Primacy to supremacy?

[Nathan_Wagar]

I am aware of the primacy of Rome, since even the easter orthodox admits to Rome as a “first among equals.” What my question regards is at what point did the bishop of Rome become univeral over the whole church? Even Steven Ray’s book “Upon this Rock” appears a bit fuzzy about this prcoess. He shows the primacy of Peter, then the primacy of Rome, but he is not as clear about when and how Rome moved into more than mere primacy. Eastern Orthodox would claim that Rome basically decided to bring everybody under Rome.

And sorry about my inconsistent capitalization. I seem to care less about good writing as I go along in life and I apologize…

 

[DavidFilmer]

What my question regards is at what point did the bishop of Rome become univeral over the whole church?

It happened the day Peter arrived in Rome. The primacy of the pope descends from the Office of Peter, not the city of Rome.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I thought I was being obvious when I say Rome, I mean the bishop of Rome taking on the office of Peter. I was clear to state that I am aware of the concept. My question is how this process played out in history. To repeat my question in different words, when did Peter’s primacy as “a first among equals” turn into a supremacy? The eastern orthodox obviously has a different understanding regarding the nature of Peter, so I am curious how this played out in history.

 

[DavWan]

I thought I was being obvious when I say Rome, I mean the bishop of Rome taking on the office of Peter. I was clear to state that I am aware of the concept. My question is how this process played out in history. To repeat my question in different words, when did Peter’s primacy as “a first among equals” turn into a supremacy? The eastern orthodox obviously has a different understanding regarding the nature of Peter, so I am curious how this played out in history.

Alternately, one could ask the Eastern Orthodox when the Primacy of Peter became reduced to “First Among Equals.” It certainly did not exist before Constantinople was established after all and sought to have that Patriarch seek to be declared immediately after Rome based on the prominence of Constantinople.

Remember, Antioch see was founded by Peter, but Peter installed a successor and left. Alexandria was founded by Mark and was believed to have been elevated to Bishop by Peter. However, neither city had the primacy Rome was always believed to have.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Thanks for the response. History has never been my strong point.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I mean the bishop of Rome taking on the office of Peter.

The Bishop of Rome *never *took on the office of Peter. The first Bishop of Rome *was *Peter, and his successors have always held his Office.

The eastern orthodox obviously has a different understanding regarding the nature of Peter, so I am curious how this played out in history.

The Early Church Fathers were pretty clear on the point. In fact, it takes TWO CA tracts just for a small summary:

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

“The Bishop of Rome never took on the office of Peter. The first Bishop of Rome was Peter, and his successors have always held his Office”

Im not trying to nitpick too much but I know that Peter was the first Pope. And in the same statement you both state that the bishop of Rome did not take on the office of Peter, then in the next sentence say that Peter had successors that took his office. That is exactly what I said. I really appreciate your guys’ responses, but I think you are used to people unaware of church teachings, which is why in many posts I attempt to state what I know ahead of time so that I get a specific answer. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I own the catechism, read the bible, pick up the encyclicals when I go to mass every Sunday, etc etc. I am asking more for particulars about dogma, because I like to have a firm intellectual basis. So what I do is see things from the other side. Learning how to defend it keeps me sharp, and increases my own awareness of a teaching.

 

[FCEGM]

“The Bishop of Rome never took on the office of Peter. The first Bishop of Rome was Peter, and his successors have always held his Office”

Im not trying to nitpick too much but I know that Peter was the first Pope. And in the same statement you both state that the bishop of Rome did not take on the office of Peter, then in the next sentence say that Peter had successors that took his office. That is exactly what I said. I really appreciate your guys’ responses, but I think you are used to people unaware of church teachings, which is why in many posts I attempt to state what I know ahead of time so that I get a specific answer. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I own the catechism, read the bible, pick up the encyclicals when I go to mass every Sunday, etc etc. I am asking more for particulars about dogma, because I like to have a firm intellectual basis. So what I do is see things from the other side. Learning how to defend it keeps me sharp, and increases my own awareness of a teaching.

Nathan, this website offers a wealth of excellent material regarding the Peter and the Papacy - just following the link to “apologetics” and then “papacy”:

catholic-legate.com/

 

[zach_dunn]

“The Bishop of Rome never took on the office of Peter. The first Bishop of Rome was Peter, and his successors have always held his Office”

Im not trying to nitpick too much but I know that Peter was the first Pope. And in the same statement you both state that the bishop of Rome did not take on the office of Peter, then in the next sentence say that Peter had successors that took his office. That is exactly what I said. I really appreciate your guys’ responses, but I think you are used to people unaware of church teachings, which is why in many posts I attempt to state what I know ahead of time so that I get a specific answer. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I own the catechism, read the bible, pick up the encyclicals when I go to mass every Sunday, etc etc. I am asking more for particulars about dogma, because I like to have a firm intellectual basis. So what I do is see things from the other side. Learning how to defend it keeps me sharp, and increases my own awareness of a teaching.

I would have answered your question the same way, when you put it the way you did, it kinda sounded like you thought there was a bishop of Rome (not Peter) but the Church just decided to make the bishop of Rome the succesor of Peter. That probably wasn’t what you were trying to say, but that’s what it sounded like to me. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and the first Pope, each of his successors “took on” his office precisely because he was the first bishop of Rome.

Hope this helps, if that’s not what you thought, David, sorry.

Pax,
Zach

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Yeah looking back I can see how it could be taken the wrong way. My apologies for not being more clear.