**The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred.**
Comments, anyone?
Eventually as the Irish began re~Christianizing Europe from the West, and Rome began re-Christianizing Europe from the South, there was a conflict.
Some imagine that Rome won. I think it's worth a thorough examination to see if that was really true ~ once that's completely established or discredited, then we might get into this business of a Catholic/Protestant conflict ~ which isn't as big as Catholics imagine it to be.
Seems to me that Paul didn’t entirely respect Peter’s views.
May we find our lineage in Christ, not Peter. May we find our home in heaven, not Rome. May we promote Jesus, and not our particular denomination.
Yes, Roman Catholicism is one of the branches of faith whose root finds itself in Christ. Personally, I am grateful for the “remnant” that has continued through the root of Christ, separate from the heresies that emerged over centuries in the dominant denomination.
Again, I please with all who find their home in Rome: Let us promote Christ. May He increase, and our denominational preferences decrease. Let us think how we can spur one another on to deeper faith in Christ, rather than look for ways to slam the way others follow Him.
If you are a Christ-follower, you will meet me in heaven. He has welcomed me as a member of His family; please, consider me a full member of the family of God as well, a full participant in His church: the full body of those who follow Him. Don’t demean my faith in Jesus because I’m not a member of your particular denomination, your particular branch from the root of Jesus.
**The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred.**
Comments, anyone?
It's a bit of a nonsense statement, as, as far as I know, no one has ever claimed Peter had "no authority" (or "primacy"...to use a fancier word). ALL the Apostles--the 12 Disciples and certain other eye-witnesses to the resurrected Christ, had primacy and authority to rule the Church--and that primacy is found primarily, if not exclusively, in one thing--their written testimony: The New Testament.
When a man leaves a will, he leaves 2 things: The written document, AND, the Executor. At no time does the Executor have more, or even equal legal authority as the written will itself. This is even true, later--if said will is disputed-- and the Executor swears that the written will is genuine and even discovers and arranges the written pages of that will.
This is the same as the early Roman and Catholic Church, relating to the Bible. Like an Executor, while left in charge, it didn't create the will, or the Bible, even as it preserved and recognized it, and therefore neither does it have equal or superior authority over God's will, and the Apostles' will, as expressed in holy Scripture.
The biblical evidence is clear--the dominant leading Apostle in the 20 years or so after Jesus' resurrection--was James, brother of Jesus. In Acts 15, the record of the 1st great Council of Jerusalem--where gentile Christians were formally recognized by the whole Church, without having to become Jewish, it is clear that a CONCILIAR form of government was followed (the leaders all decided together...), not at all a papal, or hierarchical form, which was facilitated by the leadership of James, not Peter... although Peter surely played a large part.
After this point in history, Paul clearly is the leader and husbandman of the nascent Gentile churches--planting many (many) congregations throughout Asia-Minor and Greece. The Roman Church, as a matter of fact, clearly existed BEFORE Peter ever got there (as Peter is not mentioned in Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome (Romans)...so the Church was established in Rome BEFORE Peter arrived).
The whole concept of dual final authorities...one based on Peter's designates (or spritual Executors, if you will), the other on the written testimony of various Apostles (of which Peter's words make up but a fraction), just seems very much to me as medieval Roman historic revisionism, intended to defend and endorse the Bishop of Rome's worldly power, functionally over and against...the Bible.
Duumviri never worked in ancient Rome, and haven't worked since.