Um, it was the capital of the empire and the center of the world. Btw, Rome had a very large Jewish and an even larger Eastern population at the time (the predominate language, outside the courts, was Greek, not Latin there. The Mass would not be at all in Latin until Pope Victor, who came from North Africa).There is still the missing link which does not satisfy what was left of the apostles according to the holy scriptures and what we found in history of the church.
In Acts 15, it is clear that everyone went back to Jerusalem at a council meeting.
Acts 15:2
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Jerusalem was the center of Christianity and that’s why in Revelation, there was a promise of “new Jerusalem”; symbolical of new home.
Another question that must be answered is that why the young church then, which were mostly composed of Jews at the time of James, Peter and John, would establish the ‘central seat’ at Rome, which was predominantly pagan and where persecution was greater?
St. Peter was part of the problem, as Galatians stated (in the revision on Galatians and Acts, why does St. Peter fear St. James’ men?).Where did St Peter ask a question? He appears to have been setting policy, not asking a question in Acts 15"7-11. Note that his words ended the discussion,. St James then directed the implementation St Peter’s policy.
Very clear, for instance St. Ignatius talks about the bishops, priests and deacons, but nothing about a pontiff, even when he writes to Rome.Discussing Mt. 16:18 without discussing all of the other points of Scripture that stand in affirmation of it is unreasonable. It is not an solitary text. Taken in itself, the meaning might not be clear. Taken in the context of the rest of Scripture and in the context of the early Church, it is clear.
They also appealed to Alexandria and Constantinople etc. to settle disputes. Rome was unique in the West, not so in the East.I am not sure what your being a believer of ‘centralized church organization’ has to do with anything, but ok…let us discuss.
Christ was the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, among many other things, and in fulfilling this role he appointed for himself a ‘prime minisiter’ that would be the vicar in his stead. No other apostle is given this task and, therefore, St. Peter is given primacy and authority just as the ‘prime minister’ had in the Davidic Kingdom. Couple that with numerous early church fathers appealing to the Bishop of Rome to settle disputes, and I believe the case is closed. Of course, I know that you do not agree and I will be open to hear what you have to say.
I wonder if that could be because the term “pontiff” was not applied to the Bishop of Rome until much later?Very clear, for instance St. Ignatius talks about the bishops, priests and deacons, but nothing about a pontiff, even when he writes to Rome.
No, the holder of the title, the Emperor Nero, would have frowned on that:You do know that the title is pagan in origin, and given by the emperors to the pope.I wonder if that could be because the term “pontiff” was not applied to the Bishop of Rome until much later?
Roman churches in the first century included both Jewish and Gentile communities; since Rome had a diverse, multi-national population, there most certainly was more than one congregation, and thus many “elders.”
Since the full delineation of “elder” responsibilities had not yet been laid out in a formal, administrative way to mean full-blown Bishop-of-the-place, with priests holding part of that ministry and decons in service, even an Apostle, even PETER the Apostle, would have had colleagues, who functioned in the role of elder, both alongside him in a large church, and in the several congregations.
Even a stout papist, such as I, would not expect to see the Apostle Peter walking around wearing a button that said “Pontifex Maximus.”
I have no problem with the history. I see the development of the discipline as a perfectly reasonable and natural outgrowth of the historic process and consistent with Scripture.No, the holder of the title, the Emperor Nero, would have frowned on that:You do know that the title is pagan in origin, and given by the emperors to the pope.
He wasn’t called pope from several centuries more either. I mean, no mention of some absolute head, as the Vatican or “papists” as you say, would have it.
Yes, and even the King in Isaiah held a “key” at the same time as the Prime Minister held the “key” delegated to him …Revelation says it is Jesus whom is holding the key even right NOW
Rev 3:7To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, 5 write this**: " 'The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this: **Check that reference.
Mt 16:19 (KJV) I [Jesus]will give unto thee [Peter] the** keys of the kingdom of heaven**:
Rev 1:8 (KJV) I [Jesus] am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the** keys of hell and of death.**
You are right. Jerusalem was then the center of the New Christian Church. But there are two reasons Peter, the head of the New Church went to Rome instead of Jerusalem.There is still the missing link which does not satisfy what was left of the apostles according to the holy scriptures and what we found in history of the church.
[snip]
Jerusalem was the center of Christianity and that’s why in Revelation, there was a promise of “new Jerusalem”; symbolical of new home.
Another question that must be answered is that why the young church then, which were mostly composed of Jews at the time of James, Peter and John, would establish the ‘central seat’ at Rome, which was predominantly pagan and where persecution was greater?
The seat of power resided in Peter. James was simply the local bishop of Jerusalem.Going back to the topic, it was James who was made the first bishop of the church of Jerusalem. Peter and Paul, when they had disagreement on some Jewish tradition being implemented to the Gentiles, travelled and met at the first council of Jerusalem. It was James who made the final decision.
Regarding papacy, we know that it didn’t start in Jerusalem. It started in Rome.
The big question that must be answered is:
When did the seat of power of the Christian church transfer from Jerusalem to Rome and who was the first bishop of Rome?
It is taught, I believe by Eusebius (I have the information at my house) that Peter was in Rome from 42AD til roughly 67AD when he died. The dates of his death vary from 64-67.Not too fast. Let’s take it slowly. Can you tell me when and why Peter went to Rome? Please give historical accounts.
Jesus is the King.If Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king?
But it is the very same Jesus who gave Peter the keys.Revelation says it is Jesus whom is holding the key even right NOW
But Paul does say that another one has built the foundation in Rome, which is why he never went to Rome. There are only a few people that could have built in Rome. Peter is the only one mentioned.Well, the leaves another question. So, if Peter was in Rome from 42 to 67 A.D., and he was in Jerusalem for the meeting at around 48 A.D., it means that he was able to travel back and forth to Jerusalem and Rome without any problem.
While Paul, a Roman citizen as well, was having trouble going to Rome. Didn’t he know that Peter was already based there? He didn’t say anything about Peter being in Rome, nor he greeted Peter in his greetings when he wrote to the Christians in Rome.
*** Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another’s foundation,****** 21 ****** but as it is written: “Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand.”*** *** 22 ****** That is why I have so often been prevented from coming to you***.
As per usual, you omitted the last verse:
25 “In that day,” declares the LORD of hosts, “the peg driven in a firm place * will give way; it will even break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.”
How do you interpret that.*I interpret it that the OT Types always failed, whereas the NT arch-type is the fulfillment of those pre-figurements.
You forget the last line of Matthew 16. “And the Gates of Hell will not prevail…” This is how we see the NT being the fulfillment of the failure in the OT.
You forget the preceding word, “therefore”. What is that word there for? Because he is judging based on Peter’s pronouncement.St. Peter was part of the problem, as Galatians stated (in the revision on Galatians and Acts, why does St. Peter fear St. James’ men?).
Consult St. Paul’s opinion of setting policy in Galatians.
St. James states clearly “EGO KRINO,” I judge. Nothing about “vox Petri” there.
He was called “Father” as numerous other bishops were in the 2nd century. This later filtered down to priests. Pope comes from father, or “papa”.No, the holder of the title, the Emperor Nero, would have frowned on that:You do know that the title is pagan in origin, and given by the emperors to the pope.
He wasn’t called pope from several centuries more either. I mean, no mention of some absolute head, as the Vatican or “papists” as you say, would have it.