I had not responded a bit sooner. I’ve been rather busy of late!

Atreyu:

Where is the evidence of this earliest formula? I would like to quote what Irenaeus said, with respect to the church at Rome.
…
To me, being obligated to agree with the Church of Rome doesn’t imply simply first among equals (although I don’t disagree that this is an appropriate title for the bishop of Rome), but it implies the Church of Rome does have a more significant primacy.

Atreyu, I interpret Irenaeus’ words as making the Roman church an example to other churches, not setting the Bishop of Rome up as Supreme Pontiff. Note a couple things–he invokes the authority of Peter AND Paul, and he gets his history a bit mixed up–the church in Rome was not the most ancient. Also, Irenaeus (Saint though he is) was not the most original thinker–he’s less a theologian than a bulldog defending orthodoxy against the gnostic heresies. His championing of an ecclesiastical standard, seen in this light, makes much more sense.

For a different view of ther relationship of the Bishop of Rome to other Bishops, I would cite the example of St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who–writing a century after Irenaeus–was unaware of any nascent doctrine of pontifical supremacy, who openly argued in his letters with Stephen, Bishop of Rome, and wrote regarding apostolic authority:
“though he gives to all the Apostles an equal power and says, ‘As my Father sent me, etc.’ yet he has ordained by his authority the source of unity beginning from one man that he might manifest the unity. Certainly the other Apostles were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power…” (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate).
The drift of this is clear–Rome holds a place of primacy, but not supremacy. Cyprian’s idea of the Church in the Bishop and the Bishop in the Church also underscores this notion–each Bishop acts with the authority of the whole Church, not because it has been granted to them by the Supreme Pontiff to do so, but because that is the nature of the authority of Bishops, the first of whom is Peter. Later redactors of Cyprian’s work took care to slightly alter his views to make it seem as if Cyprian did, in fact, believe that the Bishop of Rome was Supreme Pontiff. But the earliest manuscripts do not indicate as much, nor does Cyprian’s life and his wranglings with Pope Stephen with whom he openly quarreled.

You can look to the fourth century Council of Sardica for the creation of distinct canons which begin to give supreme authority to Rome–but you must recognize in the process that the African bishops and the Eastern bishops were not present at Sardica and did not adopt these canons. When an African priest was deposed but then reinstated by the Bishop of Rome, appealing to Sardica, the Bishops of Africa would not recognize the canon (which they had not accepted in the first place) and wrote to Celestine, then Bishop of Rome,
“with all respect, we earnestly entreat you for the future not to be ready to admit to a hearing persons that come from this region, nor to be willing to receive into communion those that have been excommunicated by us…Unless it be supposed that God can inspire onr individual with justice and withold it from a multitude of bishops in council. And how can we place confidence in an overseas tribunal, since it will not be possible to send the required witnesses?..And we can find no sanction from any council of the Fathers for your sending delegates. If any should desire you to send delegates, do not comply…” (Synod of Carthage, 424).

It is clear, to me at least, that the notion of a Supreme Pontiff was not an idea present from the beginning of the church. It seems that it developed as the Roman See gained power, after which it dispensed with the notion of the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares, dispensed with primacy, and opted for supremacy. Note, too, that the Ecumenical Patriarch is considered primus inter pares, and the whole of orthodoxy assents to this as the original model of the relationship of Rome to the other Sees of Christendom.

I do not deny Rome’s traditional primacy. I deny it’s supremacy.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Zerith]

How does one not know about the proper meaning of that verse, unless completely apathetic to the religious scence? Nowhere in Europe have I seen such a thing, nor heard it from Protestant friends of mine. Only Atheists, and/or those who recite it when going to one Mass every month or so, and who are uninformed.

 

[Paul_Pignal]

Hi Mark,

I’ve been reading this thread and have come up with a few thoughts.
First of all as previously stated Roman was added to Catholic by the reformers in order to give themselves a false sense of equality with the Roman Church. Secondly I beleive the primacy of Peter is best shown in the gospel account of Jesus giving the keys of the Kingdom to Peter Mt. 16: 18-19. This was very significant and all those present knew exactly what it meant.They as first century Jews knew that Jesus was paraphrasing Isaiah22:20-23 . He does this to let the other apostles know that he (Peter) will have the final authority or the Keys if you will in the absence of the King(Jesus).Yes James presided at the first cousil of Jerusalem because he was Bishop of that region but clearly Peter had the final say and James simply sumarizes Peteres decision.You seem to be very well read and well informed I believe if you continue to follow the path you are on it will eventually lead you to Rome and the one true Catholic Church.
Peace
Paul

 

[Atreyu]

St Cyprian:
“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, 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 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
I got this from the following website (and I am unsure as to its accuracy): click me. I think this is the same quote that you provided, with a slightly different flavour. Here is another quote of Cyprian’s, from the same website (and hence same accuracy or non-accuracy as the case may be):
“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewehre[sic] is scattering.” (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251)
Mark, I am certainly not a scholar. Indeed, some of your rhetoric goes straight over my head! I am an amateur at best (and a hack at worst…), but even to me it seems that Cyprian does in fact believe in papal supremacy. Regardless, can you say that the Anglican Church is in-line with the above writings of Cyprian? Have they set up another altar and another priesthood (ok possibly not…)? Does the Anglican Church hold fast to the unity of Peter, or has the Anglican Church deserted the chair of Peter upon whom the church was built?