WE’RE NOT RECREATING HISTORY HERE.
the Church of Rome has from the beginning, been the seat of authority. Because it is Peter’s see.
Hi steve,
Correct, we do not recreate the past (history) , but recall , or retell, even interpret it.
“from the beginning” can be a suggestive interpretation. Certainly the church first started in Jerusalem, and “was at the beginning”. Thereafter Antioch was formidable and then Corinth. Peter and Paul were not in Rome till maybe three decades after the church started in Jerusalem. So while Peter was a “bishop” in Jerusalem, and then at Antioch and Corinth, he ended up in Rome. Not sure if anyone suggests Peter’s see did not travel with him, as with any apostle.
So while historically Rome was not "at the beginning’’, it could be said in only a general sense, with a backdrop of 2000 years , that yes relatively speaking, Rome was an authoritative see “from the beginning”.
It is assumption that it was Peter’s see and not Peter and Paul’s see. Few early historians separate the two as the foundation for Rome’s "greatness’’, even authority, and of course of honor.
That’s an understatement, IMV. Compare salutations with the other Churches he writes to. Hardly anything is said in the salutation. Not so with his letter to the Church of Rome.
Maybe the church at Rome (almost a century after Jerusalem first church) was the greatest , or largest, influential, church at the time, apart from any famous “see”. I mean if the see of Peter had rested on a much smaller, less worldly influential city , then any glory or honor could be more easily and solely attributed to Peter and the chair. But that is not the case.
“Christians” you mention are **all **Catholics in the Catholic Church. We understand office and authority. Those who don’t and didn’t , were the heretics Paul wrote against, and the Church and the ECF’s wrote against.
I would hope today’s Catholics understand their own hierarchy. Yet it may color the interpretation of what a letter may have implied 1900 years ago and whether a church “presides” in a region or from a region. (just as O and P understanding of hierarchy colors the interpretation).
Ignatius said, “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.”
Why is this so hard for you?
Again, did they issue commandments only from Rome , or wherever they traveled ? The paragraph in which this text is found suggests all churches , not just Rome. But yes they certainly issued commandments to the church at Rome during their final few years of life that was spent there. Nothing unusual for a bishop/presbyter/apostle.
There is only one successor to Peter at a time.
Evidence for this is weak. I would think Peter ordained bishops wherever he stayed (Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Rome).
Some suggest the first few popes may have been ordained by Peter as bishops, and that Rome was governed by a plurality of bishops , a presbytery. (Perhaps one of the reasons Ignatius does not mention any Roman bishops as he does other cities).
Peter makes several references of what to do after his departure and makes zero mention of any head appointee successor, and only mentions his authoritative writ to "recall’’ or fall back on .
You’re trying to push Protestant thought onto the Church Our Lord established
Absolutely.
These are Catholics benhur NOT Protestants.
Of course they had not become protestant yet.
*]John the apostle is still alive living in Ephesus during the time of Clement’s letter in Rome, settling sedition in Corinth. That alone is HUGE
Many believe John was not alive at time of the writing, or that he was very aged. The letter and his death are almost within in a year or two of each other.
*]Why not go to those Churches in that circle to settle their sedition? They all had ties to Paul. So Why Clement in Rome?
First, the request was not to clement , but indeed to the “church at Rome” and certainly implying its elders/presbyters/bishops.
As stated earlier if Rome was not so worldly glorious and authoritative you would have a better point. This was all way after Paul was alive, so Corinth was free to choose from any church that was healthy ,and would carry the most weight, if even by size, grandeur, or claimed honor of Peter and Paul’s ministry and glorious ending there.
Only Orthodox who came back in union with the pope and the Church united to him, are considered Catholic. Some Protestant’s came back in union under those circumstances as well, and they can be called Catholic
Yes, that is CC understanding, but not P’s understanding.
When I say union, I mean full union. Not some squishy understanding.
Understand. Yet Catholics are divided as to just how legitimate a “squishy” union can be. After all a union is also with Christ, and that is tougher to dogmatically judge as “squishy”.
Catholics do because we are
Catholics call their church properly as , the Catholic Church. I have not heard anyone say, " I go to the One Church around the corner, or , “the Apostolic Church around the corner”. Of course Catholics describe their church as one, holy, apostolic , but as virtues or adjectives. And if they are such words(adjectives and not proper nouns), so to then could be the word “catholic” be an adjective in the creed.
Wonder no more. It’s not speaking in adjectives.
Then why do you drop those
common “words” from your
proper name ?
I’ve also heard that he does not believe in approved apparitions and thinks they are demonic.
If true, interesting to say the least…