Where's the legitimacy of the Roman claim over Christianity?

Thu 27 Nov 97 4:31

Curtis Johnson:
"Faith" is almost always, if not always, is an excuse not to use one's brains. Hard questions are asked here. Here's one. Peter and Paul both acknowledged James to be head of Christianity. James had a clear line of succession and authority. Where's the legitimacy of the Roman claim over Christianity?

Father Chris Vaillancourt:
Read the Bible, in particular the Gospels.

Regardless of what Peter or others thoughts, Peter was the designated Apostle upon which Christ planned to build His Church. "You are the rock, and upon this rock I shall build my Church".

Apostolic succession from that time until the present indicates, therefore, that the Bishop of Rome is chief amongst the Bishops, the successor to Peter, and thus, not only the spiritual head of the Roman Church, but of the Christian Church as a whole(at least those parts which have sustained Apostolic Succession in their Orders(Roman, Orthodox, Old Catholic and Anglican in particular) Fr Chris.

Curtis Johnson:
We have a vocal and articulate Orthodox participant here; I rather suspect he might dispute your claim to Roman superiority over his church!

Tough luck--you can't run from the facts so easily. The facts are that both Acts and Paul's Epistles depict Peter as being subservient to James. Acts depicts Paul as being subservient to James and not Peter, and Paul's Epistles show Paul hotly disputing any authority of Peter over him. Manifestly, if Peter ever did have any authority, he had given it up to James. And Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus, lays down a clear line of sucession from James for the Jerusalem Church.


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank