Why isn't Jerusalem the seat of the "true church?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter RKO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RKO

Guest
I’ve been reading lots of Catholic-Orthodox discussions on the apostolic “validity” of the Churches.
Each church responds to a see or eparchy in one of several towns. As a Catholic, we believe Rome is the seat of the true church, ostensibly because that was the see of Peter, but it was also in part because Rome was certainly a major if not the major city in christianity. (Forgive me, I am NOT a church Historian.) perhaps that’s why peter went to Rome in the first place.

My question is simple: why isn’t Jerusalem the undisputed most important place in Christianity?
 
RKO said:
I’ve been reading lots of Catholic-Orthodox discussions on the apostolic “validity” of the Churches.
Each church responds to a see or eparchy in one of several towns. As a Catholic, we believe Rome is the seat of the true church, ostensibly because that was the see of Peter, but it was also in part because Rome was certainly a major if not the major city in christianity. (Forgive me, I am NOT a church Historian.) perhaps that’s why peter went to Rome in the first place.

My question is simple: why isn’t Jerusalem the undisputed most important place in Christianity?
Click to expand...
Because the figure in Daniels prophecy concerning the Kingdoms as they fell did not include Jerusalem…the last one was Rome.
 
RKO said:
I’ve been reading lots of Catholic-Orthodox discussions on the apostolic “validity” of the Churches.
Each church responds to a see or eparchy in one of several towns. As a Catholic, we believe Rome is the seat of the true church, ostensibly because that was the see of Peter, but it was also in part because Rome was certainly a major if not the major city in christianity. (Forgive me, I am NOT a church Historian.) perhaps that’s why peter went to Rome in the first place.
Click to expand...
The successor of Peter is the head of the Church. Wherever he is, there is the Church. Peter traveled to Rome where he became Bishop. His successor became the head of the Church and the bishop of Rome. Of course it was logical to travel to Rome, the epicenter of the Empire, crossroads of many civilizations, and fertile ground for converts to the faith.
RKO said:
My question is simple: why isn’t Jerusalem the undisputed most important place in Christianity?
Click to expand...
Perhaps Peter may have migrated back to Jerusalem, but he was executed.

Perhaps his successor may have migrated back to Jerusalem from Rome. Unlikely since it had it’s own bishop. But, something we will never know since Jerusalem was **destroyed **by the Romans within about 10 years of Peter’s death. His successors remained firmly planted in Rome.
 
1ke said:
But, something we will never know since Jerusalem was **destroyed **by the Romans within about 10 years of Peter’s death. His successors remained firmly planted in Rome.
Click to expand...
Good point. That probably has a lot to do with it as well…
 
This changed with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD when the Jewish Christian community of Jerusalem was no longer there. That is when the Roman Emperor made sure that no Jewish/Christian bishops were allowed to have jurisdiction over the See.

One will notice that the church in Rome was to have due deference to the church in Jerusalem prior to its fall, if one reads the apostle Paul’s letter to the church in Rome. For Paul says that the church in Rome should contribute to the temporal needs of the church in Jerusalem, because they have received spiritually from the church in Jerusalem. (notice it was the Apostle Paul who wrote to the church in Rome, while the apostle Peter’s letter was written to the Jewish believers in the diaspora, which included Rome).

Both apostles helped establish the church in Rome. Perhaps, Paul to the Gentiles of Rome, and Peter to the Jews of Rome. Both apostles were martyrs in Rome. These may be some of the reasons why Rome became the most important See, besides the fact, that it was the epicenter of the civilized world.
 
As 1ke has already pointed out, it really has nothing to do with the location, but rather where Peter, and then his sucessors were located.
 
Rome may be the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, but Jesus will rule from the Seat of David in the Temple in Jerusalem on day. Because that is where God has Written His Name.

Sadly, Rome will be destroyed one day.

This is what Scripture says and it is prophecy.
 
RKO said:
I’ve been reading lots of Catholic-Orthodox discussions on the apostolic “validity” of the Churches.
Each church responds to a see or eparchy in one of several towns. As a Catholic, we believe Rome is the seat of the true church, ostensibly because that was the see of Peter, but it was also in part because Rome was certainly a major if not the major city in christianity. (Forgive me, I am NOT a church Historian.) perhaps that’s why peter went to Rome in the first place.

My question is simple: why isn’t Jerusalem the undisputed most important place in Christianity?
Click to expand...
In addition to what has been said, you’ll note how the Book of Acts begins in Jerusalem and ends in Rome.
 
Nine_Two said:
If that’s the case, why not Antioch?
Click to expand...
Nine_Two, Are you referring to this reference?

Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?
XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:— James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. **Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; **and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; 2 Timothy 4:21 and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter. Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; 2 Timothy 1:5 and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus. Of Colossæ;, Philemon. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon. Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20

newadvent.org/fathers/07157.htm
 
Doxiemom said:
Rome may be the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, but Jesus will rule from the Seat of David in the Temple in Jerusalem on day. Because that is where God has Written His Name.

Sadly, Rome will be destroyed one day.

This is what Scripture says and it is prophecy.
Click to expand...
I am not sure where you get your information or how you interpret what you read but why would it be sad that the earth will be destroyed. I don’t recall that anyone anticipates that this earth is meant to endure forever. Your notion of Prophecy should be referenced. What are you talking about? What Prophecy in what Scripture?
 
Nine_Two said:
If that’s the case, why not Antioch?
Click to expand...
Probably because Peter, along with Paul, started the Church in Rome and was then martyred there. This would require a sucessor to Peter’s office in the Church of Rome. Peter’s successor would have succeeded to Peters authority over the Church. The keys to the kingdom were given to Peter and then handed on to his successor. Had Peter been martyred in Antioch then the Bishop of Antioch, subsequent to Peter, would have had that authority. But that isn’t what happened. At least that’s my take on it. I’m open to other opinions.
 
Nine_Two said:
No, I’m referring to the argument that Rome is the central See of the Church based solely on the fact that it was founded by Peter.
Click to expand...
Nine_Two,

I have read that there are Orthodox who believe that the apostle Peter founded the church in Antioch by ordaining the first bishop of Antioch, Euodius. If this is true, I was wondering where their documentation comes from.
 
CopticChristian said:
I am not sure where you get your information or how you interpret what you read but why would it be sad that the earth will be destroyed. I don’t recall that anyone anticipates that this earth is meant to endure forever. Your notion of Prophecy should be referenced. What are you talking about? What Prophecy in what Scripture?
Click to expand...
Rome is the City of Seven hills and it is to be destroyed during that time period that some call the Great Tribulation.It is sad because people will die, some of whom will go to hell because they have rejected Christ but instead worshipped Anti-Christ. It is sad to me to know all the beauty and history that Rome had will be gone forever. So much of Christianity 's history, just gone. But, sorry, I am thinking in human terms now.

Earth is not destroyed but will be made new again through fire.

Everything i wrote of is in the Bible, either of the prophets or of Revelation.
 
I was thinking about this just the other day. I’ve decided to actually seems fitting. as we know Jrusalem was the seat of monotheism and Rome was originally the seat of paganism. Yet, St. Peter migrated to rome is set up to church there. Why? Well, why dufing Mass do we move the Gospel from the Altar to the ambo? Because this symbolizes the Gospel’s saving message being transferred from the jews to the gentiles. St. Peter did the same with his physical move to Rome.
 
Layp3rs0n said:
I was thinking about this just the other day. I’ve decided to actually seems fitting. as we know Jrusalem was the seat of monotheism and Rome was originally the seat of paganism. Yet, St. Peter migrated to rome is set up to church there. Why? Well, why dufing Mass do we move the Gospel from the Altar to the ambo? Because this symbolizes the Gospel’s saving message being transferred from the jews to the gentiles. St. Peter did the same with his physical move to Rome.
Click to expand...
This is where everyone stands on their heads.😃

The Protestants Rapturists who break Moses Law by not keeping The Lords’ Sabbath.
The Roman Catholics and Ba’al worship.
 
RKO said:
I’ve been reading lots of Catholic-Orthodox discussions on the apostolic “validity” of the Churches.
Each church responds to a see or eparchy in one of several towns. As a Catholic, we believe Rome is the seat of the true church, ostensibly because that was the see of Peter, but it was also in part because Rome was certainly a major if not the major city in christianity. (Forgive me, I am NOT a church Historian.) perhaps that’s why peter went to Rome in the first place.

My question is simple: why isn’t Jerusalem the undisputed most important place in Christianity?
Click to expand...
Peter was going to leave Rome again…but an angel appeared and pointed him to Rome again…he went back there…Peter understood…he was to be martyred in Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top