Open main menu

Wikipedia β


Opposition arguments from early church history: It's not just according to Iraeneus
==Opposition arguments from early church history==
* According to Irenaeus, theThe church at Rome was founded (or more formally organised) by both Peter and [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]]. As no particular ''charism'' or primacy attaches to Paul, then it is not from his co-foundation of the church of Rome that the Roman Pontiff claims primacy.
* As many Sees are of Peter, Peter serves as an archetype of apostolicity"Apostle".
* TheWhile the See of Rome did havehad primacy, but it was a position of honorhonour rather than power or magisterial authority.
* Rome is ''an'' Apostolic [[Throne#Ecclesiastical thrones|throne]], not ''the'' Apostolic throne.
* Each bishop has the right to manage affairs within his local diocese. In the event of a dispute with another bishop, only a general council may rule on the matter.
* Cases which had been decided by Rome were appealed to bishops in other [[Metropolitan bishop|metropolitan areas]].
* Cases which had been decided by Rome were appealed to [[synod]]s of bishops in other metropolitan areas.
* Peter founded many [[episcopal see]]s, including Antioch. There is no difference between the Sees of Peter; all aresuch sees ofhave equal standing.
* The [[Apostle (Christian)|Apostles]] were equal under Christ; heno didauthority notwas withhold authoritywithheld from any of them.
* The Roman Pontiff is also styled "universal bishop" ({{lang-la|Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis}}), but a previous Pope condemned the use of such a title by any bishop.
* The post-Constantinian church conferred upon the sees of Old Rome and later New Rome ([[Constantinople]]) the same degree of honor.