The historical existence of Pope Mark of Rome is almost certain.And this is what Andrew and Goranson want us to believe.
Mark never had the authority over Alexandria as this rival tradition to Rome.
This Mark nonsense was all invented by Eusebius in the fourth century.
BUT
There is documented evidence that during the reign of Constantine a shrine of Mark was built at Rome by a Roman bishop Mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marco ... glio,_Rome who only appears in history to build this church (his bones "replace" or mirror those of Mark in Alexandria) and become the basis for the church. His bones are what give it "sanctity."
Shortly thereafter (no one knows exactly when) Roman bishops take the Alexandrian title of the bishops of Mark "Papa"
Why did the Roman bishop take up Markan authority? The period which follows was one where Arianism (= Alexandrianism Arius was the bishop over St Mark's church in the Cowpasture) took over the Church. Arianism was never popular in Italy. From 337 to 350 Constans, sympathetic to non-Arian Christians, was emperor in the West, and Constantius II, sympathetic to the Arians, was emperor in the East. But for one brief period Roman authority was compromised.
Why, if the Alexandrian tradition of Mark was bullshit invented by Eusebius, were the Roman bishops giving up their traditions to take on bullshit traditions "invented" by Eusebius? It baffles the fucking mind. The only truth they accept is the stuff invented by Irenaeus.
See Chromography 354
Andrew CriddleMarcus 8 months and 20 days. And this one was in the time of Constantine, Nepotian and Facundus being consuls [336] from the 25th day before the kalends of February to the nones of October, the emperors being consuls.
Statistics: Posted by andrewcriddle — Sat Jan 20, 2024 3:39 am