Hi Jon,
Hi raum,
What evidence do you have that St. Paul was referring specifically to Rome, and not a general “you” for the Church?
By the fact his epistle is address
specifically to the
Church at Rome. That’s why it’s called Paul’s
letter to the Romans.
But even were it possible to “go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6) to include other local churches in this prophecy, Romans 16:20 still remains fatal for the anti-Scriptural (and blasphemous) Protestant teaching that the elect
Church of Rome is in fact, the “Whore of Babylon”!!
For the Scripture clearly and infallibly teaches that
Roman Church - regardless of
whether or not Paul meant to include any of the other churches -
will itself be most assuredly involved in the crushing of Satan!
And the Scripture cannot be broken.
Is there anything in the early councils that states that The Rome Church alone is the true Church?
Well, in addition to Scripture, which teaches that the Roman Church’s faith is
proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom. 1:8), there is also a ton of Patristic evidence (including councils) to the effect that Rome is the highest See and the true Church. Just a couple of examples from St. Jerome:
“But let me tell you that the
faith of Rome which was
praised by the voice of an Apostle [Romans 1:8], does not recognize tricks of this kind. A faith which has been
guaranteed by the authority of an Apostle cannot be changed though an Angel should announce another gospel than that which he preached.”
–
Apology Against Rufinus (Book III), 12.
“My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Matthew 16:18 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. Exodus 12:22 This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. Genesis 7:23 … He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.”
– Letter 15, to Pope Damasus.
And let me give a passage from *A Guide to the Thought of Saint Augustine *by Fr. Eugène Portalié, S.J.
c. ORGANIZATION OF THE HIERARCHY
The essential superiority of the episcopacy over the priesthood was recognized by Augustine. In his work On Heresies he mentions the error of Aerius who had denied this. 56 This passage should clear up a statement in a letter to St. Jerome in which an expression of humility could be misinterpreted. 57
Finally, at the summit of the hierarchy, he proclaimed *the primacy of the Bishop of Rome *and recognized the monarchical character of government established by Jesus Christ in His Church. Attempts have been made to make Augustine an Episcopalian who would admit the equality of all the bishops and not recognize a sovereign authority either in St. Peter or his successors. 58 The further charge is made that he maintained that the Bishop of Rome is only the representative, the symbol of the unity of the Church, not the principle of a true sovereign authority. 59 Explicit passages, however, and the whole conduct of the Bishop of Hippo 60 give the lie to these assertions.
Augustine affirms the Primacy of Peter among the Apostles with a clarity which dispels all doubt. The comparison between St. Cyprian and St. Peter must be read: In martyrdom they are equal, but what a preeminence of dignity in Peter “in whom the primacy of the Apostles shone forth with such excelling grace. … For who does not know that
that primacy over the apostolate is to be preferred to any other bishopric? 62 Peter represented the Church when he received the keys, not in this sense that this power was handed over to the community, as some still claim, 63 but as the head of a people representing this people: “The Apostle Peter, because of the primacy of his apostolate, personified this Church, symbolizing her generality.” 64
pp. 237ff.
As to councils, here are a couple which refer to the Roman Church as the “head of all the Churches”
“We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal. … Because if he be named Universal, above the holy Roman Church
which has a prior rank, which is* the head of all the Churches of God*, it is certain that he shows himself as a rebel against the holy Councils, and a heretic.”
“For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the
chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and
Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power,
now and for ever…”
Second Council of Nicæa
“Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic
bishop of the Roman city, which is
the head of all the churches…”
*Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)
*
Hope this helped.
God bless.
). Oh, and “crush…under your feet”----were you perhaps thinking of all the burnings @ the stake and the tortures, stuff like that? Was it Tertullian who said that martyrdom only creates more believers?
shall we also bring up the persecutions of Catholics in protestant nations? or how about the salem witch trials? come now let us reason together. both sides are guilty of misdeeds. i think tho that this is a good example of why sola scriptura does not work. here we have a person that has taken a verse and attached his own meaning to it, without the guidance of the magesterium. he sees a “prophecy” where none is evident. just as the prostestants have been doing for centuries. its kinda off topic and just an observation. peace to you and yours 