The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

[Christ] made answer: "You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . ." Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Did they leave out the filioque in in RCIA? How about the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility? Created grace?

I know you asked this rhetorically, but I'd like to answer it, to give a perspective.

It's been a while since RCIA for me, but maybe less than for others.

Created Grace: I don't remember being taught this. It seems very likely it would have been in some reading or handout, but I don't remember it. Likely because it didn't interest me or raise questions - which was what I focused on in RCIA. And as it applies to praxis, my information was other sources than theology. I actually had to go just now and read up on it. And I see where the conflict is.

Papal Infallibility: Yes, briefly. It was described as rare, special, the usual that you hear in RC apologetics. Personally, I saw and heard this as a last resort. I had overcome my anti-authority bias, so I put this in that category. I can choose to join, stay or leave, but there is a final authority and a hierarchy. I hadn't even considered the objection from the Orthodox perspective. I certainly see it now.

Immaculate Conception: Yes, of course, taught and discussed. Here's the odd thing: Coming from a bible belt Protestant background I saw the teaching on Adam's sin as much more truthful in the RC. So my comparison was with the Protestant, Calvinistic, view, rather than the Orthodox.

Filioque: Of course, the creed was centermost. The scriptural basis for each point was discussed; I don't remember if "from the Father through the Son" was used at all; Orthodox history was not discussed. Again, the culture I live in is Protestant or RC, not Orthodox or RC. My overall reaction or decision on the Creed was: "Close enough if you have to use words." My primary entry point was through the Contemplatives. I don't know if this is blasphemous, but theology was secondary. So long as what I was being taught did not negate or contradict or inhibit, I mostly looked beyond theology, if that's possible. I was reading St. John OTC, Meister Eckhart, Merton concurrently. This was Catholocism to me as much or more as what I was being taught in RCIA. And in private discussions with my teachers, this is where I was focused.

I'm pretty ignorant in a lot of these areas. RCIA in my case was not presented as choices, but as a description of what the RC teaches and questions and problems with this teaching. Without knowing the Orthodox view, and being a neophyte with theology in general...

I'm reading about Orthodox theology, rather spirituality now from Orthodox sources, and I'm reading Bishop Ware's book on The Orthodox Church. I also read the wiki entry on the Filoque Clause.It seemed a balanced, even hopeful, presentation; I don't know if it's an accurate one.

You guys are far far ahead of me on the theology and the history; I'm playing catchup from a great distance behind. I do think it's helpful for each of us to know more about the other's experience. One of the reasons I joined the Church was its breadth, and to me, where I am most often found - it is the same Church. It's a big Church, the walls are erected as far out as possible. We in here are, I believe, very close to the center, not close to the boundaries. And at the center is our spirituality.

My view only, FWIW with apologies for the length.

Did they leave out the filioque in in RCIA? How about the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility? Created grace?

Those aren't "derogations". The very notion that these are "derogations" falsely presupposes that the bishop of Rome does not have the authority that he has. In other words, you are begging the question by calling them "derogations".

"Name one place where Rome claims to have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. Can't do it?"

Vatican I. Want some more?

Vatican I never claimed that Rome had a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. I am amazed at these straw man. Do you really think it did claim that, or are you just pulling my leg?

Isn't that what the Vicar of Christ on Earth means, God's viceroy in effect, A? According to you guys, Christ handed over the keys to heaven to +Peter. I suppose that means the Pope gets to decide who gets in, or whether God gets out? That's not a strawman, A. That's what underlay the ecclesiological heresy which forced Rome out of The Church and ultimately lead to the Protestant Revolution.

Now you pull the bait and switch. The claim was whether Rome has a "monopoly on the Holy Spirit". When I challenge that claim, you speculate about whether that's what "Vicar of Christ" means (no, it doesn't mean that). Then you construct another straw man in claiming that Christ giving the keys to Peter means that Peter gets to decide "whether God gets out". If you *do* know that it doesn't mean that, then you are intentionally constructing straw men. And if you *don't* know that it doesn't mean that, then you need to pick up a copy of the Catechism, and read it through carefully.

Then you claim that Rome is "outside of the Church".

Outside what Church? The Orthodox are not even one Church. They are a multitude of independent and autonomous Churches. Why? Because they are separated from Peter, their head and their principle of unity, which you would have seen if you had carefully studied my quotations from the fathers (which you obviously didn't, because you replied so fast), and if you had read Soloviev.

Indeed it is because you, like 1100 years of Latins before you haven't a clue what the consensus patrum says about this and ignore how the Petrine Ministry actually worked in the first 900 years of The Church.

That's an ad hominem. Engaging in ad hominems does not get us any closer to the truth or to reconciliation.

I must say that to say that the Protestant Revolution was some how or other Orthodoxy's fault is rather beyond the pale.

I didn't claim it was "Orthodoxy's fault". The Catholic Church has already admitted that there were sins on both sides (Protestant and Catholic). But there is no doubt when you read Luther, that he justified his schism by appealing to the example of the ECs.

It sounds, however, like something the Latins would say, their pope being infallible and all

That is an ad hominem and a straw man. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible simpliciter, but only under very specific conditions. Outside those conditions, popes have erred in many ways, as they themselves have admitted.

and they did say that the Protestant's revolt was in effect a revolt against God Himself.

Indeed, as Ignatius of Antioch said over and over in his epistles. Obedience to the bishop is obedience to God, for he is God's representative. It is not a zero-sum situation, just as "doing it to one of the least of these" is doing it unto Christ, but in the case of bishop, a fortiori. When Luther burned Exsurge Domine, he was scorning the rebuke of the Lord Himself.

-A8

And the Blessed Mother is mentioned how many times, NYer? Oh, wait, I know...19 times. Clearly she is far, far less important that the successor to +Peter, right?

Your analogy, dear friend, is misplaced. We're discussing the primacy of Peter amongst the Apostles, not the Blessed Mother.

Our Lord said to Peter - "You are Peter and upon this rock - Cephas - I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." He didn't say "upon you and the other disciples". He said 'rock' - not rocks, boulders, stones, etc. So let's take a closer look at how the other disciples viewed Peter. From Scripture Catholic

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

Christ passed the leadership of His Church to Peter and that leadership has been handed down in unbroken succession to the present 'leader' - Pope Benedict XVI. And, K, the room where the newly elected pontiff changes into his papal dress, is called the Room of Tears, for obvious reasons. These are not tears of joy but tears of humility at the awesome responsibility shouldered by this individual to guide the Church, founded by Jesus Christ. His great consolation is knowing that he has the Holy Spirit to guide him along.

"Those aren't "derogations". The very notion that these are "derogations" falsely presupposes that the bishop of Rome does not have the authority that he has. In other words, you are begging the question by calling them "derogations"."

Sort of post hoc, propter hoc isn't it? Rome declares the filioque dogmatic sua sponte at the Lateran and Lyons Councils, and for that matter later at Vatican I, then at Vatican I says, well dogmatically the Pope is infallible so the pope had the power back in the 1200s to unilaterally do what the councils specifically forbade, which was to change the wording of the Creed. The same applies to the dogmatic proclamations of the IC and papal infallibility itself. The determination of dogma, without question, always belonged to The Church in council, never to the pope until that authority was arrogated to himself at Vatican I. Of course, one might argue that that "power" amounts to nothing more than the designation of Rome as the first among equal sees in The Church. As it was a creation of a council, Vatican I, and merely a local council at that, an Ecumenical Council could reverse it. In any event, making changes to the Creed and declaring dogma for the entire Church is absolutely against what the Ecumenical Councils declared and as such it is a derogation of the authority of the Holy Spirit which acted through those councils. To say that because a local council said the pope is infallible, well then its OK is unacceptable and, as I said, an example of post hoc propter hoc reasoning, in other words, Romish spin.

"Vatican I never claimed that Rome had a monopoly on the Holy Spirit"

Of course it did. That's exactly what the dogma of papal infallibility means, however limited its use might be. Have you ever read the decrees of Vatican I? For the enlightenment of the lurkers here:

"# Wherefore we teach and declare that,

* by divine ordinance,
* the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
* this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
o episcopal and
o immediate.
* Both clergy and faithful,
o of whatever rite and dignity,
o both singly and collectively,
* are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
o not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
o but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

# In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .

# This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

# This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]

# Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

# And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that

* this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that
* it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

# Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that

* he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
* in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
* The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
* nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
* they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

# So, then,

* if anyone says that
o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
+ not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
+ not only in matters of
# faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
# discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema."

"The claim was whether Rome has a "monopoly on the Holy Spirit". When I challenge that claim, you speculate about whether that's what "Vicar of Christ" means (no, it doesn't mean that). Then you construct another straw man in claiming that Christ giving the keys to Peter means that Peter gets to decide "whether God gets out"."

and

"The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible simpliciter, but only under very specific conditions."

I think the foregoing decree of Vatican I puts to rest your positions. According to Vatican I, to be saved we must SUBMIT to the person of the pope. That's all most of us need to know. We all thought we were to submit to God.

Finally, you comment that Orthodoxy isn't even "A Church" but rather "a multitude of independant autonomous churches". We are that and as such we are The Church, not "a" Church. By the way, by your definition, every Eastern Rite Church in communion with Rome except perhaps the Ruthenians and the Maronites aren't The Church either. Or is it the magical submission to Rome which makes them The Church? That's not even Latin ecclesiology, A. I don't know what it is. You continue on with a paraphrasing of +Ignatius of Antioch. Its obvious that you believe, as Rome would have you believe, that the bishop +Ignatius is refering to is the pope. Thus, in Latin ecclesiology the fullness of The Church is found only in the Latin Church in submission to the pope, as Vatican I teaches. Orthodoxy has never accepted that and it is laughable to believe that +Ignatius in the year 97 or so was speaking of what the papacy had become by the 19th century.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.