I posted this question on another thread, but no one answered it, so I thought I’d give everyone another shot at it.
The short answer: because that’s how it always was.
As early as Clement I, we can point to a magisterial letter to the Corinthians - written while the Apostles James and John were still alive, and (at least geographically) considerably closer to Corinth than Clement I. Yet it was Clement, Peter’s successor in Rome, to whom everyone looked for the definitive word.
It’s true, as the OP suggests, that “churches” were founded in many places. But they were always considered part of the universal church. In 100 AD, St Ignatius Theophorus was bishop of Antioch, so he was a lineal successor of St. Peter, in light of Peter’s founding of the church at Antioch before he went to Rome. But Ignatius, like all the other apostolic bishops in the region, never took that as any reason to claim primacy in the Church. Even in the letters he wrote whne he needed to claim all the importance he could possibly muster - he was being marched in chains from Antioch to Rome to be eaten by lions in the Colosseum - Ignatius acknowledges explictly that it is the Bishop of Rome, alone, who presides over all Christian communities in the world.
- Rick
Most Catholic historians also point to the words of Jesus in Mattthew 16:18 :
Euty - that’s true enough, but I don’t think the OP questioned Peter’s primacy… merely the successors thereof.
- Rick
As (traditionally and scripturally) the “rock” and leader of the original 12 Apostles, Peter would have “outranked” all other founders of the church including Paul. Thus the standing of paramount leader of the churches in Rome (“Bishop of Rome”) would have vested upon him upon establishing himself there. Then both attributions were assumed by his direct successors in office (formalized as of THE Bishop OF Rome, not just “a” Bishop “in” Rome = any apostolic successor in town). Now… if at this point we’re thinking, well, there’s no real reason why both roles – chief leader of the whole Church and chief leader of the Churches in Rome – HAD to keep being vested in the same person… well, others have thought that, too, that’s how come there were are other ancient Churches that never did fold into the RCC, and newer ones that spun off from it…
As to how come the Bishop of Rome is the only successor of Peter, and not that of Jerusalem, or Antioch… well, it was where he finally ended up and was martyred… he had already handed over the churches founded in other places to other leaders… and, quite plainly, hey, it’s Rome. It was “where it’s at”.
Thanks for the insights, Rick. Your last post was quite accurate. (Thanks, anyway, Euty!)
St. Ignatius wrote at least seven epistles, and in doing a cursory search of them here, I wasn’t able to find what you were refering to. Any help?
Iggy wrote extensively in his letter to the Philadelphians about the importance of the bishop as a unifying force and decrying anyone who separatess from him. He even writes that there is one Lord and one loaf and one cup, “as there is one bishop.” As far as I can tell, though, he is refering to the bishop of Philadelphia, not Rome. If the entire church were under the care of one bishop, surely he would have mentioned it there!
I’m also unclear on why the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is seen not only as first among equals, but the specific individual in whom the promises of Christ to Peter are to be fulfilled. People may have been particularly willing to listen to Clement, and he may have been particularly willing to teach them, but that does not necessarily translate into an office bearing the full weight of the magisterium, and responsability for the temporal affairs of the church to boot. (I know the Pope’s authority is a different issue than his legitimacy [as Peter’s successor], but the two seem closely related.)
I know this is a long post asking about complex issues, but the future direction of my life is at stake here. No, I’m not likely to convert, but when I go to a Methodist seminary next year, if I haven’t gotten the answer from you guys, I’ll have to attend the one in DC instead of Denver, so I can cross-register at the Catholic seminaries there!
Sorry, JR. I took a long time to compose my reply, and I missed yours on preview. That’s a good, concise, and helpful summary of why things worked out the way they did. (I especially liked the explanantion of the distinction between “a B. in R.” and “the B. of R.”) But given the importance of this point in the structure and theology of the RCC, they must have a fuller argument. I don’t expect anyone to give me all the details here, but a cite (preferably to something on line) and an interesting summary (to further the discussion here) would be welcome.
I can’t help but notice that threads titled “Who’s the Idiot Who Invented Circumcision?” and “What the hell is the UK doing?” have multiple pages, while my little thread has floundered at the bottom of the page with a measly six replies (two of them–now three–from myself). I would therefore like to officially request (against my better judgement) that the awesome and god-like mods change the title of this thread to the slightly more inflamatory, but still wholly accurate, “Who the hell does the Pope think he is?!?”
David B or Gaudere, do your stuff!
And thanks in advance.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Constitution of the Church and Papacy.
Specifically articles 880 thru 892. Of course, it’s the Church’s own explanation, so it may be self-referential at times, and the degree of satisfaction for an outside observer may vary.