From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Aug.28.01.21.10.1992.22107@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@navier.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:
From: wagner@navier.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Papacy
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 01:21:13 GMT+5:00
Organization: UH Dept of Math

> "Eric" == Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com> writes:

> > On <23 Aug 1992 08:48> Joseph H. Buehler (5:7104/2) said to All :
> > JHB>The Papacy -- the See of Peter -- and the Faith are inseparable.

> Eric> Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:

> Steve> I would question the grounds of your identification of "the papacy"
> Steve> with the "see of Peter". The bishop of Alexandria was called "pope"
> Steve> long before the bishop of Rome was, and his title is still today
> Steve> "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa".

> I second the question.  Eric gave an answer regarding the use of the
> word `pope', but did not make a connection between the `See of Peter'
> and the modern notion of the papacy.  As far as I can tell, the 
> papacy evolved over time.  Eric's explanation, below, seems to confirm
> that.  In the early church there was no supreme pontiff, all the
> bishops had equal standing.  We don't, for example, see Peter
> exercising authority over the other apostles, although he did
> demonstrate a certain amount of leadership.  Later, it seems that 
> the Bishop of Rome became the administrator for the churches of Italy,
> and, according to Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea, the Bishop of
> Alexandria became the administrator of the churches in the East.

Certainly the papacy -- better known, and for a longer time, as the
Apostolic See, or See of Peter -- has undergone changes.  However, there was
not a point at which there was no primary bishop in the church.  ("Supremem
Pontiff" is another title which did not arise until later centuries.)  Even
the Orthodox acknowledge this.  There has always been a rank of primacy, for
example, the See of Rome first, the See of Constantinople second, the See of
Antioch third, etc.  And the Bishop of Rome has always been sought for
settling disputes, for example, the serious dispute concerning when to
celebrate Easter was given to the Bishop of Rome to resolve in the second
century.

It is true that 1800 years ago we didn't have a set of cardinals, and the
bishop of Rome did not have universal jurisdiction.  Neither did he appoint
bishops, at least not throughout the church.  The early church was more
distributed; you had the Church of Rome, the Church of Antioch, the Church
of Syria, and so forth, all probably about the same size.  It was not until
later that the Roman church took on the size and power that it has now.

Nevertheless, the bishop of Rome has always been looked to as the guardian
of Apostolic doctrine, and the Roman Church as being without error and
unable to be corrupted.  In the introduction of his letter to the Romans in
110 A.D., St.  Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, saluted the church of Rome:

  Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in
  the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son;
  to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our
  God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; to the Church
  also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the
  Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of
  praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold
  the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father: her
  therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.
  To those who are united in flesh and in spirit by every commandment of
  His, who are filled with the grace of God without wavering, and who are
  filtered clear of every foreign stain, I wish an unalloyed joy in Jesus
  Christ, our God.

I'd say he was pretty impressed.  So, while the bishop of Rome wasn't called
the Pope, and the bishopric wasn't called the Papacy, and the Vatican didn't
exist, and Supreme Pontiff was the title of the emperor, and cardinals were
still feathered creatures, the bishop of Rome still held doctrinal primacy
among the bishops of the church.  (Whether he also held jurisdictional
primacy is a matter of some debate.)

> I'd like to know exactly what was meant by the word `See'.  Can
> someone give me a dictionary definition for the word as it was
> used in `See of Peter'?

> David Wagner
> a confessional Lutheran

Eric
a Catholic Christian
--
/=============================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer     For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard MA  pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com          they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -==================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.