|
2 members (Fr. Al, theophan),
133
guests, and
19
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,296
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
Dear Friends,
The point is that both West and East agree on the exalted position of St Peter in the early Church as the "Corphaeus" etc.
That issue is separate from the successors of Peter. Who are they? Are they ONLY the bishops of Rome? And, if so, why? Did he not ordain the first bishop of Antioch? And also those of many, many towns and villages throughout the East?
Alex Did not Pope John Paul II of blessed memory ordain many a bishop? Yet, Pope Benedict is the Pope and has the charism of Peter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 36
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 36 |
There is no evidence that Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Also in Bible I couldn't find the evidence about his actitivity in Rome. On the contrary, the activity of Apostle Paul is very well known. Also, in his epistle to Galatians apostle Paul called Peter, John and Jacob ''the pillars of the Church''.
In my opinion Rome had some kind of primacy only because it was an imperial city an city of greatest christian martyrdom in Roman Empire. I am asking you what would happen if apostles Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Dear Dr Eric,
Yes, but Pope John Paul II was not an Apostle. Yes, the Popes and bishops have Apostolic authority and are the successors to the Apostles.
But it's not the same thing in this instance.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
There is also no direct biblical reference that St. Andrew went anywhere.
The bible does say that St. Peter was writing from "Babylon", which is understood as a coded reference to Rome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Dear Krsto,
That is a good question - in fact, the Chief Apostles suffered at Rome and, historically, the Eastern Churches tended to underline the Roman See's primacy not because of the imperial connection, but precisely because Sts Peter and Paul were martyred there and their relics were there.
The question of primacy based on the importance of the cities of the Roman Empire came up during the Council of Chalcedon, if I'm not mistaken.
Since Alexandria complained loudly about being relegated to third place after Rome and Constantinople, there is evidence to suggest that another view of primacy was extant then - that based on cities that not only could trace their lineage directly to Apostolic Foundation (in that case, Constantinople's claim was "iffy") but, as importantly, the fact that the city was an active and great centre of Christian missionary and teaching activity.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
