Of Growth
And Strength

The placement of this article on this website is by no means an endorsement of Mormonism, the book of Mormon, or any of their beliefs.

The reason this article has been posted is the writer has written such an outstanding piece discussing the issues of authority in the early church and the rise of the papacy – as it relates to the claim of the Church of Rome regarding Peter and the Papacy emanating from him and being handed down in an unbroken chain. 

The Monarchical Authority of Rome
Edward K. Watson

Did the Bishop of Rome Inherit a Monarchical Authority

over all the Church from Peter?

The glory of Rome

     The church at Rome held six distinctions no other church had in the first centuries:

     1) It was the capital of the Roman Empire.

     2) It was the only Apostolic See (old English for seat, a reference to the chair the presiding bishop sat on in church) in the West.

     3) It had the largest congregation in Christianity.

     4) It was the richest church.

     5) It gave the largest monetary assistance to other churches.

     6) It was the church where the two greatest apostles (Peter and Paul) were martyred.

     These six factors caused the Roman See to be recognized as the pre-eminent See in Christianity. It was always ranked number one in all rankings. However, this primacy wasn't considered a primacy of jurisdiction but was a primacy of honor. The other churches didn't believe Rome possessed (spiritual) authority over them. They viewed Rome as being the first among equals under Christ. This bring an important fact to the fore:

There isn't a single manuscript that mentions the bishop of Rome inheriting a monarchical authority over the church from Peter in the first three centuries of Christianity!

Pope Damascus (382) was the first Roman bishop to claim supremacy over all of Christianity

     The very first time we hear the bishop of Rome being the inheritor of Peter's authority and keys over all of Christianity is when Pope Damascus claimed it in 382 A.D. at the council in Rome.1

     The episcopacies of Damascus (366-384) and Siricius (384-399) were a watershed era for the Roman church. This period marked the beginning of unrivaled supremacy in the West,2 with the sees of Numidia, Carthage, Arles, Lyons, Vienne and Milan never regaining their earlier rivalry with Rome (although Milan remained independent from Rome until 1059).3 By Leo the Great's bishopric, the church of Rome possessed the undisputed primacy and supremacy in the West,4 with its claims steadily increasing in scope and jurisdiction.5 However, its (Rome’s) claim was constantly rejected in the East by their actions, even by those who professed it with their lips.6

     From Pope Damascus onward, the bishops of Rome have often claimed they inherited the stewardship over the entire Christian church from Peter,7 (like Pope Leo's Fourth Sermon) but this claim wasn't emphasized too strongly because the other major Sees would dismiss it offhand as an empty claim because of its lack of scriptural, historical or council support.8 The Roman church did not insist upon it having authority by divine right until after Islam conquered the Sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, & Alexandria and (Islam) was seriously threatening the See of Constantinople. Eventually, there was no one to rival the Roman See and it began asserting its authority over all of Christianity, fulfilling through secular force what it could not through religious persuasion. It also produced a great number of forgeries that bolstered its claim of the bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter (see Chapter 10).

     Pope Siricius (384-399), the successor of Pope Damascus, continued the development of papal supremacy that Pope Damascus advocated. He (Pope Siricius) is known as the first pope who issued a Decretal (a decree like the emperor's) that still exists.9 Curiously, for one who insisted on his “special rights” Pope Siricius reverted back to the traditional view that all the bishops are (all) equally inheritors of Peter's authority.10

     There are many documents during the first and second centuries that talk about the church, and on the issues of authority and doctrine, but the (there is a complete) absence of (Any) authentic documents that have the bishop of Rome having all the keys and authority of Peter over all of Christianity is a devastating blow to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church.

     This dearth of documents makes Catholic apologists cling to any document such as 1 Clement and insist that this (very presence of this) letter means the Roman church had dominion over all of Christianity despite it obviously doesn't is because without such an interpretation, their entire church collapses since its claim of uninterrupted authority will be proven to be false. Roman Catholic apologists will quote selected passages from some Church Fathers and interpret them in such a way to show the Bishop of Rome had universal supremacy. What they will not do is bring attention to the fact that these same Church Fathers have other passages in their writings that clarify these statements, showing (conclusively that) they did not believe the Church of Rome had superior authority, but only occupied primacy in rank (first among equals) with all five major Sees (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch & Jerusalem) possessing equal authority.

     One can even argue Emperor Constantine was the head of the Catholic Church during his time since he was the one who called, presided and confirmed the Council of Nicea and ran the church according to his desires. To quote St. Opatus: “God alone was his (Constantine’s) superior.”11

Proof the bishop of Rome didn't inherit a monarchical authority over the church from Peter

     There are many evidences disproving the idea Peter passed on a monarchical authority over the entire church to the bishop of Rome:

  (1) If the bishop of Rome inherited the mantle of authority over the church, why is it that the different biblical writers who wrote their books after the martyrdom of Peter neglected to mention this momentous occasion? Why is there no record of this great event for over a hundred years after this “succession” took place? Why does 1 Clement (which is supposed to be written by a monarchical bishop) lack any hint of a monarchical bishop in Rome during the late-first century? Instead, it has a collegiate of presbyters/bishops. The first mention of a monarchical bishopric “succession” was from Hegesippus (c.175).12 Irenaeus of Lyons (180) in the last quarter of the second century,13 (Concerning Footnotes 12 and 13 this is such a critical point that I have added in the source material the writer neglected to include the additions are in blue and red) mentioned this list and would naturally focus on the bishop of Rome since this See (of Rome) was the closest center of Christianity to his (Irenaeus’ Church)  area but even he omits Peter as the first bishop of Rome. He also was very clear that he only mentioned the succession of the See of Rome because it was the only major See in close proximity to Lyons. He didn't mention the line of succession of the other Sees because of the space it would take. This shows he did not believe in papal supremacy.

  (2)  Why is it that there isn't a single statement by any of the Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria 210 AD,  Origen 230 AD, Cyprian 250 AD ,  Athanasius, 330 AD Gregory Nazianzen 330 AD, Basil the Great 350 AD, Cyril 380 AD , John Chrysostom 380 AD, Jerome 360 AD , Optatus 385 AD, Augustine 390 AD 14  Ambrose 400 AD , Hilary 460 AD etc. that explicitly states the bishop of Rome inherited a monarchical authority from Peter over all of Christianity?
(I will tell you here that when not one Apostolic father between 65 AD – 230 AD states word for word this pretend Apostolic succession that the Roman Catholic proclaimed after Constantine eviscerated the Church and turned it into the great whore NOTHING these people can argue past the point of Origen matters.

I have personally read the page after page on the internet of Catholic and Protestant Apologists arguing back and forth on documents written in the fourth, fifth, and sixth, centuries about the status of the church in Rome and the Authority of the Papacy – all of that is even less than here say evidence. To put this in Perspective speaking of the US constitution that was written 230 years ago – over the past 40 years many rights and changes have been made to that document radically affecting the courts, and the branches of Government – what the framers of the constitution wrote and set up has been greatly corrupted imagine now 200 more years in the future people suddenly deciding what the framers meant with the federalist papers and other supporting documents having been missing for that period of time and imagine what they will make up. As well intentioned as the Catholics may have well been this is exactly what happened again and again as subsequent generations have attempted to rewrite the Gospels and the Epistles for their generation and the problems handed to them from former rewrites.)  

There is no mention of an “inheritance” that is common in current Catholic writings.
15 Not one of them understood Matt 16:18 & Luke 22:32 to refer to any successor of Peter.16 When they do speak of the bishop of Rome as sitting in the throne of Peter or as Peter's successor, it was always understood as being over an Apostolic See, in particular, the church of Rome and not over the entire Christian church because Rome was considered to be a See of Peter due to his dying there. (The Sees of Alexandria and Antioch were also considered to be the Sees of Peter, as well as all orthodox churches). It is shocking to realize the only sources of Roman papal supremacy were the bishops of Rome!17 No one else said they were. This self-promoting (what else can it be called?) claim was first given by Damascus (366-384), repeated by his successors and was realistically finalized in the West by Leo the Great (440-461).18 It isn't until the mid-seventh century that we find the first Eastern leaders believing in papal supremacy (Maximus the Confessor, Stephen of Dor and Sophronius) but all three came from Rome and the West and had close connections with Rome including “a papal commission with vicarial powers (for Stephen of Dor).”19

  (3) Why was it the apostle John who presumed to speak as the head of the church as seen in the Book of Revelations instead of the “authorized” head, the bishop of Rome?

  (4) Why are there at least three conflicting accounts of this “line of succession?” To whom exactly did Peter give his authority and keys? Did he give it to Linus who in turn passed in on to Clement? Or did Peter give it directly to Clement? Or, did Peter give it to Linus who in turn passed it on to Anacletus who passed it on to Clement? In addition, what does this do with the statement in the Apostolic Constitution that has Paul placing Linus as the first bishop of Rome? And by what basis must the correct line by judged by?

  (5) How did Peter pass on his mantle of authority over the entire Christian church to Linus? If it was by the predecessor to his successor,20 why isn't that method followed today instead of voting by the college of cardinals which did not start until the eleventh century?21

  (6) Who appointed Linus anyway? Based on Acts chapter 1, it was only the remaining apostles who had the authority to choose a successor to a deceased apostle. Why is there no record of them choosing Linus?

  (7) If the bishop of Rome has jurisdiction over all of Christianity, why is it that the first seven Ecumenical Councils were not called nor presided by the bishop of Rome (despite the false claims of certain R.C. apologists)22 but by the Emperors and all the major sees collectively?

  (8) Why is it that for the first 1000 years of Christianity, Rome did not impose a single piece of doctrine or legislation upon the rest of Christianity? It surely would have done so if the bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over the universal church.23 The first real attempt was the filioque addition to the Creed and the insistence of papal supremacy on pain of excommunication if refused in 1054.

  (9) If the bishop of Rome really did inherit the keys and authority of Peter over the entire Christian church, why is it that of the 80 or so heresies in the first six centuries, not one is settled by the bishop of Rome? The bishop of Rome never offered, and no other apostolic bishop asked him to do so.24 Why? The heresies were always settled by the Ecumenical Councils of the entire church with the major Sees holding equal authority. All the decisions of the councils have to be approved by the See of Rome not because it had superior authority over the councils but due to the fact, the decisions couldn't be considered ecumenical without the support of the See of Rome since it was the only apostolic See in the West. Conversely, neither would a decision by a council be ecumenical if the See of Rome ratified a decision by a council and the Eastern sees didn't.

  (10) Why is it that the bishop of Rome did not insist on having universal authority over all the churches by divine right for the first eight centuries of Christianity,25 and wasn't done until it faced little opposition from the other Sees due to them being conquered by the Moslems?

  (11) Why is it that the Eastern Churches condemned the notion of papal supremacy when the church of Rome tried to impose it upon them in the ninth century as being alien to all of the previous councils, tradition and Scriptures and was the main reason for the “Great Schism” in the eleventh century? The eastern churches of the Catholic Church never submitted to the claims of the monarchical supremacy of the bishop of Rome,26 but viewed all the major sees as being equal and have to work together. Whenever disagreements broke out between them, they created an Ecumenical council which settled the problem,27 instead of going to a pope who decided the correct position.

  (12) Why is it that this claim by the Roman bishop wasn't accepted in Northern Italy until the mid-sixth century,28 and in all of the West until the eighth century, but even then was faced with opposition by the Spanish,29 the Celtic churches, the German bishops and especially Hincmar (845-882), the archbishop of Rheims?30 For example, the African churches recognized the bishop of Rome as holding the primacy of honor among the churches and not of jurisdiction as can be seen with the Autoninus and Apiarus incidents and of the Council in Carthage in 418 which prohibited appeals outside of Africa (Canon 17).31 This only ended when the Vandals under Gaiseric conquered the African churches in 429,32 but even after the re-conquest, the African churches, except those in Numidia, fiercely resisted papal supremacy.33 Many churches in the West resisted papal supremacy and even went into schisms with Rome when they viewed the pope of Rome as being heretical. Some of these churches were Milan, Aquileia, Ravenna, Como, Carthage and Istria.34

  (13) Why is it that Rome was given the primacy in rank among the major Sees by the Councils not because of any claim to a divine right, but simply because it was the center of the Roman Empire? When Constantinople became the new capital, it was given the second in rank and equality with Rome simply because it was “the new Rome” despite it was not apostolic and over the protestations of the See of Rome.

  (14) Why is it that for centuries, the early Catholic view was all bishops were equal and the See of Peter was held by all of the bishops collectively?35 The line of primacy given to Rome (as early as the second century in the West) was a primacy of honor, not a primacy of jurisdiction,36 and the ranking of the five major Sees gave Rome the primacy, but it was equal with all the other Sees, first among equals (primus inter pares). This primacy was give to Rome due to it being the ancient capital but also because the two greatest Christians were martyred there, in a sense, giving Rome, a double portion of apostolic authenticity.37

  (15) Why is it that the very first time the bishop of Rome received a certain amount of jurisdiction over bishops in other churches was when the Council of Sardica (347) gave certain privileges to the bishop of Rome at that time, Julius? Furthermore, Damascus and a Roman Council (378) requested Emperors Gratian and Valentinian II to grant certain privileges to the bishop of Rome which Emperor Gratian agreed, to restore some honor to Rome that it lost to Constantinople due to it being the new capital.38 Emperor Gratian didn't recognize any pre-existing rights of universal jurisdiction in the bishop of Rome, he just gave a new jurisdiction to the bishop of Rome that he never had before. Interestingly, the right of jurisdiction the bishop of Rome possessed wasn't due to divine appointment but was from a civil endowment by Emperor Gratian.39 Valentinian III granted further authority to the church of Rome in 445,40 but was very clear Rome's authority was only due to “the rank of the city of Rome” and by the decisions of the Church Councils; not by Divine right.

  (16) And finally, why is it that the very first time a bishop of Rome specifically claimed Matt 16:18 as a support for his authority was by Stephen in 254 A.D.41 and the first to claim to be the sole inheritor of the keys and authority of Peter was done by Damascus,42 in 382 A.D.43 in reference to himself over 300 years after Peter supposedly passed on this authority? Damascus interpreted Matt 16:18 to mean a monarchical authority was given to the bishops of Rome over the entire church. Why is it no bishop of Rome ever made that claim prior to Damascus if they really possessed and was recognized as possessing such an authority?44 Damascus was also the very first bishop of Rome who called other bishops “sons” instead of “brothers.”45

     The lack of any evidence that the bishop of Rome inherited the keys and authority over the entire Christian church discredits the assumption of papal supremacy. The first bishops of Rome who tried to extend their authority over others were Anicetus (155-167) and Victor (189-199).46 There are many documents “written” by bishops of Rome in the first four centuries that purportedly proves the bishop of Rome is the authorized representative of Peter that certain Catholic apologists refer to in the past for support. What they will not mention is these documents (Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) were 9th century forgeries and Pope Pius VI admitted them to be so in 1789.47

     The first major conflict based upon a claim of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome occurred between Stephen and Cyprian of Carthage in the mid-third century. This claim of jurisdiction over others was rejected and usually caused conflicts to occur between Rome and the other churches, especially in the East.48

1. Rome's status and the Council of Nicea (325)

     Rome wasn't considered by anyone outside the Roman jurisdiction to have supremacy over the other major Sees of Christianity (Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Carthage, and Jerusalem) prior to the fourth century and the Council of Nicea was the first time we find an identification of superiority of the three major Sees (Rome, Alexandria and Antioch). Does the primacy granted to Rome when it was placed first in all rankings mean the other two major sees (Alexandria and Antioch) were subject to Rome as the Catholic apologists claim? An examination of the canons of the councils disproves such an assumption.

     Canon 6 of the Nicean Council (325 A.D.), which was the first ecumenical council states,

  “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libia, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their privileges.”49

     This proves that the bishop of Rome did not have universal authority over all of Christianity, and was not recognized as possessing such authority in the fourth century. The bishop of Rome possessed authority over a limited area, and based upon writings during this time it was only over Southern Italy and the islands of Corsica, Sicily and Sardinia.50 Because of this traditional jurisdiction that the bishops of Rome, Antioch and the other provinces enjoyed over the areas around their Sees,51 the authority of the bishop of Alexandria over the countries around Alexandria was reinstated.52 During this time, the three greatest cities in the Roman Empire were Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, in that order,53 and the church followed this ranking when creating the most honored churches.

     It is also noticeable that this authority lacks any mention of it being divine. Instead, it was based upon usage or tradition (“… since that has also passed into a custom …”),

       If the bishop of Rome was recognized as having universal authority by all of Christianity, and this was due to divine right, why does the first ecumenical council of the church (with full approval from the bishop of Rome) specifically limit Rome's authority to a certain area, and state that this authority was only due to custom instead of divine authority?

2. Rome's status and the Council of Constantinople (381)

     The next Ecumenical Council is even clearer concerning the authority that the bishop of Rome possessed. Its Third Canon reads,

  “The Bishop of Constantinople, however shall have the prerogative of honour (priores honoris partes) after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome.”54

     According to Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. the council gave Rome the primacy of rank due to Rome being the Imperial city of the Roman Empire and Constantinople was ranked second because it was the new Rome. It was due to Rome having the original Roman senate and sovereignty. Constantinople was to have equal privileges with the elder Rome. There is nothing in these Councils to suggest that the primacy of Rome was due to the bishop of Rome inheriting the keys of Peter.55 It was a secular reason, not a religious one. It was given that honor by the councils because the two greatest apostles were martyred there and not because there was a tradition that Rome received authority from Peter over all of Christianity. The “primacy” wasn't “superior authority,” it was “first among equals” (primus inter pares). Catholic apologists confuse influence with authority. Influence is not authority. The influence of the bishop of Rome was not recognized as an universal authority but was simply derived from the importance of his See.56

     The Second Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, which was the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) Reads,

  “Let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. The synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice.”57

     This canon repeated the jurisdiction the major Sees had over their neighboring churches that was laid down in the sixth canon of the Council of Nicea. This shows the late fourth-century church did not believe in papal supremacy.

3. Rome's status and the Council of Chalcedon (451)

     Further councillar proof that the early universal church did not recognize papal supremacy is the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), which states,

  “In all things following the decrees of the holy Fathers, and recognizing the canon just read by the one hundred and fifty bishops well-beloved of God, (third canon of the second council,) we decree and establish the same thing touching the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, the new Rome. Most justly did the Fathers grant privileges to the see of the ancient Rome because she was the reigning (capital) city. Moved by the same motive, the one hundred and fifty bishops well-beloved of God, grant equal privileges to the most holy see of the new Rome, thinking, very properly, that the city that has the honour to be the seat of the empire and of the senate, should enjoy in ecclesiastical things the same privileges as Rome, the ancient queen city, since the former, although of later origin, has been raised and honoured as much as the latter.”

     Because of this decree, the dioceses of Pontus of Asia (Ephesus) and Thrace were placed under the authority of the bishop of Constantinople.

     This is a fascinating canon. This proves that the early church, with the exception of the bishop of Rome at the time (Leo I), gave Constantinople the second in honor among the major Sees despite it was not apostolic simply because it was the new Rome, the new capital of the Empire. This action was based on the same reason Rome was given the primacy; because it was “… the seat of the empire and of the senate …” They considered this honor of primacy to be granted by the Fathers during the council of Nicea and doesn't mention anywhere that the primacy Rome enjoyed was due to it receiving divine authority. It was of human origin; not divine.

     When the council members wrote to Leo and asked him to honor the judgement of the council, this doesn't mean they recognized him as possessing a superior authority than the council because he was asked to honor it, not to confirm it.

  “If the confirmation of the bishop of Rome had been necessary, would the decree of Chalcedon have been a judgement, a promulgated decision before that confirmation?”58

The gradual development of the papacy

     Originally, all bishops were equal, with the right of presiding usually going to the oldest bishop,59 as continued in Africa and Spain.60 Gradually, the bishops in the Metropolitans started exerting authority over the bishops in the neighboring rural areas and eventually, the Catholic Church recognized five major centers of Christianity with Rome ranked first, followed by Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch (and Jerusalem much later). After some years, the bishop of Rome started asserting a primacy of jurisdiction instead of the original primacy of honor, or first among equals.61 This monarchical authority was universally rejected by most churches in the West and by all churches in the East, which only affirmed the traditional view of the higher rank of Rome without a notion of supremacy.62 However, the vacuum created by the transplantation of the capital of the Empire to Constantinople resulted in the bishop of Rome becoming the sole source of authority in the West.63 His claim of monarchical supremacy was steadily accepted,64 in no small part, due to the subjugation of most churches in the West by the barbarians. The West came to accept the jurisdiction of Rome during the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590-604)65 and was finalized after the invasion and conquest of Africa and Iberia by the Muslims. The East, to this day firmly rejects any monarchical claim of the bishop of Rome despite the horrible destruction they suffered at the hands of Islam.

     The constant growth and consolidation of Episcopal authority to the bishop of Rome progressed through the ages and even the traditional right of the Metropolitans to ordain bishops was abrogated by the Pope especially by the concordats of Aschaffenburg.66

     How does the Catholic apologist explain the absence of manuscripts before pope Damascus that mention the Bishop of Rome claiming he possessed a monarchical jurisdiction by divine right over the entire Christian body? He'll say one reason why there aren't numerous proofs of papal supremacy was due to there being very “few occasions for the exercise of papal supremacy.”67 This is a ludicrous explanation since the New Testament is full of passages that talk about the difficulties the early churches were going through because of heresies, which did not go away with the death of the apostles but increased. If there ever was a time the Christian churches needed papal supremacy, it was in the first three centuries of its existence!68 There wasn't a single pope who resolved any of the first 80 heresies of the church in the first six centuries.

     Another argument they'll use is since no one attacked the bishop of Rome about papal supremacy, everyone therefore believed it. Put another way, “Since no one talked about it, everyone had to believe it!” This is putting something in the place of nothing. This is just like saying “The Mormons believe Joseph Smith visited Mars.” Since there hasn't been a single Mormon who has ever wrote such a claim, therefore all Mormons believe it to be true. As can be seen, a silly argument. A better explanation for the absence of any documents that have the bishop of Rome inheriting all of Peter's keys and authority over the entire Christian body before Pope Damascus is, “No one has written about it because no one has heard such a claim!” In addition, Roman Catholic apologists are mistaken when they claim no one disputed the claims of the bishops of Rome as being the monarchical head of the entire church. One only needs to read the writings of Cyprian, the letters of the Eusebian bishops to Julius of Rome or the letters of the African Councils to the bishops of Rome to quickly realize the common opposition to the pretensions of the bishops of Rome.

  “It is extraordinary that, if Christ established such a very illustrious office as that of a Sovereign Head to rule over the whole church throughout the world, there is not even one word about it, not only in the New Testament, but also no intimation in the history of the first three centuries of such an institution.”69

Does the title “Pope” given to the bishop of Rome mean he is recognized as possessing supreme authority over the church?

     One support Roman Catholic apologists use is the fact that Christians called the bishop of Rome “Pope,” and this they claim proves that they recognized the bishop of Rome as being the Father of all Christians. Therefore he was recognized as possessing superior authority over all Christians.

     This argument doesn't really make any sense since the words “Pope,” “Father” and “Patriarch” means the same thing. The words “Patriarch” and “Pope” are interchangeable. The Pope of Rome was considered to be the Patriarch of the West and the Patriarch of Constantinople was considered to be the Pope of the East.

     The word “Pope” comes from the word “Papa” and means Father. This term was used by the early Christians in reference to their spiritual leaders and teachers and wasn't solely used in reference to the bishop of Rome. In fact, even the priests at Rome called bishops of other Sees such a Cyprian of Carthage by the title “Pope.”70 The title of “pope” was first given to the bishops of Alexandria (such as “Pope” Alexander and “Pope” Athanasius) and wasn't used to address the bishops of Rome until the fourth century. Saint Augustine was often referred to as “Pope” Augustine as were the bishops of Arles, Lyon, Vienne, Marseilles, Salamis, Jerusalem, Aquileia and Rheims.71 It wasn't until the eleventh century with Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) that the title “Pope” was insisted to be given exclusively to the bishop of Rome, but the East continues to refer to their prominent leaders as “Pope” to this day.72 Because of this, it is not possible to base support for Papal Supremacy solely because the bishop of Rome was called “Pope.”


     There are two concepts of authority discernable at the turn of the second century: The first is that of Apostolic Succession, mentioned by Clement of Rome, without any evidence of a monarchical bishop, but has the presbyters/bishops and teachers equally inheriting the apostolic authority over individual churches.73 The other concept is that of a monarchical bishop, first mentioned by Ignatius, without any indications of an apostolic succession,74 which has the bishop as a monarch with presbyters and deacons as his underlings. These two positions fused together around 150 A.D. to produce a “monarchical bishop in apostolic succession.”75

     Isn't it strange for the successor of Peter over the entire church to be so neglected and lacking any pre-eminence in the universal church's affairs for so many centuries? Consequently, the evidence shows the bishop of Rome did not receive any kind of monarchical supremacy over the entire church from Peter.

Mormonism. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Section 7. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 2002 Edward K. Watson.) pp 55-76. MORMONISM: Section 7, Chapter 5. All rights reserved.]


1.THE POPES (Walsh). p.45; VICARS OF CHRIST (De Rosa). p.38; THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.124.


3.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.186.

4.EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (Kelley). p. 417; EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). p.158; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.187,218,610.


6.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.254.

7.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.182.


9.EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). p.158; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.230. Liberius may have been the very first bishop of Rome to write a Decretal but it is now lost. Ibid. pp.551,697.

10.Siricius. Epistles. 1st to Himerius, 1; 5. THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.698.

11.St. Optatus. Against Parmenianus.(P.L.) 11. Col 999. Cited from THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.399.

12.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 4, Chapter 22; Epiphanius. Heresies 27.6; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp.130,146.

The following are quotes from Hegesippus  James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time.” The first question of Peter’s primacy over the Church does not begin in Rome it begins with the Church at Jerusalem  -- and in this quote Hegesippus agrees with the record as stated in Acts that James the Brother of Jesus was the Bishop of Jerusalem and NOT Peter – this should be impossible and further in the record of Acts and in Paul’s writings we come to a second indisputable a fact that on the Issue of Circumcision a matter of doctrine that would have been declared from “Peter’s divine authority as he had the key’s” And Paul come and rebukes him and Peter receives it and renounces his error – this is impossible according to catholic doctrine and within the same passage it is further revealed that Peter was in fear and therefore subordinate to James and his brethren – the Bishop of Jerusalem.

“There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother -- And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work -- When they were released they became leaders of the churches” In quote two Hegesippus tells us that 1) Mary did not die a Virgin but affirms Jesus had brothers after the flesh. And Secondly these blood relatives of Christ were poor farmers not honored as bishops of the Church and that after their release in Rome they took the helm of the “Churches” that would seem to mean the Bishopric of Rome – Yet the Papal succession we are presented with does not in any manner square with this statement not does the church agree with Hegesippus’ statement concerning Christ’s nephews and nieces.  

“On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every successionand in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord. And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord also and on the same account, again Symeon the son of Clopas, descended from the Lord's uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord. Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching.”   I remind you that this is the money quote that the Catholic Church uses for their claim of Apostolic succession of the Bishop of Rome receiving his authority and the “Keys” from Peter – see Simon Peter is not mentioned. The Only Simon here is a descendant of Jesus father’s brother.   So in this the oldest existing document all claims of Peter being the Bishop of Rome and a Papal succession being derived from Peter are flatly denied in Hegesippus’ list of the succession of bishops of Rome that he would have at 175 AD had full knowledge of.

13.This succession does not have Irenaeus mentioning the bishop of Rome inheriting the authority over the entire Christian church from Peter through apostolic succession. It is only a claim that the current bishop of Rome possessed an apostolic line of authority over the See of Rome that dates back to the time of Peter. This wasn't extraordinary since the other Apostolic Sees such as Alexandria, Antioch (both of which also has Peter as their founder) and Jerusalem also had their own lines of succession and frequently referred to them for their claim of apostolic authority. Irenaeus himself said that he only mentioned the line of succession of the See of Rome instead of including the other Sees because of the space it would take. See Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book 3, Chapters 2 and 3.

The following are quotes from Irenaeus – I want to state here that both Hegesippus and Irenaeus are both heavily tainted in their writings which would be difficult to fully address here – As these two men are used by the Catholic Church to uphold their unbiblical, Anti-Christ Anti-Apostle rulership of Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope.

1.       It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up (We still can record by memory) those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and the succession of these men to our own times; (This is not a statement exclusively to the Church of Rome but is being spoken of universally of all Churches of Irenaeus’ day) those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.  (Irenaeus claims here that none of the Apostles nor any of their hand picked successors knew anything about what the heretics of his day were preaching)

 For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries,
(And Paul and Christ do speak of such things repreatedly – and Christ said that was why he spoke in parables and the Apostles repeatedly testify that they did not understand what Christ was teaching)  which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest,  (We find this statement of Irenaeus to be an utterly false statement – for in the Gospels which of the Apostles were perfect? And in Paul’s Epistles especially to the Romans and the Corinthians we find the believers and their leaders to be grossly imperfect and thus needing the correction of the Apostle not the bishop that allowed these out of control circumstances to occur under his watch.) 

they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things,
(We do not disagree that the Apostles were desirous of these men and women to become perfect and blameless – but the fact is upon becoming a follower of Christ that these “bishops” hand chosen by the Apostles to run these Churches were not able in a few months of years to come into a state that the Apostles themselves had not entered into in 3 1/2 half years with Christ himself. And dare I mention that with every handing of the baton to their successor things did not improve, the church was not getting better and better – In Irenaeus we see a complete inability to recognize any of this – the man writes from the deceived standpoint that he has all that the Apostles had and is their living equal.       

whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
(And at the time of Irenaeus as recorded in his writings the church had perceptible fallen away from its first love.)

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches,  (Irenaeus now says he will not recite the succession of all the Churches)  --by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious (This man is carnally exalting these men if the apostles would have been alive Irenaeus would have been rebuked from head to foot over these words) apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. (Irenaeus has already told us that the Apostles appointed bishops not that Apostles assumed position of Bishop in the Churches they respectively founded) 

 3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes  mention in the Epistles to Timothy. (Which seems to indicate according to what Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he minded his own churches and the other apostles their own that this Linus was appointed by Paul) 2Timothy 4:21 Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. – So These all are the Deacons and the Bishop of Rome and presumably Claudia is Linus’ wife NO WHERE IN THIS TEXT IS PETER MENTIONED AS THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME – NOWHERE IN THIS TEXT IS PETER MENTIONED IN THIS SUCCESSION.  AND WITH PAUL MENTIONING THE FIRST BISHOP TO TIMOTHY THE BALL IS IN PAUL’S COURT AS HAVING APPOINTED HIM AS SUCH.

To him ( The First Bishop of Rome appointed by Paul -- Linus) succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, (All three Bishops had known the Apostles) might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in their ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, --  From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood.
Note in the Powerful words of Irenaeus that he doe not declare the power of the church of Rome over the Episcopate – he has already stated all the other church have such a succession in them also. Those being the church in Damascus, the church in Antioch, the church in Alexandria, the other churches established by the Apostles.

To this
Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
Note also the word apostles is used by Irenaeus over and over and over not Peter or the One Apostle but that the succession that was created by each and every Apostle within each church they created and built is the order succession and tradition that Irenaeus is speaking of here.

14.Optatus(De Schism. Donat. 1.10;2.2;7.3), Augustine(Exposition on the Psalms 56:13; Against Faustus 28:2; Letters 93:7.23) and Jerome(Epistle 15) are the only Church Fathers (out of sixty) whose writings contain some passages that can be used to support papal supremacy. However, a close examination shows Optatus and Augustine were affirming the primacy of Rome laid down by the Council of Nicea. They also viewed the bishop of Rome possessed some authority over them but this wasn't due to the Roman bishop being granted a monarchical authority from Peter over the entire church, but was due to the African churches (where Augustine and Optatus were from) being founded by the See of Rome. In other words, their African churches were daughter churches of Rome. Augustine participated in the Council of Carthage (418) and was one of those whom prohibited African priests from appealing to any see (especially Rome) outside of Africa (17th Canon). An impossible situation if he believed in papal supremacy (NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series [Schaff & Wace]. 14:441-443; THE PAPACY [Schimmelpfnnig]. p.46). Augustine never mentions the bishop of Rome in a position of supremacy over the entire church and of the bishop of Rome as being the center of its unity in his disputations with the Donatists (THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY [Burn-Murdoch]. pp.211-212). The closest Augustine went towards a supremacy of the bishop of Rome was when he referred to the bishop of Rome as the “president of the Western Church”(St. Augustine. Against Julian 1:6 or 1:13), which obviously falls far short of a monarchical authority over all the church both in the West and East. The oft-quoted, “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished”(Roma locuta, causa finita) is nothing but a sad fraud. Augustine actually said, “The case is finished, would that error be finished also!”(Causa finita est. Utinam aliquando finiatur error!) His statement (in his 131st Sermon) has been deliberately twisted by Roman Catholic apologists to make him appear to believe in papal supremacy. Sadly, this forgery is still being cited by some RC apologists to this day.

     Neither did Jerome view the Roman bishop as his leader or as one possessing supreme authority over the entire church. He was born in Yugoslavia and grew up in Rome while going to school there. His own letter to Damascus (15th Epistle) has him identifying himself as a Roman. He associated with the See of Rome because he was a Roman and because Rome was the See of Peter (together with Alexandria and Antioch). Being Roman, he naturally would be loyal to his home See. Jerome eventually became a secretary of the bishop of Rome, Pope Damascus and was also commissioned by Damascus to create a Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate). This letter of Jerome doesn't mean he viewed Damascus as possessing a monarchical authority over the entire church since no proof can be found to support such an assumption. Thusly, Jerome didn't believe in papal supremacy. See also THE CHURCH (Jay). p.97; A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE WORLD (Manschreck). p.70; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp.717,728.

15.VICARS OF CHRIST (De Rosa). p.24.


17.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp. 51,315.

18.EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (Kelley). pp.419-421.

19.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.288-289.

20.Despite this prohibition by church councils like the 23rd Canon of the Council of Antioch (341).

21.O VATICAN (Hoffmann). pp. 49-50.

22.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). f.93, p.145. Cavanaugh is only one of many.

23.The earliest case of the bishop of Rome having his way was about the Easter question with Pope Victor but even then, it was the emperor who enforced this view and not the bishop of Rome.

24.VICARS OF CHRIST (De Rosa). p.206.

25.THE PAPACY (Guettee). p.31.


27.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp.752,892,905.

28.THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.41.

29.THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.73.

30.THE CHURCH (Jay). pp.99,103,106.

31.See also Canon 28(Greek-31), Canon 105(Greek-108) and Canon 125(Greek-126) in THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. 14:456,494,502.

     The African churches sent a letter to the bishop of Rome and politely told him to mind his own business since he has no authority over them and his alleged support from the Nicene canons were non-existent (the Romans incorrectly appended the Canons of the Council of Sardica to the Nicene Canons). Ibid. pp.509-510; WHO WAS THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME? (Shortt). pp.133-134. This action would be inconceivable today. (Also see the letter of the African Council to Boniface the bishop of Rome, the letters from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople to the African Councils. THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. 14:506-508). Rome was recognized to have a special honor, not a special privilege. THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). pp.13-14.

32.THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). pp.249-250; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp. 680-683,721; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.230-231.

33.THE PAPACY (Schimmelfennig). pp.71-72.

34.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.316-317.

35.Cyprian. Upon the Unity of the Church.4.

36.THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). pp.93,135.

37.A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE WORLD (Manschreck). pp.43,100.

38.Emperor Gratian. Ordinariorum Sententiae. Gratian decreed that: (1) All bishops under the Metropolitan of Rome should be tried at Rome when condemned. Other bishops can only be tried in their Metropolis'. (2) Metropolitan bishops can only be judged at Rome or by judges chosen by the bishop of Rome. (3) Ordinary bishops can appeal to the bishop of Rome if they feel they have been unjustly condemned or to a council of fifteen neighboring bishops. See THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). p.190; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.180; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.229,231,597,605, (666-671 for a copy of this letter to the two emperors from the Roman council),671-672,675.

39.THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). p.247; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp. 627-628; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.216.

40.Valentinian Constitutions 1:3. THE RISE OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp. 233-234,240; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p. 728; THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.37.

41.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.51; EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). p.150.

42.This is called Decretum Gelasianum. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.181.

43.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp.628-629; VICARS OF CHRIST (De Rosa). p.38; THE POPES (Walsh). p.45.

44.The statement of Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D.) about Rome being the place of Peter (55th Epistle,8) and the throne of Peter (59th Epistle,14) may actually mean that literally (because Peter died there) or may signify the office of the bishop of Rome since Irenaeus mentioned such a tradition around 180 A.D. Roman Catholic apologists will use many passages to show that the See of Peter is Rome. What they will not bring notice is Rome wasn't the only See of Peter. Cyprian himself considered Carthage to also be part of the see of Peter (40th Epistle). The Sees of Alexandria and Antioch were also called the See of Peter because Peter sent Mark (the Evangelist) to Alexandria (Eusebius. Eccl Hist. Book 2, Chapter 16) and Peter was said to be bishop of Antioch for seven years. Pope Gregory the Great in his letter to Eulogius who was the Patriarch of Alexandria (Letters of St. Gregory, Book 7, Epistle 40) mentioned that the See of Peter exists in three places,

“. . . that See where he condescended to rest (quiescere) [Rome] and close his present life. It is he who adorned the See, whither he sent the Evangelist, his disciple [Alexandria]. It is he who strengthened the See, which he occupied for seven years [Antioch], although finally compelled to leave it. Since then there is but one See of the same Apostle, and three bishops now hold it by divine authority.” (Italics added).

     Pope Gregory the Great again wrote to Eulogius of Alexandria (Letters of St. Gregory, Book 10, Epistle 35) and said,

  “Praise therefore be to him be glory in the highest, of whose gift, the voice of Mark still cries aloud in the see of Peter, from the effusion of whose spirit … spiritual bells resound in the holy church, as in the tabernacle.” (italics added).

     This pope called the See of Alexandria, “the see (chair) of Peter.”

     Pope Gregory the Great also wrote to Anastasius who was the Patriarch of Antioch (Letters of St. Gregory, Book 8, Epistle 2) and said,

  “… remember what was said of him whose seat you fill … `When thou shall be old … another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not' (John 21:18).”

     This passage was addressed by Jesus to Peter, and the Patriarch of Antioch was supposed to fill the seat of him whom Christ addressed that passage to. Thus we can see that the See of Antioch was also referred to by Pope Gregory the Great as the See of Peter.

     Because of these passages, it is not possible for Roman Catholic apologists to claim that any reference to the seat, throne or See of Peter has reference to the See of Rome when Rome does not have exclusive right to that title. (See also Letters of St. Gregory, Book 5, Epistle 39; Book 6, Epistle 60, Book 13, Epistle 41 for other passages by St. Gregory where he implicitly states that both Antioch and Alexandria are also the Sees of Peter).

     Even if Cyprian was referring to the office of the bishop of Rome, there is no indication or documents that the bishop of Rome claimed he possessed all the keys and authority of Peter over the entire Christian church until Damascus. Pope Stephen may have just considered himself to be the successor of Peter over the Church of Rome, albeit, the most prominent See in Christendom and one that has authority over an area vastly greater that it previously had. See THE PAPACY (Guettee).

45.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p. 181; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp. 618, f.283; 673-674. See Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History. Book 5, Chapter 10, for Damascus' letter to the Eastern bishops, where he twice called them his “sons.”


47.VICARS OF CHRIST (De Rosa). p.174.

48.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.340; THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.261.


50.NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Schaff and Wace). Vol 12. Gregory the Great section. Prolegomena x-xi; 14:16-17; Athanasius, Ep. ad Solit; Ruffinus, Ecclesiastical History; THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.51; THE PAPACY (Guette). pp.94-95.

51.Such as Ephesus, Carthage, Edessa and Numibia. THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp.402-403.

52.THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 2:102-103; THE CHURCH (Jay). p.142.

53.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.146.


55.VICARS OF CHRIST (De Rosa). pp.248-249.

56.THE PAPACY (Guettee). pp.61-62.


58.THE PAPACY. pp.97-98.

59.THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 2:98,98-99 f.1.

60.The African and Spanish bishops normally have the oldest bishop present to preside over their councils and possess superior authority over the other bishops. A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 1:128-129,162; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.146.


62.THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p. 49; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.299-301.



65.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp. 873,884-885.


67.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). p. 136; THIS IS THE FAITH (Ripley) p.135. Ripley says: “(sic) The conservative spirit of those days made frequent intervention by the Bishops of Rome unneecessary.”

68.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.406.


70.For examples of this see Cyprian. Epistles. 8:8; 23; 30:1; 31;36.

71.For example see Jerome's Epistles, 81(66); 86(70); 88(71); Against John Hierolymitus, p.4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.74; THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.327.

72.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.74; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.334.

73.THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). pp.4-5.