What's the fallacy in this argument?

[WesleyF]

Argument -

“The bishop of Jerusalem can claim more authority than Rome being the firstborn (Patriarchal See). In Semetic custom, firstborns inherit.”

Now even by looking at this argument, I see it is fallacious. But since I am not well trained in philosophy, I don’t know what the fallacy is in order to point it out. Could any of you please tell me.

 

[empther]

The question is not a philosophical one.

Be we can say since Peter left Palestine, went to Rome, and died there, he took the Holy See with him.

 

[runningdude]

The question is not a philosophical one.

Be we can say since Peter left Palestine, went to Rome, and died there, he took the Holy See with him.

Indeed. The primary see is not tied to a geographical location, but to personal succession from Saint Peter. The Holy See is usually based in Rome, in the distant past relocated to France for several decades, before moving back. However, for the most part Saint Peter’s successors stayed in Rome.

In theory, Pope Benedict could relocate the Holy See at will, but this would have the political consequence of leaving the separately sovereign territory of the Vatican. Relocation might be necessary, however, if Italy were ever invaded by a hostile force that did not respect the indepedence of the Vatican.

 

[JDaniel]

Argument -

“The bishop of Jerusalem can claim more authority than Rome being the firstborn (Patriarchal See). In Semetic custom, firstborns inherit.”

Now even by looking at this argument, I see it is fallacious. But since I am not well trained in philosophy, I don’t know what the fallacy is in order to point it out. Could any of you please tell me.

Wesley:

It is probably an Appeal to Popularity fallacy.

God bless,
jd

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Indeed. The primary see is not tied to a geographical location, but to personal succession from Saint Peter. The Holy See is usually based in Rome, in the distant past relocated to France for several decades, before moving back. However, for the most part Saint Peter’s successors stayed in Rome.

In theory, Pope Benedict could relocate the Holy See at will, but this would have the political consequence of leaving the separately sovereign territory of the Vatican. Relocation might be necessary, however, if Italy were ever invaded by a hostile force that did not respect the indepedence of the Vatican.

It is tied to a geographical location currently. Even the Avignon Popes were bishops of Rome not Avignon during their Papacies, despite in some cases never setting foot in Italy.

St. Peter died as both bishop of Rome and supreme pastor of the Church, and from then on those two roles have been inseparably linked.

 

[tonyrey]

The bishop of Jerusalem can claim more authority than Rome being the firstborn (Patriarchal See). In Semitic custom, firstborns inherit.

The Apostolic Church was not established according to Semitic laws of inheritance but on a rock chosen by Jesus: Peter!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Argument -

“The bishop of Jerusalem can claim more authority than Rome being the firstborn (Patriarchal See). In Semetic custom, firstborns inherit.”

Now even by looking at this argument, I see it is fallacious. But since I am not well trained in philosophy, I don’t know what the fallacy is in order to point it out. Could any of you please tell me.

Let’s look at the elder brothers in the OT: Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Eliab, Jezreel, . . .

 

[Abba]

Argument -

“The bishop of Jerusalem can claim more authority than Rome being the firstborn (Patriarchal See). In Semetic custom, firstborns inherit.”

Now even by looking at this argument, I see it is fallacious. But since I am not well trained in philosophy, I don’t know what the fallacy is in order to point it out. Could any of you please tell me.

Traditional Wisdom, Non-Sequitur, Willed Ignorance, Suppressed Evidence and Slanting.