When was it decided that the headquarters for the church is to be in Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IGotQuestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well technically speaking it didn’t happen until 1054. Prior to that you had five ā€œequalā€ bishops in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Following the fall of western Rome, the bishop of Rome became much more powerful politically, and assuming he had more power because that was where Peter and Paul were killed, many in the eastern churches felt angered, this went on for hundreds of years. Eventually different aspects of the sides changed, until in 1054 the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches were officially separate as both sides excommunicated each other. In reality though, Rome always was noted as the stronghold of the church, even before the east-west schism. Many people believe Alexandria was never taken seriously because some bishops from there seemed to have a positive outlook on Gnosticism.
 
Even when the Popes for a time were in Avignon they were stiff called Bishop of Rome as well as Pope.
 
I assume that the ā€œkeysā€ are a metaphor -can you elaborate on that for me
Thank you
 
I assume that the ā€œkeysā€ are a metaphor -can you elaborate on that for me
Thank you
Isaiah 22:22. The keys were held by the ā€œprime ministerā€ of the Davidic Kingdom. He had the authority to shut doors that none shall open (bind) and open doors that none shall shut (loose). How far you want to take this is up to you, but it’s pretty clear Jesus was quoting Isaiah when he spoke to Peter.

The PM in Isaiah’s time wasn’t in his favor, so he spoke of him dying, and his office (and the keys) being passed to a successor. The office isn’t elaborated on much more in the Bible, but I’ve heard talks that quoted other Jewish sources that spoke of this office.

Matthew first writes of Jesus giving Peter the power to bind and loose singularly, and then later he speaks to his apostles as a whole. The RCC sees this as the Papacy being the keys singularly, and the Church being given the keys as a whole, to decide things in council.

As for the Patriarchs, there was more than one, and they were kind of mini-popes, but the RCC holds that the patriarch of Rome still had primacy even over the other patriarchs. This primacy was attested to prior to the schism between east and west, (though there were those who argued against it) and even the Orthodox Churches today largely acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome does have primacy at least in honor, even if they disagree on the Bishop of Rome having greater hierarchal authority over other bishops.
 
There was a certain pope who was a former slave…did accounting for the Church, made some mistakes, did public restitution…and eventually became pope.

There was a bishop who followed set norm regarding a slave in his diocese…sorry, right now don’t have all the details…

The pope wanted leniency for the slave…but the bishop disagreed with the pope…and the pope in turn excommunicated the bishop. In time, other bishops came to the pope to request the bishop be returned to communion and he was.

But when the pope first excommunicated the bishop the Christian world readily accepted his decree.

But papal authority is also united with the bishops. And both are to take the position of ā€˜Servant of God’…

Quiet acquiescence to the papacy goes way back into ancient time.

Again, it was primarily Jewish/Hebrew/Nazarene Christians who fled the Romans in Israel and settled in Rome in home churches with presbyters…these consecrated by their bishops.

About Peter holding the keys to heaven…the ancient Jewish Christians in those times knew very well for those 100 years what the holding the key meant. You go back to Isaiah 22:22, as referenced here before…the person who held the key in town was the sign of authority and he would wear a large key on his person as his identity before the Jewish community.

Peter spent about 40 years among the Nazarene and orthodox Jews before going to Antioch to found a church there. The Church of Alexandria and Antioch were both of one place vs the many home locations found in Rome. SS Peter and Paul died between 64 AD to 67 AD. Peter also referred to Rome as Babylon, and Israel herself was referred as Babylon two times for her infidelity and falling away.

SS Peter and Paul came to Rome…solely for the purpose of founding the Church and having no regard or interest in founding a Church tied to imperialism.

The Byzantine Church had a different development. The emperor of Rome moved the headquarters to Western Asia Minor to escape barbarian hordes…and there the worst persecutions against Christians happened there in 302 AD…most bishops and churches were destroyed.

Constantine defeated the Roman emperor…and assisted in choosing those with leadership skills to become bishops as well as assist in the rebuilding of many churches…Basilicas…in the round…with high altar and pulpits. The Latin church formats were more like a long center aisle and near the front another aisle going left and right…so looking down the aisles made the sacred space look like congregation around the cross.

So in this context…the Byzantine Church was closely associated with imperial power. And if disputes came back to Rome…then Rome would always decide against any form of imperialism…the Patriarch of Constantinople…second in headship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top