Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 109:
Line 109: − + + +
→Peter and Paul: revision, and links re archaeological evidence Peter was actually in Rome.
=====Peter and Paul=====
=====Peter and Paul=====
Peter (and Paul) did found a church in Rome in 42 A.D. and he served as the bishop for 25 years until 67 A.D. when he was martyred. However, as Duffy points out, "wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve."<ref>Duffy, p. 2</ref> That is, the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the Western Roman Empire was not unequivocally established for several centuries, and even then was rejected by eastern bishops who guide the Eastern Orthodox Church under the leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Peter (and Paul) did found a church in Rome in 42 A.D.<ref>Archaeological evidence cited:
*[http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/rome.htm Was St. Peter in Rome? archaeological evidence (catholicapologetics.info)]
*[https://www.catholic.com/tract/was-peter-in-rome Was Peter in Rome? (catholic.com)]</ref> and he served as the bishop for 25 years until 67 A.D. when he was martyred. However, the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the Western Roman Empire was not unequivocally established for several centuries, and even then was rejected by eastern bishops who guide the Eastern Orthodox Church under the leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
===Early history to 350===
===Early history to 350===