E
Evan
Guest
agreed.
- Status
S
Sixpence
Guest
Christianity was not legal in Rome at the time, and most of the small communities of Christians there lived a bit outside the city proper. Imagine if Christianity were brought to Moscow under the rule of Stalin. Big city, but rather hamstrung when it comes to swinging anything around. Or you could look at Beijing right now. Huge city, emerging power in the world, and there are Christians there. But it’s not like you can go to Beijing and have a church council, you know?
That’s how it was with Rome until Christianity was legalized. Huge city, but not workable for a council and not workable for running things in any meaningful sense. But you’re right, it was an important city at the time, and a council was convened there just as soon as it was possible.
P
perro_sarnoso
Guest
I may be a simpleton in mentioning this but…here goes.
Jesus is the one that instituted Peter as the first Pope.
To him He gave the keys.
To him he said, " you are Peter, you are rock and on this rock I will build my church."
That same day and in day following that, Jesus gave Peter more temporal powers.
Peter is the first Pope according to Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the one that instituted Peter as the first Pope.
To him He gave the keys.
To him he said, " you are Peter, you are rock and on this rock I will build my church."
That same day and in day following that, Jesus gave Peter more temporal powers.
Peter is the first Pope according to Jesus Christ.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Rome had to have priests before Peter and Paul were there–they didn’t have to have a bishop before Peter and Paul were there.
The apostles could have laid hands on people that are not mentioned in the scriptures–those people could have confected the Eucharist for the church in Rome to survive.
Something tells me that most Catholics weren’t hung up on episcopal authority before the deaths of Peter and Paul–they were probably more concerned bout learning about Jesus and receiving the Eucharist.
Maybe the reason the church in Rome held such high esteem was not only because Peter and Paul had been there but that the people there had great faith and love for Christ–maybe they had less problems than many of the chuches that St. Paul had started such as the one at Corinth.
Just remember too that at the time of the deaths of Peter and Paul–Christians were just trying to stay alive or keep their faith up til martyrdom.
The world doesn’t end if there were priests in Rome before Peter died there–the young christians at Rome respected the apostles the most and Peter the most of all the disciples.
The apostles could have laid hands on people that are not mentioned in the scriptures–those people could have confected the Eucharist for the church in Rome to survive.
Something tells me that most Catholics weren’t hung up on episcopal authority before the deaths of Peter and Paul–they were probably more concerned bout learning about Jesus and receiving the Eucharist.
Maybe the reason the church in Rome held such high esteem was not only because Peter and Paul had been there but that the people there had great faith and love for Christ–maybe they had less problems than many of the chuches that St. Paul had started such as the one at Corinth.
Just remember too that at the time of the deaths of Peter and Paul–Christians were just trying to stay alive or keep their faith up til martyrdom.
The world doesn’t end if there were priests in Rome before Peter died there–the young christians at Rome respected the apostles the most and Peter the most of all the disciples.
SanctusPeccator
Member
Carefullly note Saint John Chrysostom does not say “James was invested with the ultimate rule” or “it behooves one in supreme authority” in his writing?
The reader must carefully examine the scriptural hermeneutic to arrive at the correct understanding of the relationship between James the Just and Simon Peter. While James seems to be tacitly acknowledged as the presiding elder at the Council of Jerusalem recounted in Acts 15, this does not logically infer Peter is not the supreme ruler of the entire Church. As James has been historically designated the first bishop of Jerusalem, it follows he would be “invested with the chief rule” since the gathered assembly were meeting on his own ecclesiastical “turf”! The actual words ἐγὼ κρίνω (“I judge”) do not necessarily support the cursory view James was rendering a decisive outcome. The other derivates of the Greek verb krinó employed elsewhere in Acts indicate the expression of a personal opinion rather than a definitive verdict (cf. Acts 13:46; 16:15; 26:8).
It is Peter’s speech that actually puts an end to the discussion. When providing the reasoning for adopting his course of action, it is clear his decision has been manifested by Almighty God to him alone with the silence from the objectors among the Judaizers showing their implicit agreement. Barnabas and Paul then give additional evidence that God approves of Peter’s uncontested decision. The address of James signifies a different nature. He acquiesces to Peter’s decision (although it seems to have conflicted with his personal inclinations) and advances a practical suggestion for the sake of harmony between the disputing parties. The fact James’ suggestion is later expressly attributed to the apostles and elders (instead of himself) conclusively indicates his episcopal authority did not extend beyond the environs of Jerusalem.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Oh, really? Can you cite this claim?
Paul is known to have done this on only two occasions (Titus and Timothy). He apparently made no such provision for most Christian communities he visited, and he continued to regard himself (alone) as the Bishop of these communities, which he instructed by Epistles after departing (one could reasonably question if this would have been necessary if those communities had their own Bishop to instruct and admonish them).
Can you cite any evidence that Paul ordained Bishops for the Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, or Thessalonians before he departed from those communities?
It seems your contention that Paul “always” ordained someone is something that you simply made up.
D
Dollinger
Guest
Argument from silence.
Nobody claimed his episcopal authority extended beyond Jerusalem. But in the end, Acts 15 is of no support to papal claims, and that is what matters.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
But it got a bishop: Peter.
You need to clarify the time-table you’re using. Apparently you think that prior to the ministry of Peter and Paul in Rome, Rome had a large enough Christian population to warrant having a bishop. Why?
Generally speaking, the Early Church first sent missionaries to preach the gospel and convert people to the faith. Once a sizable Catholic population was established, a bishop was chosen to govern it and minister the sacraments reserved to a bishop. Given the large distance between Rome and Jerusalem, I see no reason to believe that Christianity spread to Rome quick enough, and then grew large enough, to warrant establishing a bishop there prior to Peter’s arrival.
It’s not a matter of which cities deserved a bishop based on prestige, but rather which cities needed a bishop based on the size of the Christian population. Bishops were in very short supply in the 1st Century. The Apostles were bishops, but there were only twelve of them. Everyone else had to convert and receive training, and the process of being fully initiated into the Church usually took years in those days. Bishops were established in areas according to the greatest need, and that meant places with the largest Christian population. Naturally, this initially meant Jerusalem, and the places closest to it, not far off Rome (regardless of its prestige as a world capital; once again, it was simply a matter of practical necessity - the Church could not deprive a Christian community of a 1000 Christians in the Near East of a bishop so that a handful of Christians in Rome could have one).
Keep in mind that Peter was established as the bishop of Rome within a single generation of the Ascension of Christ. All things considered, I think that represents a pretty fast expansion of Christianity in and of itself. But you seem to think that it had to have been (or ought to have been) even faster. So I ask you to explain the logic underlying such a conclusion.
SanctusPeccator
Member
Incorrect since no absence of evidence has been advanced. Quite the contrary, Acts 15 shows the existence of tangible evidence regarding the degree of Simon Peter’s authority in the Church.
Acts 15 reasonably demonstrates the rudimentary nucleus of papal primacy. Peter rises above the debate as his authoritative discourse on the main point of the controversy is accepted and reinforced by the gathered assembly. Fascinating substantiation as none contested his final verdict on the doctrinal question pertaining to the question of Gentile observance of the Mosaic Law.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
\
states in part:
Commenting on Acts 15:19 we read:
Dollinger, with all due respect, you cited 1 Father. Accordingly, I don’t think your assertion that “the Fathers” viewed it in such and such a way is warranted.
states in part:
(emphasis mine)
Commenting on Acts 15:19 we read:
Source Ibid. (haydock1859.tripod.com/id130.html)
L
LionHeart777
Guest
My view on this (topic of the thread) is the same as the poster who cited St. Irenaeus, who stated that the office of Bishop was bestowed upon Linus by Sts. Peter and Paul. I believe that there is no evidence of there being a Bishop in Rome prior to this, and this is strong evidence against it.
- Status