Supremacy of Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Asimis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Asimis

Guest
Greetings…

I was wondering, could anyone here please provide either a link, quote, or anything else which contains evidence for the Supremacy of Rome before the council of Nicea?

I know that things run very smooth from the council of Nicea till this day but, I am looking for the evidence of how Rome was viewed before that and if it’s supremacy over all other churches was reconized in one way or the other.

Also what do you think about this link:
geocities.com/paulntobin/peterpope.html

Thanks in advance,
Asimis
 
There is a letter from one of the early Popes, I think it was the 3rd Pope, Clement, to a church in Corinth, I think, in which he speaks as one with authority over the universal Church and instructs the church as to certain behaviors. Sorry I can’t be more specific. Maybe this will give you a start.

Peace,
Linda :o
 
Personally…I think that link was garbage…the webpage is basically saying the Gospel of Matthew is meaningless and not the Word of God, because a certain event wasn’t mentioned in other Gospels :rolleyes: And it trys to discredit the Gospel of John as being false…That link is nothing but Anti-Bible, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Christian garbage. I could write for days about the problems on that website.
40.png
Asimis:
Greetings…

I was wondering, could anyone here please provide either a link, quote, or anything else which contains evidence for the Supremacy of Rome before the council of Nicea?

I know that things run very smooth from the council of Nicea till this day but, I am looking for the evidence of how Rome was viewed before that and if it’s supremacy over all other churches was reconized in one way or the other.

Also what do you think about this link:
geocities.com/paulntobin/peterpope.html

Thanks in advance,
Asimis
Click to expand...
 
Well then without taking those anti-Bible, Anti-Catholic, Anti-Christian garbage into account. What can we say about his actual arguments?

Specially what he says about James?
40.png
dumspirospero:
Personally…I think that link was garbage…the webpage is basically saying the Gospel of Matthew is meaningless and not the Word of God, because a certain event wasn’t mentioned in other Gospels :rolleyes: And it trys to discredit the Gospel of John as being false…That link is nothing but Anti-Bible, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Christian garbage. I could write for days about the problems on that website.
Click to expand...
 
I see the first council as the council of Jerusalem as written in the Acts of the Apostles when the subject of circumcision for gentile converts was debated. All deferred to St Peter for the final judgement. Rome was to be St Peter’s place (Archdiocese if you will). Therefore St Peter being the first Pope and Bishop of Rome, naturally the Church took direction from there.
By all acounts there was a large Christian community there also, as the reports of the persecutions identify.
I am no scholar and do not claim knowledge but I hope this helps, You could also try the Newadvent site and search the Catholic encyclopeadia there.
God bless
 
40.png
CreosMary:
I see the first council as the council of Jerusalem as written in the Acts of the Apostles when the subject of circumcision for gentile converts was debated. All deferred to St Peter for the final judgement. Rome was to be St Peter’s place (Archdiocese if you will). Therefore St Peter being the first Pope and Bishop of Rome, naturally the Church took direction from there.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was James who made the final judgment after hearing testimony from Peter, Paul, Barnabas and others.
 
40.png
LindaS:
There is a letter from one of the early Popes, I think it was the 3rd Pope, Clement, to a church in Corinth, I think, in which he speaks as one with authority over the universal Church and instructs the church as to certain behaviors. Sorry I can’t be more specific. Maybe this will give you a start.
Click to expand...
Linda is correct. In roughly 80 AD, the church at Corinth ousted it officially recognized leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called in to resolve the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still living (in Ephesus) and much closer to Corinth than was Rome.
 
40.png
Tietjen:
Linda is correct. In roughly 80 AD, the church at Corinth ousted it officially recognized leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called in to resolve the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still living (in Ephesus) and much closer to Corinth than was Rome.
Click to expand...
Just a minor correction, Clement wasn’t called in to settle the dispute. When he heard the news from Corinth he acted on his own authority to intervene.
 
40.png
mtr01:
Just a minor correction, Clement wasn’t called in to settle the dispute. When he heard the news from Corinth he acted on his own authority to intervene.
Click to expand...
Perhaps “called in” was the wrong language to use. However, the point was that if the Bishop of Rome was not viewed as having authority, Clement probably wouldn’t have been notified. Apparently, Rome must have been recognized as having authority over the Church of Corinth or Clement wouldn’t have heard about it and probably wouldn’t have felt the need (because it wasn’t his place) to address the issue. However, we know that Clement was notified (or “called in”) by the Church of Corinth do to Clement’s letter to them:
Clement of Rome:
Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.
Click to expand...
Again, “called in” may have been the wrong term. However, the case was presented to Pope Clement I just the same.
 
40.png
petra:
Actually, it was James who made the final judgment after hearing testimony from Peter, Paul, Barnabas and others.
Click to expand...
Objectively, all James did, as Bishop of Jerusalem was suggest a compromise so as to not offend the Judean “Pharisees”.

St. John Chrysostom expounded rather eloquently on this event:

“And if any should say, ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that He [Jesus] appointed Peter , not of the chair [in Jerusalem], but of the world” (Homily 88 on John, NPNF1,XIV:332).
 
40.png
petra:
Actually, it was James who made the final judgment after hearing testimony from Peter, Paul, Barnabas and others.
Click to expand...
James the Less (as opposed to James the brother of John) did not make the final judgment in the sense that he directed the solution himself. He was reiterating what Peter had said thus showing his agreement with the words of Peter. In Acts 15:7 Peter is not seen as giving his argument to James, but rather the entire group (“My brothers”). James then addresses the group and says, "Symeon (Peter) has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name. The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written: ‘After this I shall return and rebuild the fallen hut of David; from its ruins I shall rebuild it and raise it up again, so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked. Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things, known from of old.’ "
Let me quote now from Beginning Apologetics 1 How to Explain and Defend the Catholic Faith page 16, 2nd paragraph:
“We know from Church history that St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and, as Act 21:15-25 describes, he was concerned for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who felt their ancient customs threatened by the great number of Gentile converts. This background explains why St. James made the concluding remarks at the council and asked Gentiles to respect certain Jewish practices. Fundamentalists are grasping at straws when they claim that Acts 15 proves that James, instead of Peter, was the head of the Church.”
God bless.
 
WHICH James was that again?

Whatever Happened… to the Apostles?

**5. ST. JAMES THE LESS **

This is the fifth of a series of fourteen articles by Paul STENHOUSE, MSC discussing Catholic tradition concerning the twelve Apostles, their background, mission and manner of death. The thirteenth will be devoted to Judas Iscariot and the final article will treat of St Paul, the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’.

More than seventeen years ago an ossuary or ‘bone box’ surfaced in Jerusalem dating from the first century AD and bearing the inscription: Ya’kov son of Joseph, brother of Yeshua - ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’. Controversy erupted immediately over the genuiness of the inscription, and the dating of the limestone burial box.

Mystery still surrounds the box, its provenance, the identity of its owner, and the identity of the ‘James,’ ‘Joseph,’ and ‘Jesus’ mentioned in the inscription. None of the names was uncommon at that time, and there the matter rests.

‘James the son of Alphaeus and a cousin of the Lord ruled the Church at Jerusalem, wrote an epistle and led a life of penance. He converted many to the true Faith and was martyred in the year 62.’ - Roman Breviary, Introduction to the Feast of Sts Philip and James, Apostles. May 3.

There are references to at least eight persons named James in the New Testament. The five that principally interest us here are as follows:

James, son of Zebadee, brother of John. 2
James the son of Alphaeus. 3
James the ‘brother’ of the Lord. 4
James the brother of Joseph, whose mother was Mary. 5
James the brother of Jude. 6
James the first Bishop of Jerusalem. 7

We discussed the life and death of James, son of Zebadee in an earlier issue [Annals 5/2004]. This month we are concerned with the Apostle James. Following Catholic tradition, we suggest that all six of the Jameses mentioned above are one and the same person: and The Roman Breviary, in identifying James the son of Alphaeus [Matthew 10,3] with James the so-called ‘brother’ of the Lord [Matthew 13,55] who became the first bishop of Jerusalem, is following the judgement of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis [60-130 AD] who was a contemporary of the Apostles, and the opinion of St Jerome 8 [345-420] and St Augustine, 9 [354-430 AD] and the universal belief of the Catholic Church in the West.

We are told by Sts Matthew and Mark that James’s father’s name was Alphaeus. St John gives him the Greek form of Alphaeus, viz.: Clophas. James’s mother was Mary, the sister of the mother of Jesus as St John tells us: ‘Near the cross where Jesus hung stood his mother, with her sister Mary the wife of Clophas…’. 10

Alphaeus [Clophas] and Mary had four sons - James known as ‘the little,’ Joshua,11 Jude and Simon: the ‘brethren’ of the Lord’ - and three or more daughters.

Joseph the foster-father of Jesus would have died sometime between 8AD and 26AD, and we have no reason to think that Alphaeus was alive during our Lord’s public ministry.

What could have been more natural than that the two widowed sisters shared the family home in Nazareth, especially as the Virgin Mary had but one son, Jesus, and he was often away ‘about his father’s business’?

We first hear of James in the spring of 28 AD when he and his younger brother Judas Thaddaeus are invited by Jesus to join his special band of Apostles.12

Read the full article by Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C., Ph. D.
 
Thanks for the reply so far.

I does not seems to be quite clear as of yet. Any valid evidence should be from the first centure. As such, is there any good evidence (outside the newadvent/wikipedia) for both Pope Linus and Anacletus?

And perhaps any contemporany evidence, like documents that refer either to this Popes and/or Peter? They don’t need to be only from Christian sources, which apart from The Bible we only have one from Clement.

Thanks.
 
40.png
Tietjen:
Linda is correct. In roughly 80 AD, the church at Corinth ousted it officially recognized leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called in to resolve the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still living (in Ephesus) and much closer to Corinth than was Rome.
Click to expand...
Corinth, though situated in the middle of Greece, was in fact a Roman colony, established around 44BC approximately 100 years after the city had been razed by the Roman consul Lucius Mummius in 146BC. Having easy access to both the Saronic and Corinthian Gulfs gave Corinth ready access to the shipping routes, thus putting it in nearly constant communication with Rome. Patmos was another matter, being just off the coast of Asia Minor meant that most trade was conducted with the mainland. Hence it was much easier for contact between Corinth and Rome than between Corinth and Patmos, the latter requiring the expensive charter of a vessel to send a messenger whereas the former could simply hop on the next boat to Rome.
Add to this the fact that the Church in Corinth had been established by Paul, and that Clement was a friend and companion of the Apostle, it is little wonder that Rome felt responsible for the Corinthians and they an affinity with Rome.

John
 
40.png
Asimis:
Thanks for the reply so far.

I does not seems to be quite clear as of yet. Any valid evidence should be from the first centure. As such, is there any good evidence (outside the newadvent/wikipedia) for both Pope Linus and Anacletus?

And perhaps any contemporany evidence, like documents that refer either to this Popes and/or Peter? They don’t need to be only from Christian sources, which apart from The Bible we only have one from Clement.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Your looking in the wrong direction. First of all, with the burning of Rome, destruction of Jerusalem, and the later loss of the Alexandrian library, many historical records were lost.

Christ proclaimed He would build His church on Peter. Peter went to Rome. (As did Paul.) For 2,000 years the church has been shepparded from the see of Rome. Even when men in the early church tried to deny the supremecy of Rome, even when the Eastern church and the Protestants broke from Rome, even when Napoleon declared the temporal power of the church ended, the apostolic church of Jesus is still the largest, and still governed from Rome; the seat of Peter.

The evidence you are looking for is in the Gospels, “…thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

If not through Peter and Rome, what other person or place can you justify in the light of history and reality?

Thal59
 
I understand what you mean and I agree. I am just wondering what is the earliest and largest amount of evidence that we can gather to support this, outside The Bible.

Thanks in advance.
40.png
Thal59:
Your looking in the wrong direction. First of all, with the burning of Rome, destruction of Jerusalem, and the later loss of the Alexandrian library, many historical records were lost.

Christ proclaimed He would build His church on Peter. Peter went to Rome. (As did Paul.) For 2,000 years the church has been shepparded from the see of Rome. Even when men in the early church tried to deny the supremecy of Rome, even when the Eastern church and the Protestants broke from Rome, even when Napoleon declared the temporal power of the church ended, the apostolic church of Jesus is still the largest, and still governed from Rome; the seat of Peter.

The evidence you are looking for is in the Gospels, “…thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

If not through Peter and Rome, what other person or place can you justify in the light of history and reality?

Thal59
Click to expand...
 
St. Cyprian of Carthage in a letter to Cornelius of Rome (c. 251 A.D.) speaks of the Church of Rome as the ‘chair of Peter’ and ‘the principle Church in which sacerdotal unity has its source’ (Ep. 59, 14).
 
Hi Asimis,

We’re not sure why you would put “Roman Catholicism” on your profile. I guess to pretend that you are objective. Nice try.

I wish you would start a new thread that demonstrates what you have in mind when you imply that this isn’t the Church that Christ established. Although you disguised the name of your thread, that is your intention, is it not?

In your new thread you can let us know exactly what happened to the Church that Jesus established. Where did it go? Jesus told us that the gates of hell would not overcome it. Maybe you figure he was wrong, hell overcame it from your own date of 325 right until 1517.

So can you help us solve the case of the missing Church. Hmmm, where did it go, where did it go, we’ll need to be creative to answer that one. Better do a web-search on all the non-Catholics you can find in that period. Then show how the Catholic church at no point overcame it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top