Do we have any historical evidence for the Primacy of Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JDGaney
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JDGaney

Guest
Like any proof before the 4th Century (legalization of Christianity) and also the idea that several other bishops had leading roles that may have trumped Rome’s?

I’m torn between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and the papacy might be the settling issue.
 
JDGaney said:
Like any proof before the 4th Century (legalization of Christianity) and also the idea that several other bishops had leading roles that may have trumped Rome’s?

I’m torn between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and the papacy might be the settling issue.
Click to expand...
THere is a current thread in the Eastern Catholicism section on this very question called “DIVINE Insitution of the Primacy.”

Everyone agrees, including Orthodox, to the HISTORICAL primacy of the BIshop of Rome. The question is the interpretation of what the Primacy means.

Is it according to the Absolutist Petrine view (held mostly by traditionalist Catholics) which makes th e Pope the only real authority in the Church from which all other authority is derived?

Is it according to the High Petrine view (held by many Catholics and many Orthodox alike) which acknowledges that head bishops (on whatever level of the hierarchy - metropolitan, primate, Catholicos, Patriarch, Pope), have a real and unique authority in his office as head bishop, and shares authority with his brother bishops?

Is it according to the Low Petrine view (held by many Eastern Orthodox) which claims that head bishops don’t have any real authority but only a primacy of honor?

The above are just very short and incomplete descriptions of the three positions. This has been discussed at length in the CAF. If you want to read up on it, use the search function to look up “High Petrine” with poster name “mardukm.”

Have a good read, and welcome to the Forums.🙂

Blessings,
Marduk
 
In light of mardukm, you may want to follow this link.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8375645#post8375645

Also, I recommend The Early Papacy by Father Adrian Fortescue (amazon link here: amazon.com/The-Early-Papacy-Synod-Chalcedon/dp/1586171763 ). It is a great, straightforward book about the role, jurisdiction, and beliefs about the papacy up to the Council of Chalcedon in 451. It’s also cheap!

EDIT: I just realized that the very informative thread above is started by none other than mardukm! :o
 
A few people that knew of this occasion in history

*Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).

*The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how “Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat” (III, 80). The word “chair” (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one’s episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop’s chair).

Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).

*Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).

*Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as “the place of Peter” (Ep ad Anton), and as “the Chair of Peter” (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).

*Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen’s claim to the “succession of Peter” and to the “Chair of Peter” (Ep ad Cyprian).

*Eusebius (314) says that Peter was “the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years” (Chron an 44), and calls Linus “first after Peter to obtain the episcopate” (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was “the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter” (HE III, 4).

The Council of Sardica “honors the memory of the Apostle Peter” in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).

Athanasius (340’s) calls Rome the “Apostolic Throne” – a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).

*Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, “in which chair sat Peter himself.” He also says how “Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair,” which “is the first of the marks of the Church.” (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).

*Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the “Apostolic chair” in which “the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church” (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how “The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church” and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, “Thou art Peter…” (Decree of Damasus 382).

*Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as “Peter’s chair” and the Roman church where “Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat” (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).

*Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the “chair of Peter” and the “Apostolic chair,” and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).

Some more evidence
-*philvaz.com/apologetics/apolog.htm#FATHERS
Note:the Bible is historical too:thumbsup:

Hope this helps
Shalom
God bless
 
I believe Clement wrote to the Corinthians to resolve a dispute, even though there were Bishops closer to Corinth than Rome, and even a living Apostle (John). Yet still the Roman Bishop mediated.

“St. John indeed was still alive, and Corinth was rather nearer to Ephesus than to Rome. Clement evidently writes officially, with all that authority of the Roman Church of which Ignatius and Irenaeus have so much to say.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
 
Romans 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
Here St Paul says that God will soon crush Satan under the Church of Rome’s feet. That sounds like evidence for Primacy to me.
 
JDGaney said:
Like any proof before the 4th Century (legalization of Christianity) and also the idea that several other bishops had leading roles that may have trumped Rome’s?
I’m torn between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and the papacy might be the settling issue.
Click to expand...
Check out the Council of Nicaea in 325AD,
Canon 6: The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.
Notice that there is no mention of Constantinople or Jerusalem. The Patriarchate of Constantinople didn’t even exist yet, and the Bishop of Jerusalem didn’t have the jurisdiction rights that Antioch and Alexandria had. This demolishes the Eastern Orthodox claim that the Patriarch of Constantinople or any other bishop had a leading role above Rome. In fact, this Canon proves the Papacy.

And to add to that, the Second Ecumenical Council (381) taught this:
Canon #2: Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs.

Notice here that the Fathers laid out the jurisdictional limits of Alexandria, and of Antioch, but no mention of the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdictional limits! The only conceivable answer for such an omission is if they saw Rome as beyond the authority of an Ecumenical Council, with Rome’s jurisdiction being the whole world.

And look at what the Second Ecumenical Council says in the very next canon:

Canon #3: Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.
Because the EO were jealous of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, they elevated the newly formed bishop of Constantinople to 2nd place, violating Nicaea which put Alexandria at 2nd place and Antioch at 3rd. But even here they didn’t dare try to put themselves on par with the Bishop of Rome!

Again, this makes no sense in the EO world-view, since Rome should not be above the others, but rather all should be equal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top