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!

• 1) That Peter ws in Rome has been questioned; "Peter's Tomb" has been strongly disputed as being Peter's. I don't have the sources on hand to back me up, though, so I'll grant a stay in Rome by Peter. (But if so, it's decidedly odd that Acts doesn't mention it, don't you think?)

• 2) The Church of Antioch also claimed that it was founded by Peter; Paul also had an extended stay there. Therefore Antioch would seem to have exactly the same claim for pre-eminence as Rome.

• 3) I'm well aware of the Matthean verses you cite [16:13-20], and that it is the "proof" text for the RCC's claim. I'm also well aware of the common Protestant interpretation, that the "rock" is anyone who believes Jesus to be the Messiah, i.e. the "rock" of faith. "Rock" in that sense _is_ used elsewhere in the NT, such as Paul's odd comment about the "rock" that followed the Israelites in the wilderness. I personally have no idea which GMatt meant; both seem possibly valid.

• 4) But note the absence anywhere else of such a claim for Peter in the NT, even when it would be called for to mention it. "Peter" does not mention it in the epistles attributed to him; Paul does not mention it when discussing who has authority in the church; and so on.

  I may be wrong, but I'm not even aware of such a claim in the apocryphal Petrine literature (Gospel of Peter, Acts of Peter, Preaching of Peter, etc.). It is also not cited by Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians when he is telling them they had no right to elect a new bishop -- considering the strained arguments he used, Clement surely would have used this if he were aware of it, and as the supposed successor to Peter he would have had to have been aware of such a claim.

• 5) The absence of such a claim elsewhere in the NT is particularly telling in GMark and GLuke. Both relate the same story Peter's confession of faith -- almost word for word -- but both omit the authority being given to Peter because he made this confession. [GMark 8:27-30: GLuke 9:18-21]. If such authority was granted, its omission in GMark is particularly strange.

  Traditionally, Mark was Peter's interpreter in Rome, and GMark is supposed to have been in effect dictated by Peter while awaiting execution in the very place where he was supposed to have passed on his authority!

• 6) I also note that you have made no real attempt to deal with the historical evidence of whether Peter or the others regarded him as having authority over them, instead of the head of the Jerusalem church: James.