Replies

Any, or all, of this could be true and it still doesn't have any bearing on whether Christ actually established a Papacy. Does it?

Not the point at all Reggie. It is a claim that is thrown around as fact. Seemingly inconsiquential - innocuous even to some. It goes to credibility.

. . . The approach taken by a few Catholics here has been precisely and practically to the word "we said it and unless you can disprove it, it's true."

. . . This is one of the reasons I've stuck so closely to this issue.

I understand your point and I agree there has never been any proof that Peter was in Rome. Conversely, there is no proof that he wasn't there. I just don't think it is important to the story of the Papacy whether he was there or not.

I haven't been around throughout the entire history of this topic, but I suspect one of the reasons you have stuck so closely to this issue is because you are stubborn. Having said that, I believe your "opponents" will not be convinced by truth or logic. In the final analysis the answer will be; "This is what my Church tells me sot it must be true."

You see, I believe it is easier to prove there never was a Papacy established in the first place, consequently, who gives a damn whether Peter ever was in Rome or not.