Replies

Myself beginning here from your own last sentence;

On that note of history, can you provide an alternative for the holy catholic apostolic church that is visible and historical ? Everyone else I ask either admits there is no alternative, plays dumb, or gives a false reply.

You answered it in part in one of your own statements which preceded that question.

There were five major churches, the so called Pentarchy, Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria.

Previous to development of patriarchates per se, things had been more along lines of concept for autoencaphaly for all bishops, although under biblical model each was (ideally, anyway) to make themselves subject to one another, and all the rest of the wider thus universal (catholic) Church, also.

Please bear in mind also, that these patriarchates as they eventually came to be known, there is lack of evidence and also some contra-evidence for in the first couple of centuries, even as that sort of church governing arrangement did eventually gel.

It is possibly interesting to note that the first official mentions or usages of the word to find their way into proceeding of Church Council(s), came about for reasons ancillary to the the Church of Rome having had asserted itself in North Africa, and in part, in response (in Church Council settings) was politely told to mind their own patriarchate (as others were also told/agreed to minding their own) there telling Rome to not again reach across the Mediterranean to appoint a priest there, setting also bulwark against two other patriarchates to do the same or similar in regards to any others, the same as Rome -- the overall results of the proceedings having rather pointedly re-established that they were in practical authority all on basically the same level.

The wording used included (I am here paraphrasing) "going back to how thing were from times of old" which shows there, even as late as the early fifth century was it(?) that Rome was not set above the other patriarchates, and in fact, in a gentle way, figuratively had their hands slapped for having engaged in some degree of over-reaching.

Still, when we go again yet further centuries back from that Church Council (Carthage, there was a rather long and interrelated series of them held in that City) the sense centuries previous (in the earliest times of the Church) was by weight of conciliation and agreement among the many (whom most all held their own independence) not by weight of signature of the bishop of Rome.

Later, at instances where participation and agreement of the Roman bishop be lacking -- if but for a time, one of those times stretching to 70 years or more was it(?), was at one juncture indeed cause for some consternation, but that unrest be for reason of desire for fullest unity of the Church, and due also for the admittedly high regard that many held (perhaps nostalgically?) for that particular bishopric which a couple of centuries after time of the Apostles came to be spoken of as having double-Apostolicity.

Yet that type of talk (as for or about 'Rome') can be seen as portion of how also men were trying to figure out who should be the boss...with the rather more republican-like form of horizontally arrayed governing, wherein the bishops when assembled and/or by letter could be the representatives as it were of the many churches (ekklesia) having been the more original order and arrangement of how the various ecclesia would communicate with one another as one greater "body" and association, thus universal or "catholic" Church.

Can you see it now?

I did not write "immediately after," but rather "after" setting no time interval for the transition. You erroneously assumed one and attributed the error to me." ... "...Clement's Epistle sometime around 95-97 AD, but it grew more prominent over time

So just what error have I committed? 25 years or so? That's not immediate? You've got to be kidding me...

To perhaps help to put this in perspective;
When we gaze upon the latter decade of the 1st century, among the scholars who delve into such issues, the most commonly accepted dating for the writing of the Book of Revelation is 90 AD.

Even if we are set consideration for that written work (Revelation) aside, there is such a close overlap as per Clement (as per year/date) that his own writing is so nearly immediate to the Apostle John's own lifespan -- can you show me much of anything which is earlier than Clement which is not directly Apostolic? (I already know the answer to that question, I *think*).

Now, as for yourself ending that portion [quoted immediately above] with "but it grew more prominent over time" when that is put together with that which you presented concerning Clement -- just WHAT are you straining to attempt to establish here but refutation of what I had said previously -- my having said so with no actual error;

The sort of history of the early Church which you just presented, is not only not entirely true, but many if not most of the key aspects there alluded to (in order to promote the Church of Rome as centrally authoritative over others, and recognized as such from the time immediately after the fall of Jerusalem) is simply not true, for Rome was not looked upon as seat of centralized authority by the rest of the Church, most particularly at any time near to the overthrow of Jerusalem.

You most certainly have not refuted the above.

It simply cannot be honestly done.

Truth is what it is.

If that conflicts with what the Church of Rome (A.K.A., the Roman Catholic Church) has long told itself (and it's adherents and it's critics too) about itself, that is not my problem ---