As I recently demonstrated, Popessa Priscilla was the real bishop of Rome. Over the centuries, millions of the faithful have damned themselves by going to the wrong address. They mistakenly thought The One True Church was situated on Vatican Hill when, all along, The One True Church was situated on Aventine Hill. They mistook to San Pietro for Mother Church when that honor properly belongs to Santa Prisca.
You can never be too particular about your geography.
"Popessa Priscilla", the Vicaress of Christ.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, there's a Presiding Bishopess of The Episcopal "Church" named Katherine Jefferts-Schori.
You're not serious about this allegation, I hope.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I ask is because though Aquila and Pricilla may have been in Rome before Sts. Peter and Paul got there - but that didn't make them "bishops" and especially did not give them "THE" Apostolic See of St. Peter.
ReplyDeleteAs I'm sure you're aware too, St. Peter had a see in Antioch too, but his bishoprick is traced through Rome, where he died.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
CATHAPOL SAID:
ReplyDelete"You're not serious about this allegation, I hope."
I'm never more serious than when I'm satirical.
"The reason I ask is because though Aquila and Pricilla may have been in Rome before Sts. Peter and Paul got there..."
That's not the argument. Try again.
..."but that didn't make them 'bishops' and especially did not give them 'THE' Apostolic See of St. Peter."
There's no good reason to think Peter founded the church of Rome. House-churches in Rome likely antedated Peter's presence, assuming he was even there.
"As I'm sure you're aware too, St. Peter had a see in Antioch too, but his bishoprick is traced through Rome, where he died."
That's a legend.
There's no good reason to think Peter founded the church of Rome. House-churches in Rome likely antedated Peter's presence, assuming he was even there.
ReplyDeleteAnd who is arguing that St. Peter "founded" the church of Rome? So, you've built up this satirical straw man, and then you knock it down and seem to think you have some sort of victory here.
I, for one, do not deny there were Christians in Rome, meeting in households, prior to St. Peter's arrival there.
MY point remains... St. Peter's See was not always in Rome, but there is where his life ended, so that was his final see - and thus is Rome is rightly recognized as the See of Peter. One could also rightly recognize Antioch as "a" See of Peter, but St. Peter's successor is the one who took his place in the see he occupied at his death.
AMDG,
Scott<<<