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.
Authority of RomeEdward
the Bishop of Rome Inherit a Monarchical Authority
all the Church from Peter?
glory of Rome
church at Rome held six distinctions no other church had in
the first centuries:
1) It was the capital of the Roman
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
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.
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:
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!
Damascus (382) was the first Roman bishop to claim supremacy
over all of Christianity
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
why isn't that method followed today instead of voting by the
college of cardinals which did not start until the eleventh
(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
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
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
Rome's status and the Council of Nicea (325)
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.
6 of the Nicean Council (325 A.D.), which was the first ecumenical
“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
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.
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)
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
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
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
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)
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.”
of this decree, the dioceses of Pontus of Asia (Ephesus) and
Thrace were placed under the authority of the bishop of Constantinople.
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;
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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
POPES (Walsh). p.45; VICARS OF CHRIST (De Rosa). p.38; THE BEGINNINGS
OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.124.
RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.616.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.186.
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (Kelley). p. 417; EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett).
p.158; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.187,218,610.
WAS THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME (Shortt). p.226.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.254.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.182.
BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.115; THE
CHURCH (Jay). p.99.
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.
Epistles. 1st to Himerius, 1; 5. THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell
& Loomis). p.698.
Optatus. Against Parmenianus.(P.L.) 11. Col 999. Cited
from THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns).
Eccl. Hist. Book 4, Chapter 22; Epiphanius. Heresies
27.6; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp.130,146.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.)
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
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.
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,
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.
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).
OF CHRIST (De Rosa). p.24.
OF CHRIST (De Rosa). p.24; EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES(Kelley).
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp. 51,315.
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (Kelley). pp.419-421.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.288-289.
this prohibition by church councils like the 23rd Canon of the
Council of Antioch (341).
VATICAN (Hoffmann). pp. 49-50.
FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). f.93, p.145. Cavanaugh is only one
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.
OF CHRIST (De Rosa). p.206.
PAPACY (Guettee). p.31.
AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Schaff &
Wace). Vol 12. PROLEGOMENA(Barmby). xi,xiii; EARLY CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINES (Kelly). p.407; SAINTS AND SINNERS IN THE EARLY CHURCH
(Frend). p.13; THE CHURCH (Jay). p.142.
RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp.752,892,905.
PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.41.
PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.73.
CHURCH (Jay). pp.99,103,106.
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).
EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). pp.249-250; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY
(Frend). pp. 680-683,721; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch).
PAPACY (Schimmelfennig). pp.71-72.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.316-317.
Upon the Unity of the Church.4.
EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). pp.93,135.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE WORLD (Manschreck). pp.43,100.
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
EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). p.247; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY
(Frend). pp. 627-628; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis).
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.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.51; EARLY CHRISTIANITY
is called Decretum Gelasianum. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.181.
RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp.628-629; VICARS OF CHRIST (De
Rosa). p.38; THE POPES (Walsh). p.45.
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
“. . . 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)
“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).
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.”
BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.321.
OF CHRIST (De Rosa). p.174.
RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.340; THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig).
AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Second Series
(Schaff & Wace). 14:15.
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.
as Ephesus, Carthage, Edessa and Numibia. THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY
EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 2:102-103; THE CHURCH (Jay).
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.146.
SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. NICENE AND POST-NICENE
FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:178.
OF CHRIST (De Rosa). pp.248-249.
PAPACY (Guettee). pp.61-62.
SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:176-177.
EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 2:98,98-99 f.1.
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
RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). pp.42-43.
PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p. 49; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY
RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). p.38; THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.179.
RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp.727-728; THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN
CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). p.42.
RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp. 873,884-885.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 1:386.
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.”
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.406.
WAS THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME? (Shortt). p.212.
examples of this see Cyprian. Epistles. 8:8; 23; 30:1;
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
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.74; THE SEE OF PETER
(Shotwell & Loomis). p.334.
PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). pp.4-5.
RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.141; WHO WAS THE FIRST BISHOP
OF ROME? (Shortt). p.6.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Walker). p.42.