“Actually, my argument is that Gregory believed the western church was divided equally between the Bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. (I never said that was MY opinion.) I don’t believe it would be OK to consider Gregory as believing those THREE reigned over ALL the Bishops of the world with the quotes I supplied earlier”
Thank you. Now that we’ve dispensed of that argument, we can move on.
“Papacy is not something that always existed, but was an innovation.”
If it was not always in existance, when was it created?
“but YOU are the one who claims an unbroken and eternal magisterium”
I never claimed any such thing. Not here on earth, no.
I claim that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus who gave his disciples the power to forgive sins and that he appointed Peter as the leader of the Apostles. I claim through Apostolic succession, that the Catholic church now headed by Pope Francis is an unbroken succession of bishops all the way back to St. Peter.
“you’ll have to settle being a Protestant whose rule of faith is the scripture.”
Does one submit to Das Kapital, or does one submit to Marx?
“we can move on.”
You can move on, right off the cliff with those spurious arguments of yours.
“If it was not always in existance, when was it created?”
Not before Gregory, that much is certain.
“I claim that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus who gave his disciples the power to forgive sins “
I like Jerome’s correction of this:
“The bishops and priests not understanding that passage, assume to themselves somewhat of the arrogance of the Pharisees, so far as to imagine that they may condemn the innocent or absolve the guilty, whereas with God, it is not the sentence of the priests, but the life of the guilty that is looked into. We read in Leviticus concerning the lepers, where they were commanded to show themselves to the priests, in order that if they had a leprosy, they might be made unclean by the priests : not that the priests made them lepers and unclean, but be cause they knew who were lepers and who were not, and could discover who were clean and who were unclean. In the same manner therefore as the priest there made a man clean or unclean, so here the bishop or priest either binds or loosens, not those who are innocent or guilty, but officially, when he has heard the nature of their sins, he knows who is to be bound and who is to be loosened. — On the 16th chap, of Mat. vol. 6.
“he appointed Peter as the leader of the Apostles. “
Nowhere does Peter claim to be the leader of the Apostles, nor is he treated as such.
For example, in Acts 15 it is James, not Peter, who presides over the council and makes the final judgment that the church embraces. It is Paul who confronts Peter “to his face,” when Peter was in error. And it is Peter who declares that all believers are rocks (stones) building up the house of Christ, with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone.
According to Romish theology, Peter should have presided over any council. Paul could not have confronted Peter as an equal. And lastly, only Peter, not the body as a whole, and not Christ, is the chief cornerstone.
And it is for that reason that Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement writing in the 1st and 2nd centuries mention no Papacy, and why several hundred years later, Gregory, in his worst heresy, is still no promoter of Roman Popery as we know it today.
What you believe or feel is irrelevant.