G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Right and this point is overlooked by many. As I’ve elaborated on it from the Catholic perspective also. Even there we see misunderstanding.
- Status
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Perhaps on account of some piety. But the early Christians did not typically count the apostles as being the bishop of one place because the apostles’ function was different. While bishops (are supposed to) remain in one place, the apostle had no one place to be attached to, hence Paul, while the founder of numerous Churches like the Church in Athens or Corinth, cannot properly be regarded as the first bishop of these places.
C
Credo_ergo_sum
Guest
Yes and no. I don’t think that the east fully realised the claims that the popes were making at the time, and *if *they did they paid mere lip service to those claims. You would be hard pressed to see Eastern bishops acknowledging these claims and acting on it, and in the cases where it happened, like with Eusebius of Dorylaeum for example, it was because it was in their advantage to do so and as soon as they got what they wanted they forgot those nice words they spoke to the Pope before they even turned their back.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That is how I feel. The emperors especially had extra-ecclesial incentives to pay lip service to the most influential man in Old Rome. Similarly, bishops knew that gaining the support of such an influential Western bishop could settle doctrinal matters. This seems to have been the mindset of Sergius when he dragged pope Honorius into his ill-fated and heretical attempt to quell the debate between the monothelites and dyothelites.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
This is understood as is the understanding of the Apostles. A great example of this is Alexandria. St Mark was not one of the 12 Apostle’s, nevertheless He exceeded from the 70. However his authority came through Apostolic Succession and is Biblically documented. This apostolicity was not only furnished on grounds of its foundation but rather by the persistence of the Church in observing the same faith received by the Apostle and his successors, the Holy Fathers. No different than Antioch with St Peter. I fail to see the arguement. The earliest four sees: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome all give us clear indication of the Apostolic Succession.
Then through this understanding what do we say about St James, St Peter. They are of the 12 Apostles in a situation where they indeed functioned as a Bishop doesn’t change or alter their reality or the further established See. No-where do we see St Paul remain and function as a Bishop of a See. St Paul always hoped to return to Rome, and so He was granted that through the Lord after many trials.
And what do we say about Contantinople there were no Apostles were alive? However; the Bishops through Apostolic Succession transmitted there Authority. And Doctrine was further defined as with the Second Rome. Most importantly is no-where was the Deposit of Faith altered. This has always been defended and preserved.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Eusebius of Dorylaeum was a 5th-century bishop and the Primacy was well developed by this period. And sure we can say some didn’t fully understand what was transmitted. However, this also indicates the truth was transmitted and someone chose to believe otherwise or pay no attention it, or as the preponderance of evidence indicates…uphold it. Which in fact was done till 1054.
M
mercytruth
Guest
Maybe I should not say this, but this is my perception.
Since the Apostle Paul’s ministry was to the Gentiles, I see his legacy more within the church of the West. Since the Apostle Peter’s ministry was to the Jews, I see his legacy more within the church of the East.
There seems to have been a division of sorts from the very beginning.
If this is true, what is God’s will for the Church today?
God’s peace
Micah
Since the Apostle Paul’s ministry was to the Gentiles, I see his legacy more within the church of the West. Since the Apostle Peter’s ministry was to the Jews, I see his legacy more within the church of the East.
There seems to have been a division of sorts from the very beginning.
If this is true, what is God’s will for the Church today?
God’s peace
Micah
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well persecution of Christians isn’t it. Our dysfunctional ability to do Gods will per scripture and Tradition, by being as He willed …One.
And it seems we have some very good debates on Scripture and Tradition. I tend to agree with Rome and follow in obedience,the best I can. And for sure obedience thus temptation is the test allowed by our Lord.
C
Credo_ergo_sum
Guest
I don’t understand what you’re saying. What was done till 1054?
M
mercytruth
Guest
So can we presume that if we diligently pray for union with the Father and the Son, we will become one with each other as the middle wall of partition is broken?
God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Micah
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Unity of the Church East and West then we have to look at schism. Other words I’m looking at periods with no schism.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
And you missed the point that there is no evidence.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
For sure, and onward we go with diligent prayer for the World.
M
mercytruth
Guest
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Not at all, I presented what I believe to the historical debate over the years which we have access to. I don’t deny there is different thinking on many issues. As I also said, in fact I agree with the EO on certain issues.
M
mercytruth
Guest
I think it would be wise to consider this early church document as part of the historical record:
Section 4. Enumeration Ordained by Apostles
Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?
XLVI.
Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:— James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James.
Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus.
Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul.
Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist.
Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; 2 Timothy 4:21 and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.
Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John.
Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; 2 Timothy 1:5 and the third Aristo.
Of Pergamus, Gaius.
Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me.
Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul.
Of Crete, Titus.
Of Athens, Dionysius.
Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones.
Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus.
Of Colossæ;, Philemon.
Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon.
Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens.
Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas.
Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus.
These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20
Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VII
newadvent.org/fathers/07157.htm
God’s peace
Micah
Section 4. Enumeration Ordained by Apostles
Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?
XLVI.
Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:— James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James.
Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus.
Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul.
Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist.
Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; 2 Timothy 4:21 and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.
Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John.
Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; 2 Timothy 1:5 and the third Aristo.
Of Pergamus, Gaius.
Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me.
Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul.
Of Crete, Titus.
Of Athens, Dionysius.
Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones.
Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus.
Of Colossæ;, Philemon.
Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon.
Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens.
Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas.
Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus.
These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20
Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VII
newadvent.org/fathers/07157.htm
God’s peace
Micah
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
So the first successor of Peter isn’t even ordained by him
M
mercytruth
Guest
Has anyone wondered why the apostle Paul wrote his epistle to the church of Rome, and not the apostle Peter? Could it be that this record is true? That the apostle Paul ordained Linus as the first bishop of Rome?So the first successor of Peter isn’t even ordained by him
God’s peace
Micah
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
If that’s true, then how any Pope truly a successor of St. Peter?So the first successor of Peter isn’t even ordained by him
Maybe like the Ecumenical Councils canons say the preeminence of the Church in Rome is based on it having been the imperial city and not because it was the chair of St. Peter?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
One more thing inconsistent here is that on the list of the Catholic Church of Popes, St. Clement is third after Peter, not second…
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
The text there says Clement was ordained second by Peter.
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
The text there says Clement was ordained second by Peter.
- Status