All Things Roman (History)

[Wile E. Coyote]

From whate date would "you" (I mean the student of history you, not the religious you) date the Primacy of Rome?


The primacy of Rome is the foundational Christian doctrine that the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) holds supreme universal authority over the entire Church.

The first Council (ecunemical synod) was called by an Emperor (Constantine) who was not a christian, (he was a sun worshipper), with the aim so they say...... to clear up certain disagreements within Christianity. This Council took place without the Bishop of Rome even being present, and as little as 5-7 western bishops. (if any??)

Disagreements within christianity continued over the centuries, with Emperors not Popes calling Councils to resolve these. These disagreeements would not occur if you had a supreme recognised church head.......


There is simply no evidence for a "Primacy of Rome", during the early years and the "clever" second line of defence, he was a "primus inter pares" also does not apply........

Wileys best guess is that the Primacy of Rome dates to 1061 ie the first election by cardinal of Pope Alexander II, who then supported the nascent Reconquistà in Spain, as well as William the Conqueror's conquest of England (1066) and the Normans conquest of Southern Italy ( 1067).

The foundation event of Western histiography, and our sacred, Christian chronology was the election of Pope Alexander II in 1061, and the revolutionary crusades that followed

[Mick Harper]

I'd be quite happy to go along with that, with one of two provisos:

1. Since we have no evidence of Christianity in Britain before the eleventh century, we have tentatively made Christianity a 'Norman' invention, whatever 'Norman' precisely means. They then spread it eastwards via -- but not exclusively -- the Crusades.

2. Christianity is an invention of the Byzantines sometime before the eleventh century and the 'Normans' introduced it into western Europe. They then forced the Byzantines to accept the primacy of their bishop (in Rome) as the price for saving them from the Muslims by the Crusades.

But I haven't really worked it all out in my own head. And that includes the real chronological dates for Normans and Byzantines relative to the Roman Empire (the one that looked to Rome).

It's only the lack of Christianity in Britain that forces me to exclude Christianity from western Europe before the Norman era and accept the chips as they fall from that.

[Wile E. Coyote]

The primacy of Rome was estalished with the help of a new Western Sacred Christian chronology.

The Bible provides all Christian scholars East and West with an absolutely reliable method of dating and recalculating dates. Their bible in effect provides these scholars with (for them) a reliable Eyewitness account of key events.(based on the infallible Word of God).

The argument between West and East Christianity can only therefore occur where the bible ends......

The mythical origin event of Western histiography, is the matyrdom and death of St Peter....... in Rome

For Christians St. Peter died as a martyr in Rome between AD 64 and 68 during the reign of Emperor Nero

1000 year gap......

The foundation event of Western histiography, and our sacred, Christian chronology was the election of Pope Alexander II in 1061, and the revolutionary crusades that followed

[Mick Harper]

This would be a mild nuisance for me since I have a pet theory regarding (a) the 1000 AD millennium (b) the career of Sylvester II and (c) the birth of archaeology.

However, your mention of Alexander the Second prompts me to ask about how Pagan Classical heroes feature in papal throne names generally. (In your own time.)

[Wile E. Coyote]

The mythical origin event of Western histiography, is the matyrdom and death of St Peter....... in Rome

Petrine theory, asserts that Christ granted St. Peter unique leadership, he went to Rome where he was matyred, his leadership qualties were passed down to his sucessors, Bishops of Rome.

There is no evidence that St Peter went to Rome, and their is no agreed established list for early Bishops of Rome.

The list of Bishops can be said to operate like many Regnal Lists ie to establish or invent a long unbroken lineage, from a modern day king or religious leader backwards to a divine god.

Christian scribes were there to establish Roman Primacy a complete unbroken lineage from its Bishops (existing in the temporal realm) back to St Peter (he of unique leadership qualities, ) and then back to Christ.

Jesus had declared. "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," the Western Scribes were commisioned to establish that the Church of Jesus would be led by Bishops of Rome, from Rome.

For Wiley, Rome managed to estabish primacy in the face of much more obvious claims from other cities.

[Mick Harper]

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

I understand all this but you have not established a specific link with Peter for chronological purposes. If the Disciples are fictional it might be useful to go through them to show the purpose of each.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Its pretty clear to Wiley that after what Western Christians thought was a 1000 years, the problem was to bridge the entire early timeline of the Hebrew Scriptures with classical Roman history.

They did this by neatly inserting at the end (sic) the death of St Peter (under Nero) (ortho) 64-8 in Rome.

This established Rome primacy, and that enabled them to creatively match Roman classical history and dates.

Biblical.....The destruction of Jerusalem, Nero-Titus takes place (ortho) 66-70.

Roman......Nero great fire 64

Provincial .....Boudica revolt and fire 60-61

1000 years later

Pope Alexander the Second

1066......

[Wile E. Coyote]

The problem for Wiley is that no one is going to beleive him.

I might as well be telling Bishop Ussher that he had it wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

Modern Western historians have recreated biblical certainty into what is frankly a bizzare way of dating events, based on Roman primacy.

They would be much better off starting afresh and treating anything before 1061 as prehistory. Then it would fall into place.

[Mick Harper]

I seem to remember that modern academic historians claim to be relying on seventh century monks who were able to work it out. 'Ya gotta be in a Dark Age to count the years of a Dark Age.' They do not concede to The Church the counting of these years, they regard these monks as medieval academic historians (who happened to be churchmen.)

Even though our historians have had to accept the Church-supplied Birth of Christ as their Year Zero they have done their best to wriggle out of it by adopting--and trying to get the rest of us to adopt--their stoopid BCE and CE labels, which do not refer to religion at all!

[Mick Harper]

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

This is what I do myself. So, for instance, for Britain I accept the reality of the Roman occupation because of the archaeology, ignore or radically truncate the Dark Ages, accept the reality of Norman/ Angevin history because of... mmm, not sure, I'd have to think about that... then English Plantagenet history from dubious written records up until the Tudors, then pretty much join the mainstream from there on in.

But my point is that the history I believe is not determined by the chronological structure I happen to be casting these events in. The same would be true for academic historians if they were forced to use 1061 as their start point. Just because Bede is writing in 350 BPA (Before Pope Alexander) wouldn't in itself affect their belief in Bede's veracity. Any more than Assyrian clay tablets would be rejected for being B.C.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Bede's is a christian account written after 1061.

The reason why these accounts had to be written and pre dated before conquest was because of land and money disputes.


The conquest (disputes) meant that British manuscripts needed to be both dated and stylised as earlier than those on the continent, the manuscripts were a means (evidence) to give primacy to a particular claim.

The interlaced knotwork is an attempt to potray visually ancient ie early (linkage) lineage, even if these scripts were post conquest.