m auctoritates"), Caius when contending
with Proculus, the Carthaginian clergy when opposing Tertullian (in the
veil dispute), and Victor when contending with Polycrates set the
authority of Rome against that of the Greek apostolic Churches. These
struggles at the transition from the and to the 3rd century are of the
utmost importance. Rome was here seeking to overthrow the authority of
the only group of Churches able to enter into rivalry with her those of
Asia Minor, and succeeded in the attempt.]
[Footnote 334: De pudic. 21: "De tua nunc sententia quaero, unde hoc ius
ecclesiae usurpes. Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni caelestis, vel,
Quaecumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta
in coelis, id circo praesumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi
potestatem?" Stephen did the same; see Firmilian in Cyprian ep. 75. With
this should be compared the description Clement of Rome gives in his
epistles to James of his own installation by Peter (c. 2). The following
words are put in Peter's mouth: [Greek: klementa touton episkopon humin
cheirontono, ho ten emen ton logon pisteuo kathedran ... dia auto
metadidomi ten exousian tou desmeuein kai luein, hina peri pantos ou an
cheirotonese epi ges estai dedogmatismenon en ouranois. desei gar ho dei
dethenai kai lusei ho dei luthenai, hos ton tes ekklesias eidos
kanona.]]
[Footnote 335: See Dionysius of Alexandria's letter to the Roman bishop
Stephen (Euseb., H. E. VII. 5. 2): [Greek: Hai mentoi Suriai holai kai
he Arabia, ois eparkeite hekastote kai ois nun epesteilate.]]
[Footnote 336: In the case of Origen's condemnation the decision of Rome
seems to have been of special importance. Origen sought to defend his
orthodoxy in a letter written by his own hand to the Roman bishop Fabian
(see Euseb., H. E. VI. 36; Jerome, ep. 84. 10). The Roman bishop Pontian
had previously condemned him after summoning a "senate;" see Jerome, ep.
33 (Doellinger, Hippolytus and Calixtus, p. 259 f.). Further, it is an
important fact that a deputation of Alexandrian Christians, who did not
agree with the Christology of their bishop Dionysius, repaired to Rome
to the _Roman_ bishop Dionysius and formally accused the first named
prelate. It is also significant that Dionysius received this complaint
and brought the matter up at a Roman synod. No objection was taken to
this proceeding (Athanas., de synod.). T
|