[quote=ruzz]The other apostles were preaching but didn’t find a support structure to build a church. Peter was much smarter. He went to Rome.
Are you suggesting that the Churches in Asia were somehow not in communion with the Church at Rome?
The church was into it’s 5th pope while apostles were still alive. These popes apparently knew Christ and His message better than the men who walked with Jesus and slept on the same dirt with Jesus.
Where does this observation come from?
Isn’t that curious to anyone else why they [living apostles] weren’t popes?
Did Peter appoint his sucessor? How does this question support or contribute to the Protestant view of early Church history?
Why weren’t existing living disciples named as popes?
This is your game, what is your thought on this?
Could it have been the Roman Power structure had something to do with the sucess of the early Roman Church while the other apostles were floundering trying to get a following in other regions?
How do you figure that? Nowhere were Christians connected to the “power structure” before Constantine in the 4th Century.
Try this thread:
I’m not sure why you link to this thread – it was just hashing out the distinction between Apostolic Succession in general and the privilege of the Petrine Chair.
Some questions. Some doubts about the formation of the early church.
If the early church was not formed correctly, every single sucession thereafter would not be authentic.
Your sentence is correct. But what are you trying to tell us? That the early Church, contrary to the promise of Christ to the Church “was not formed correctly?” Truly, I am confused.
Maybe you have answers based on historical fact and not church sources. .
Church sources do not qualify as “historical fact?” Nobody BUT the Church would have had any interest in it at all. Do you reject Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen and such because they wrote within the Church?