” In addition, Canon 2 of Constantinople, even though there were no Western Bishops there, did not put limits on the jurisdiction and authority of Rome, only Alexandria and Antioch.”
Can you please show where any canon, from any ecumenical council, that gave to Rome an unlimited jurisdiction, like what you describe, over all the Bishops?
“And if Rome, and Alexandria and Antioch were equal, per your reading of Canon 6 at Nicea [not a priority of rank], then if Constantinople felt it could usurp Alexandria and Antioch, why wasn’t Rome usurped given the Political and Civil power were now East.”
You are confusing the Primacy that Rome thinks of, which is Monarchical and religious, as head of the church, with the different “primacy” of the East, which gave weight to Rome only on the basis of it being the former “Royal City,” and not because they conceded that the Bishop in Rome was really the vicar of Christ, “THE” Apostolic See, rather than “an” Apostolic See, head of the church on Earth whose authority was not to be gainsaid. This same honor belonged to Antioch and Alexandria because they were (alleged, though their lists are just as flaky as Rome’s) Apostolic Sees, which even claimed, and was acknowledged, as having the “throne of Peter,” and having the same honor and prestige in religious issues as that of Rome, though different interpretations by different church Fathers only saw Peter as a type, a symbol for all Apostles.
“And Patristic Scholars like Harnack and Lightfoot, with respect to Clement’s Letter pointed out that it showed the important of the Roman Church, even independent if we do not know for sure whether Clement was the “sole Bishop” of Rome [could have had co-Bishops, what are now auxiliary Bishops in current Catholic Church hierarchies, e.g., the Archdiocese of Chicago has one Cardinal Archbishop and I think 4 or 5 Auxiliary Bishops.”
Why do you keep mentioning Clement’s letter? Though I am pleased that you are conceding that there is no evidence for your Pope in it, though you are still fantasizing that there can be found proof here for the “importance of Rome.” A similar argument could be made about any church that was written to by Ignatius, perhaps, and Rome was the only church he failed to write to any leader by name (because there was no individual leader). As for your claim about “auxiliary Bishops,” that is pure speculation, which you have no way of knowing but by your blind faith, which still has not uttered a word about most of what I have written in this thread, though if we go to the scripture, we find only Elders who are equivalent to Bishops, and as Ignatius said, “the head of the Bishop is God.”
“St. Ignatius of Antioch [Eastern Church Bishop, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John] certainly, in his Letter to Rome ties it to Peter and Paul. Irnenaeus certainly does it as well in 180AD, and there was no mention of Royal city as Christendom at that time was outlawed. This entire theme of using the Royal City image was purely an Eastern Theory”
IOW, you acknowledge that there was no special charism of Peter attached to the Bishop of Rome in the earliest times, but rather was praised for having been founded by both Peter and Paul, who both ordained Bishops.
Though, of course, Irenaeus is incorrect. Neither Peter nor Paul actually founded the church in Rome, as it was already existing before either had even arrived, and Peter, likely, did not even go there until his death.
“THis is theological nonsense because it makes theology and Church authority a function of politics. Nonsense.”
How do you say this with a straight face when you just got done, in this very post, describing the church authority as a function of politics? You even warned me to be aware of the “political machinations” going on between Popes, Emeperors, and Easterners, which even forced a Pope to yield. What do you call it when rival Bishops jostle each other for influence and power, and the Emperor is in the middle of it meddling? This is the same thing Pope Gregory the Great warned against, and the scripture as well, which fallen men, of course, are seldom willing to obey.
“Vigilus, as the Westerners told him, was making a dangerous precedent in condemning men who were dead and while they may have had incorrect theological writings, they accepted the Councils of Ephesus were reconciled and died in peace with the Church at the time of Chalcedon 451AD”
IOW, the decision of the Pope was overwhelmed and undone, which he submitted to, in complete agreement with Augustine, Cyrpian, and other church fathers, in the mode of government for resolving controversy. Note: You have ceased from depicting Rome as having jurisdiction to make decisions for the entirety of the church.
I will also add that, if this is the image you want us to have of the “early church being Roman Catholic,” you must de-legitimize and de-Christianize even your own Doctors of the church, who do not support your view of church government, nor your doctrines. Thus your assertion can only be true... if you are refferring only to Christians in Rome as the only Christians on Earth, and, at this, only under certain reigns, in certain times.
You are reading in your Protestant narrative on a early Church that was hierarchical, Conciliar, Liturgical, sacramental. So lets get that out in the front right there. Nobody, had a model that fits whatever run of the mill Protestant body you belong to. The notion that American Protestantism was the model of the early Church, which was Mediterranean and thus Roman and Greek is laughable!
Futhermore, I did not say the Canon 2 of Constantinople defined as the jurisdiction of Rome, it did put parameters on the jurisdiction of Antioch and Alexandria. No such parameters were put on Rome. In addition, if there was a dissension between Bishops in Egypt, the arbitrator of those disputes would be the Bishop of Alexandria, same for Antioch. But if something was to impact the entire Church, for it to be binding, Only Rome and its acceptance of the Council would bind it across Christendom.
And your appeal to Ignatius writing to Rome and not addressing it to a Bishop does not prove anything. It only is addressed to the Church of Rome. In the Western Theological framework, as Pelikan points out in Sprit of Eastern Christianity, the Bishop of Rome got his authority because he was the Bishop of the Church of Rome [given its connection to both Peter and Paul], in the East, the Church of Constantinopile got its authority because there was a Bishop.
And the Church was Roman, that was the culture that Christianity developed and grew up in and in the context of the Roman empire, that would mean Latin roads, rules of Law and defining doctrines and Greek philosophy and language. As the seat of power moved East and the Latin half in the West had less contact with the Greek East, there were cultural issues that impacted Christianity.
This notion of No Monarchial Bishop is an argument that means nothing, it is a Protestant argument grasping at air. Has no bearing. The Church at Rome had authority because of its connection to Peter and Paul [Irenaeus stated as much], Ignatius letter to Rome points to that. The fact that we have no clear empirical evidence of a sole Bishop in Leadership in ROme till St. Pius [140 to 154AD] does not mean there was no lead Bishop before. You are argueing from silence. We do know, based on St. Ignatius Letter to Eastern Churches that there was sole Bishops in all the Eastern Churches he addressed [Polycarp directly, Bishop of Smyrna and the other 5 Eastern Churches]. Given the constant 2nd century testimony that Polycarp was a disciple of St. John, and St. Ignatius a disciple of Polycarp, it is not to far a stretch [empirically verified] that in the Eastern Church, the monarchial Bishop had its connection to Apostolic Tradition via St. John and was operational before the end of the 1st century.
Rome on the other hand had Peter and Paul, and also, given its strong Republican understanding of leadership may have had Several Bishops who ran the Church of Rome [although 1 was probably the Chief Bishop] and thus the sole Bishop concept where 1 Bishop wrote in the name of the Church of Rome could have not developed until the time of Pius in 140AD when the need to have a clear voice against heretical movements required the need for 1 Bishop in Rome to speak on behalf and for the Church of Rome.
Your claims of No monarchial Bishop in Rome before 140AD is pure conjecture, usually made by Protestant Polemics to make some not relevant point. If a Pope dies, the Church of Rome’s status at the First See does not change. It is still the first and most important Apostolic See.
There are many Protestant patristic scholars of recent times, Chadwick, Pelikan and even JND Kelley who readily acknowledge the leadership and authority of the Church of Rome by the end of the 1st century, independent of whether or not there was 1 clear cut Chief Bishop of Rome or there were several Bishops in Rome who in a collegial fashion lead the Church of Rome.
So we don’t know, as there is no clear evidence from the late 1st and early 2nd century if there was a Single Bishop leading the Church of Rome. On the other hand, we do know, given the available evidence that the sole Bishop is well established by the time of Saint Pius 1 [140AD], we also know, given St. Irenaeus of Lyon’s Against Heresies 180AD, and he to was a disciple of Polycarp, thus by extension closely associated with the Apostolic Tradition of the Apostle John, that he lists the Bishops of Rome after SS Peter and Paul. That we do know.
In closing, after my 7 years here, we are getting somewhere. The FR Protestant Brigades here use to claim that all of the models of Roman Catholicism did not occur till Constantine and his Edict of Milan in 313 and the Council of Nicea in 325AD. And don’t give me any nonsense that I am making that up, I am not. It was a constant charge here and in the Protestant blogsphere at large.
Now, what we are left to hear from the FR Protestant brigades is well, there does seem to be some primacy with the Church of Rome along with Antioch and Alexandria and later COnstantinopile, Jersulem, etc. At a minimum, the FR Protestant Brigades concede Rome was at a minimum, at the time of 325AD, one of the 3 Chief Apostolic Sees of Authority. So that results in an “O.....” moment. So, the next thing is start to say, well Irenaues does recognize the Church of Rome as preeminent in authority and he gives a list of the Bishops of Rome. Hmmmm, well we can find independent evidence from the Muratorian fragment regarding Pius I as Sole Bishop, supporting Ireneaus of Lyons List, so that gets us to 140AD.
But ohhh Weight, we can’t find any other source to confirm St. Irenaues of Lyon’s list before 140AD. A EUREKA!!!!!! moment. Not! And the Letter of CLement of Rome, assuming there were other Bishops in Rome with him circa 95AD, doesn’t change the fact that St. Clement of Rome wrote on behalf of the Church of Rome [West] to the Church in Corinth [East] and in addition, there is no evidence that he co-wrote it with any of these “hypothetical” other Co-Bishops that “hypothetically” may have been in some leadership capacity at the Church of Rome. And even if there were “hypothetical co-Bishops at the Church of Rome” at the time St. Clement wrote his Letter to the Church of Conrinth, it still indicates that the Church of Rome corrected a potential schism in the Church of Corinth which would be in the Eastern half of the Roman empire.
http://catholicconvert.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/the-one-true-church-the-catholic-church/
The Nicene Creed, profess – that the Church is;
One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic
The Church is One
“Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” – 1 Corinthians 10:17
Do we share one loaf? As Catholics we do, but do protestants? No. There is no definitive protestant understanding of the ‘one loaf’ and thus they can not all partake of’one loaf’.
We can know that there is meant to be only one church because in scripture the Church is referred to as being the bride of Christ…if the Church is not one, then Christ would be a bigamist were we all to be his ‘brides’ and that is a nonsense.
If we are one, then we profess one belief, one faith, one set of teachings. This is clearly not the case when we look outside the Catholic Church and 33,000 + denominations each have their own ‘man-made’ teachings and beliefs.
We are to be a Church united under the one visible head of the Church on earth, the Pope. Just as the early church was united under the one visible head of the church, Peter, the first Pope, who alone was given the authority to lead the church.
The Catholic Church alone has this mark of unity, while all protestant denominations trust in their own judgement, which is by it’s nature, erroneous. Catholics recognize the authority of the Pope, the bishops of the Church and their successors.
The Church is Holy
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” – Ephesians 5:25-27
The Church is holy because it was founded by Christ who himself is holy.
The Church is not made holy by its members who make up the Catholic Church but by the Deposit of Faith that was given to the Catholic Church alone. The Church is made holy then because of the grace poured out by God, upon it.
The Church is holy because of its Sacraments through which we are able to receive an outpouring of the grace of God, and through which we may become holy.
Through the Churches doctrines, the church is holy.
The Church is Catholic
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” – Mathew 28:19-20
Churches come and churches go but the Catholic Church will stand forever.
The church is ‘Catholic’, because it is universal, ie it is open to everyone.
The Catholic Church fulfils the scripture that disciples should be made of all nations. To this day catholic missionaries travel the far reaches of the earth to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to know Christ. (over a million africans each year convert to the Catholic faith)
Christ promised to be with the Church (note, not churches) and its members, until the end of time. Hence, Jesus can now – and always will be – found in the Catholic Church.
The Church is Apostolic
“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God,built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone” – Ephesians 2:19-20
Jesus himself appointed the Apostles and gave them the authority to lead the church. Jesus didn’t start something to let it fizzle out, he knew that the Apostles would ordain successors who would in turn ordain successors, thus ensuring an Apostolic lineage that would span nigh on 2,000 years, and for all the years to follow. In the same way, Jesus did not leave his church bereft of a visible leader. He gave St. Peter alone the authority to lead the church and that same authority and power has been passed on to each of St. Peter’s successors.
Since the Church’s foundation it has believed in Christ’s Resurrection, in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, has celebrated Mass, has forgiven sins via the Sacrament of Reconciliation, has baptised its members, has venerated Mary and has accepted the authority of the Pope and the bishops of the Church etc. To this day, it still does so. This can not be said for any other church.
There is a wealth of written evidence to support this in the early Christian writings and scripture itself attests to it.
In summary then, what does this all boil down to?
For the most part, I think it boils down to one thing and one thing alone. If God founded one church and one church alone, what businesses have any of us to be anywhere but in it?