Supremacy of Rome

[Ignatius]

Asimis:

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?

First, let me correct a couple of errors you seem to hold.

1. It is the primacy Peter, not supremacy; First among equals.
2. It is the See of Peter that holds the authority, the Seat of Peter can be anywhere.

God bless.

 

[Asimis]

Well thats nice, accusation/ad hom…

Like I said, I am simply looking for all the evidence available from the earliest sources. Also I am on the RCIA and will be confirmed soon, so I am still not a full member of The Church, so I guess I can still ask these questions.
Lost&Found:

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.

 

[John_Henry]

A good primer of the early Church and the Papacy can be found in Kenneth Whitehead’s book, “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church.”

 

[Lost_Found]

Asimis:

Well thats nice, accusation/ad hom…

Like I said, I am simply looking for all the evidence available from the earliest sources. Also I am on the RCIA and will be confirmed soon, so I am still not a full member of The Church, so I guess I can still ask these questions.

No, if you read carefully it was an observation, not an accusation. Yours, however, is an accusation at me. And you will not have us walk on eggshells while you tear through our valid responses.

My own observation stands, as does the main part of my answer. If these answers/links/book titles that are good enough for us, are not good enough for you, then find yourself a better source. This site has an excellent library. Then, once you have a more specific argument to make, perhaps we will be better able to address it for you.

 

[jimmy]

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

Irenaeus

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 

[petra]

Tietjen:

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.

James said, “it is my judgment…” He did, indeed, make the final judgment. Whether or not he agreed with the testimony of others or what weight he put on the testimony of others is irrelevant. Our Congress listens to expert testimony all the time and may cite testimony as being especially noteworthy. But when they vote on a bill, they are the ones making the decision, not the ones who provided the testimony.

In Acts 15:7 Peter is not seen as giving his argument to James, but rather the entire group (“My brothers”).

I’m not clear on what difference it makes that Peter addressed the group rather than James.

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.’ "

The fact that God was drawing the Gentiles to Himself was not unknown. Jesus said that He has other sheep “not of this fold”. Peter’s reminder of this fact would be like you or I reminding one another of an important point while discussing a topic within a group. To say that Peter was issuing the final judgment and James was simply reiterating that is, in effect, to read something that is not there. It is grasping at straws to say that Peter was rendering the judgment. It just isn’t there.

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.

I’m sure this factored heavily into his final decision. This does not detract at all from the fact that he was the one who made the ultimate judgment.

Blessings

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

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.

"From this, some have inferred that, even at this early date (96 AD or, some think, earlier), when the Apostle John was perhaps still alive, the authority and jurisdiction of the Roman congregation over every other congregation of the Christian Church was already universally conceded.

However, a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation is that the congregation at Corinth, torn by division, had agreed to settle their disputes by inviting another congregation, or the head of another congregation, to act as arbitrator. This would be a reasonable thing to do.

The choice of Rome as that congregation was natural, partly because of the prestige of the city, and the prestige of one of the largest congregations in the Church, and because the **Corinth of Clement’s day had been built as a Roman colony, with a special dependence directly on the city of Rome (a civil relation that might affect the habits of thought of the Corinthians on matters ecclestiastical as well), ** but also because Rome was far enough away so that it could be assumed to be impartial and not affected by local personalities."

Full article at
satucket.com/lectionary/Clement_Rome.htm

And it must be mentioned that Corinth was founded by the Apostle Paul and it is believed that St Clement was a disciple of the same Apostle. This naturally gave him another strong connection to Corinth and he was a man respected by them, as a bishop taught by their own founder. So it was quite understandable for the Corinthians to turn to an arbiter who shared the same connection with the Apostle Paul

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

mtr01:

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).

The greatest of the Fathers, Saint John Chrysostom, who wrote his extensive biblical commentaries in the 4th century, actually gives his interpretation of what happened at Jerusalem in his commentary on Acts 15.

He gives the primacy to James the Brother of the Lord and bishop of Jerusalem. This makes perfect sense. Rome was not yet a Christian centre of any sort and Jerusalem and its bishop, James, not Peter, held the first place in the Christian Church. Peter at this time was presiding in the Church at Antioch. He did not take the place of primacy at the First Council of the Church.

“Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) **Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part. **

ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-1…Acts-Hom33.html

In his History of the Church, Eusebius, writing in the early 4th century says:

“This James, whom the early Chrisians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church.”

Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it in this way:

“Peter, James and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had specially honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.”