Church Fathers - Peter

[racing59]

It was Jesus who identified Himself completely with His bride,the Church. That is why it is said that there is no salvation outside the Church.

**Hi Spirit and Hi Prodigal Son!

guanophore,
This is the kind of statement that gets me turned off. In my opinion you make it sound like only Catholics are Saved. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
Interpreting Scripture, Early Fathers, or the CCC has to come through the Holy Spirit, other wise on these post we go round and round and round. I think every one should be happy when another Christian finds a home in some Church. Jesus said, Those that aren’t against us are for us. That applied to people who were not Apostles, yet casted out demons, in the name of Jesus.I’ve got to read Spirits threads enough to know she is not against the Catholic Church. In fact she has tried to lead me to it if that is were I belong.But we must respect what God has given her and her faith being important to her.Peace be with you**

 

[guanophore]

My issue or question has always been, why the need for being "first, best, and “truth”.

Why would you think that Jesus would establish something other than this?

 "The RCC is the church started by Jesus.

No, Spirit, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

We have complete and total apostolic succession.

I don’t understand why this is a problem?

Only the RCC has the Holy Spirit to guide it to unerring truth.

This is just a wrong statement… a falsehood. However, if you believe this, it does help to explain why you left.

Only the Church has been given the right to define scripture as to meaning.

This is also a falsehood.

This is all interpretation by the RCC which serves itself to make itself the ruler of all Christendom.

Do you not see a difference between having a unity of doctrine, and being a “ruler”?

It leads to silly statements such as “We would ordain women as priests, but Jesus said we can’t.”

It is true that this is a silly statement. Fortunately, it has not been made by the Catholic Church, only yourself.

That was my point. I don’t believe Peter was Pope of Rome, but if he was, it wouldn’t have any impact whatsoever on my faith.

I wonder what you mean by the word “Pope” in this sentence.

The Pope is the successor of Peter, and it does not matter what city he is in.

So I suggest that the Holy Spirit works non-stop in all faiths to encourage the best, but humans seem to not be always listening well.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

 

[guanophore]

guanophore,
This is the kind of statement that gets me turned off. In my opinion you make it sound like only Catholics are Saved. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

I can understand why it might seem that way. I also agree that this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. My point is that Jesus is One with His Bride, the Church. There is no separation between them. So, all who are saved are members of His One Body, the Church.

Interpreting Scripture, Early Fathers, or the CCC has to come through the Holy Spirit, other wise on these post we go round and round and round. I think every one should be happy when another Christian finds a home in some Church. Jesus said, Those that aren’t against us are for us. That applied to people who were not Apostles, yet casted out demons, in the name of Jesus.I’ve got to read Spirits threads enough to know she is not against the Catholic Church. In fact she has tried to lead me to it if that is were I belong.But we must respect what God has given her and her faith being important to her.Peace be with you

Yes, I agree. Spirit’s posts are some of the most refreshing to read on here. I embrace the teaching of the Church that the HS works through all these ecclesial communities to bring unity in the Body.

 

[guanophore]

Hello everyone.

I came across this article recently: christiantruth.com/mt16.html

It shows that the Church Fathers did not believe Peter was a prime apostle, and that all quotes saying that have been taken out of context.

The article worries me… What do you think of it?

Thanks and God bless.

I don’t know if “worry” is really the right word. It is concerning when anyone starts picking and choosing and putting together theories and doctrines that are not consistent with Apostolic Teaching. This can be done with the writings of the Fathers, as much as with Scripture.

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 and 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]).

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (385 A.D.):

"Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; and the same [Peter] furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting in the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are heretics and heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith.

 

[JohnVIII]

Hello everyone.

I came across this article recently: christiantruth.com/mt16.html

It shows that the Church Fathers did not believe Peter was a prime apostle, and that all quotes saying that have been taken out of context.

The article worries me… What do you think of it?

Thanks and God bless.

A pretty good article! It puts a lot of the Church Fathers statements about St. Peter in context.

However, I hold the position that the present day view of the authority of Rome had its origin from the eastern churches at the time of Pope Leo when they wished to make Pope Leo the universal bishop, and the first one to repudiate this view was Pope Leo himself! I think the eastern churches didn’t fully return to point of view of the early church fathers until the split between east and west. Likewise, Rome didn’t fully take the view that it held universal authority until about the time of the east/west split. Just as it is an historic fact that most heresies started in the east, the false view that one bishop can be above all the others likewise started in the east. The true catholic/orthodox-historic/christian view is that all bishops are successors to St. Peter; all bishops are equal. There is but one Chair of St. Peter, but all bishops sit in it together and do so equally. Therefore there cannot be any episcopal hierarchy either above or below the bishops.

It is on this premise that I maintain that the split between east and west was caused by God rather than by man. God did it to destroy a man-made hierarchy together with its false-unity. The true unity that flows from an absolutely equal body of bishops is the only God-given unity. It is impossible for a schism to exist in the midst of this true unity. Nor can any heresy exist where the Rock is confessed that is revealed not by flesh and blood but by the Father in Heaven.

 

[Louie1983]

Guys, don’t be fooled by this article. I read the first quote that the article tries to use from tertullian and there was a clear effort to confuse people!

Here’s what i mean, below is a quote from the article that tries to use the quote as proof that some church fathers did not agree with peter being the head of the catholic church.

"now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:1819a] or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19b] that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? **On 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 **(Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys (Santa Barbara: "

The author here is trying to confuse everyone by suggesting contrary to what the catholic church teaches.
Without even noticing the author actually supports the Catholic church’s teaching on Peter.

"“and i will give you the keys, not the church” - Yes, Peter was given the keys to govern christ’s church on earth! He did not give the keys to the church! he gave them to Peter it’s leader here on earth! To me, this is further supporting the role of Peter as leader of his disciples and of his church! If Chirst were to give the keys to the “church” back then, then we would have the same problem the protestants have today with different interpretations of scripture.

“and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” - Again, same concept here. Tertullian is supporting the church’s teaching here by enforcing the fact that Peter was the first Pope and that Christ has given him (therefore his successors) the authority to forgive and retain sin. No-one else!

And in any case if some theologians disagreed with certain teachings, doesn’t mean the church is wrong. For as many as there were disagreeing theolgians there was an equal if not more amount that supported the church!

 

[JohnVIII]

The successors to St. Peter is all who like him confess, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”

 

[racing59]

The successors to St. Peter is all who like him confess, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”

O.K. I’m confused, I thought the seperation of the Orthodox and RCC came over the Nicene Creed words being changed were they Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son? From what I’m gathering from you here is the Orthodox Church also rejects the Primacy of Peter? Why do Byzintines fall under the Primacy of Peter?
I’m an outsider looking in and want to learn.
Peace be with you

 

[guanophore]

O.K. I’m confused, I thought the seperation of the Orthodox and RCC came over the Nicene Creed words being changed were they Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son? From what I’m gathering from you here is the Orthodox Church also rejects the Primacy of Peter? Why do Byzintines fall under the Primacy of Peter?
I’m an outsider looking in and want to learn.
Peace be with you

Yes, that phrase in the Creed, called the filoque, is one bone of contention. Another is the Latin Rite propensity for the “development of doctrine”, which precipitated that change to the creed, as well as the dogma of the infallibility of the successor of Peter, and the infallible ex -cathedra statements made by the same.These are perceived by the Orthodox as “innovations” to the Gospel, much like Latin Catholics view the Protestant Reformation.

The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics recognize Peter as “first among equals”, but consider the church model of governance to be conciliar, and not autocratic. They recognize the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, and a valid Patriarch, but not “supreme ruler” over the other bishops, who are also valid succesors of the Aposltes. The Eastern Catholics have returned to unity with the Bishop of Rome, but have significant differences in Ecclesial practices, liturgy and theology. The best that some of them can do is agree not to argue with the Western rendering of theologies, such as purgatory.

 

[racing59]

Yes, that phrase in the Creed, called the filoque, is one bone of contention. Another is the Latin Rite propensity for the “development of doctrine”, which precipitated that change to the creed, as well as the dogma of the infallibility of the successor of Peter, and the infallible ex -cathedra statements made by the same.These are perceived by the Orthodox as “innovations” to the Gospel, much like Latin Catholics view the Protestant Reformation.

The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics recognize Peter as “first among equals”, but consider the church model of governance to be conciliar, and not autocratic. They recognize the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, and a valid Patriarch, but not “supreme ruler” over the other bishops, who are also valid succesors of the Aposltes. The Eastern Catholics have returned to unity with the Bishop of Rome, but have significant differences in Ecclesial practices, liturgy and theology. The best that some of them can do is agree not to argue with the Western rendering of theologies, such as purgatory.

Thank you guanophore,

So would you say the following. The Latin rite believes in a monarchy were there must be a prime minister and his cabnet and the Orthodox or Eastern rite believes that there was just a cabnet and no prime minister?

 

[guanophore]

Thank you guanophore,

So would you say the following. The Latin rite believes in a monarchy were there must be a prime minister and his cabnet and the Orthodox or Eastern rite believes that there was just a cabnet and no prime minister?

Eastern Rite Catholics accept the 'prime minister" role of the successor of Peter, which is why they are considered to be in union with Rome. The Orthodox accepted the primacy of Peter also, until that primacy began to demonstrate signs of “supremacy”. The titles taken over by the Bishop of Rome from the Empire such as “Supreme Pontiff” and other similar titles, from the Eastern perspective, are far and above anything the Apostles would recognize. One of the problems that contributed to the schism in 1054 was the same arguement the Apostles were having over “who is the greatest”. The failure to maintain the servant attitude and the flagrant arrogance (on both sides) contributed to the split.

I have read some Orthodox who take the same position that the Protestants do, that the gift was given to the Catholic church, but was lost, through abuse, and resides in the successor of Peter no longer. I do not think this is an official Orthodox teaching, but it does appear in many documents by Orthodox theologians and Patriarchs.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m sorry I was not clear. I attended some years ago, a Catholic college. My professors were all theologians or biblical scholars with doctorates. They disabused us quite quickly of a lot of “Catholic teaching” that attempts to make the RCC somehow the beginning of Christianity. That is certainly not the record established by a thorough examination of the documents. This of course is to be assumed to a degree, the Church desires legitimacy, especially in the face of opposition from various groups who also claimed primacy of theology. They were in the end suppressed as heresy, and eventually the RCC emerged.

Hi SpiritMeadow,

Your view of church history seems have left out anything pertaining to East-West relations, or the other patriarchates besides the Roman one.

The irony, of course, is that the Catholic professors you learned from would almost certainly call themselves “ecumenical”. (I guess this is an example of the selective ecumenism that can be found among some liberals.)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thanks for your compliment, but I’m not a scholar. I do, however, love to read and research as much as I can. When I find something that has answered my own questions, I copy it and put it where I can find it again.

If another Church rejects the Catholic Church as being the first Church that Christ Himself started, wouldn’t it be self serving for the other Church to accept an interpretation as a means of justification for being separated from the Catholic Church? I don’t mean this question to be offensive. I am merely trying to show how I can see it is self serving interpretations, no matter which Church we are discussing. As you say, any Church member is going to make the best case for the Church they have chosen. It’s not a one side or the other, it’s true for all Churches.

You point is well taken. They could of course. My Church as far as I know, doesn’t get into such issues. But I think that there are other ways of looking at. I would argue that at least for me, and certainly for many Protestants, claiming that Peter was not the “first pope” has nothing to do with their choice of church. It is simply not important whether the RCC was first in time or not. There are more than enough arguments to “justify” leaving without having to resort to that one. I agree, that anyone tends to make the best case for their Church, but I would also argue that you don’t find generally speaking apologetics sites around for other churches. I don’t see anyone in the Anglican tradition who feels any need to “defend” the faith as it were. I am somewhat saddened that some Catholics do, for I don’t see it as necessary. Some disagree quite obviously.

I was raised as a Protestant. It was contradictions between Protestant Churches that made me research Church history, Bible history and scriptures themselves. Because of my own research, I converted to Catholicism.

The magic of the human being is that we are infinitely unique and any number of people can examine the same things and come to quite varied conclusions. It is always most important that your own conscience is clear that you have chosen as best you can.

The early Church fathers have played a major impact on that decision. If we compared current traditions against the early Church fathers, we should be able to recognize which Church of today is the Church that is practicing Christianity as it was practiced by the first Christians. This is one reason I feel so many Protestants reject the writings of the early Church fathers.

That I find odd, because I would argue that the RCC has strayed quite severely away from the teachings and practices of the early Christian churches throughout the realm of Christendom. I may no claim that my church does better, in some instances perhaps. I have been told that in interfaith work, some of our liturgical practices have convinced a bishop or two in the RC faith that we perhaps have it a bit closer than they. No doubt we are all helping each other to investigate and try as best we can to return to our origins.

I don’t feel that there is much basis for rejecting the ECF on things in general. Of course, we must be aware that they were not as capable of knowing any number of things given the lack of ease of transfer of information, the less rigorous understanding of historical truth, and such things as biblical exegesis which we have developed over the centuries. I certainly dont’ find them worthless, nor do I actually find them pointing in some RC sense.

Of course if interpretations of scriptures is self serving, according to one’s interpretations, the same will hold true for interpreting the writings of the early Church fathers.

Everyone’s objective should be to fit their theology to scriptures and not the other way around. That’s what led me to the Catholic Church, the scriptures themself. Why people cannot see Peter’s primacy from scriptures alone is beyond me.

No doubt this is the big issue. What is scripture? What is accurate interpretation? The world is filled with experts who attempt to tell us. Theology to be intellectually valid must be developed out of biblical text. And of course deciding whose interepretation is the most correct is the issue as I said. I on the contrary don’t see really anything much in scripture that points to Peter as prime. Certainly Jesus considered him the leader of the band of disciples. But after the crucifixion, Peter’s role seems smaller than say Paul’s or James. It is clear that Paul and Peter were often at odds, and Paul certainly did not defer to Peter. James clearly seemed the head of the Jerusalem church, Peter ended up in Antioch, Paul was everywhere. When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, clearly Peter was not there. Somebody mentioned that when Revelation was written sometime around close to 100 CE, after Peter was dead, the writer speaks of the “7 churches”. He treats them all separately. this on first glance does seem to suggest that there was no “head church” at Rome. But that is perhaps another subject and as I said, that was just a point in passing from another thread.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi SpiritMeadow,

Your view of church history seems have left out anything pertaining to East-West relations, or the other patriarchates besides the Roman one.

The irony, of course, is that the Catholic professors you learned from would almost certainly call themselves “ecumenical”. (I guess this is an example of the selective ecumenism that can be found among some liberals.)

Hi Peter,

Indeed, I did not leave it out, I never got to it. My point was made. I stopped after making the point that I was taught that there was no RCC for some time after the Christian churches had been in existence. My purpose was not to discuss church history per se but to make a simple point. This has nothing to do with ecumenism and liberalism, but nice attempt!

 

[racing59]

Eastern Rite Catholics accept the 'prime minister" role of the successor of Peter, which is why they are considered to be in union with Rome. The Orthodox accepted the primacy of Peter also, until that primacy began to demonstrate signs of “supremacy”. The titles taken over by the Bishop of Rome from the Empire such as “Supreme Pontiff” and other similar titles, from the Eastern perspective, are far and above anything the Apostles would recognize. One of the problems that contributed to the schism in 1054 was the same arguement the Apostles were having over “who is the greatest”. The failure to maintain the servant attitude and the flagrant arrogance (on both sides) contributed to the split.

I have read some Orthodox who take the same position that the Protestants do, that the gift was given to the Catholic church, but was lost, through abuse, and resides in the successor of Peter no longer. I do not think this is an official Orthodox teaching, but it does appear in many documents by Orthodox theologians and Patriarchs.

**Hi Spirit,Hi Peter J, Hi guanophore,
I’m trying to digest this thread.I understand that the Eastern Church has Apostolic succession under Andrew and Western Church under Peter.I further understand after Constantine divided the empire in two, to his two sons, Julian to the East, I don’t know the name of the son that took the West.There were 10 other Apostles that started Churches around the known world at that time. They set up bishops of churches in there area’s. Wouldn’t mere geographic keep them from communicating to Rome and persecution of the Church keep them from communicating? Whether Peter is first point has no bearing on whether I’ll be Catholic or not. I’m just trying to get my arms around this whole thing. I can see were Spirit is coming from the same place as the Eastern Church. With all that said one last question, what happen to the Apostolic Succession of the other 10 Apostles? (Matthias taking place of Judas) and what rite would those Churches fall under? **

 

[guanophore]

**Hi Spirit,Hi Peter J, Hi guanophore,
I’m trying to digest this thread.I understand that the Eastern Church has Apostolic succession under Andrew and Western Church under Peter.I further understand after Constantine divided the empire in two, to his two sons, Julian to the East, I don’t know the name of the son that took the West.There were 10 other Apostles that started Churches around the known world at that time. They set up bishops of churches in there area’s. Wouldn’t mere geographic keep them from communicating to Rome and persecution of the Church keep them from communicating? Whether Peter is first point has no bearing on whether I’ll be Catholic or not. I’m just trying to get my arms around this whole thing. I can see were Spirit is coming from the same place as the Eastern Church. With all that said one last question, what happen to the Apostolic Succession of the other 10 Apostles? (Matthias taking place of Judas) and what rite would those Churches fall under? **

There are Apostolic successions from all the Apostles. Peter also ordained a line of bishops when he was in Antioch, an earlier line of succession than the one in Rome, which did not occur for perhaps 20 yrs later. Peter’s primacy came from the fact that Jesus gave Him gifts and responsibilities that he did not give to the other Apostles, but none of the Apostles were divided from one another. They did scatter to the utter reaches of the known world, spreading the gospel. The majority of them are Eastern Rite churches, of which there are 22 in union with the Bishop of Rome. You are correct, politics, wars, and economic problems did prevent communication and collaboration. That is why the first ecumencial council was not held until 325. Persecution kept the bishops from meeting, as they did not want to be found all in one place and slaughtered.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I hope I’m not speaking out of turn,but I kind of understand were Spirit Meadow is coming from. Theologians and scholars can be confusing at times look at the debate on this thread. One’s faith should not be based on a single Scripture, it should be based on what God has shown to that person. I’m a Thomas who has my human doubts, “Blessed is he who has not seen yet believes”. There are many people on both sides of the fence that are not Apologist, yet the believe in their faith through Jesus Christ.For me to be in the Catholic Church would not depend on the Primacy of Peter( I understand it is Churches teaching) it would be my love for Jesus Christ in the Sacraments, Mass,and the Scriptures.To get to the point of not seeing,but yet I would still believe.

Gabriel of 12;
Sure I come across this alot of different opinions, views of doctrines and revelations from both secular and religious scholars. I Trust my faith in Jesus, here is Jesus.

Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

any questions???

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter,

Indeed, I did not leave it out, I never got to it. My point was made. I stopped after making the point that I was taught that there was no RCC for some time after the Christian churches had been in existence. My purpose was not to discuss church history per se but to make a simple point. This has nothing to do with ecumenism and liberalism, but nice attempt!

Nice attempt yourself.

 

[Peter_J]

**With all that said one last question, what happen to the Apostolic Succession of the other 10 Apostles? (Matthias taking place of Judas) and what rite would those Churches fall under? **

Out of the “Pentarchy”, 3 Sees are Petrine: the Sees of Rome and Antioch were founded by St. Peter, and the See of Alexandria was founded by his disciple St. Mark. The Patriarch of Constantinople is the successor of St. Andrew, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem is the successor of St. James.

St. Thomas went off to India. The other apostles, I don’t know.

 

[racing59]

Gabriel of 12;
Sure I come across this alot of different opinions, views of doctrines and revelations from both secular and religious scholars. I Trust my faith in Jesus, here is Jesus.

Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

any questions???

I can see were the Latin right believes this, although I see in this post not all of the Eastern rite except Peter as head Apostle, I’m coming to understand their point of view, that all Apostles were equal. I further have come to understand that the Eastern rite still falls under the Primacy of Peter, the Church is One. Correct? With that being said are there not other Churches that may come into the Primacy of Peter? Is it that important then we debate whether Peter is first Pope, if Churches won’t to be in one accord with the teachings of all the Apostles?