Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[Mikeoffaith]

Technically yes. But that is not enough to classify you as a member of the Catholic Church. Actually let me rephrase that, you are a member but a separated member.

I think I asked you this before. If you want to be classified as a Catholic then why not just be a full pledged member? What’s going on there?

That’s fine, I will take a separated member, because that is what we are. I do classify myself as a Catholic. I don’t classify myself as a Roman Catholic. So why would I want to be a full pledged member to the Bishop of Rome?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Not just my perspective but what it is in reality.

It may be your reality in your definition of the Catholic Church, however it is not my reality in my definition or perspective of what the church is or isn’t.

I think it is an accepted fact that Christianity is fragmented and it is an often lamented fact by even Protestants themselves.

We all see this fragmentation. The only way there can be unity is if we take a good hard look and address what divides us rather than sweeping it under the carpet.

I agree whole heartedly with that! I believe this has already been happening in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I
I agree whole heartedly with that! I believe this has already been happening in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues.

Yes it has.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

What makes you think that it is a departure from the all the verses that you cited. Furthermore, Luke 22 and Acts does not completely define Christ’s Church. There is more to it.

If you focus on Christ, one everything He said and everything He did then I think you will find that there is not departure from Christ’s teaching at all.

And on the contrary, if you focus only on Matt 16, then I think you are missing out on everything he said and did.

Actually history proves you wrong. From the very beginning Rome has been the prime see. Someone here mentioned Canon 3 of Second Ecumenical Council and from that you can clearly see that Rome takes primacy.

Primacy, first, yes, sole authority, no, definitely not.

It is a simple fact that Christ did not create a democratic Church.

I disagree with you. And I would say look at Luke. I can’t see how the Church could be modeled on anything less than the Trinity.

And we already know all that. But that does not detract from the fact that Christ instituted this Church. And He would have know that that will happen. He allowed that to happen. I mean look at His promise. Why could He not have sent His Holy Spirit to guide His folllowers into goodness. Surely that would have been a piece of cake for an Omnipotent God. Yet that is not what He sends the Spirit for. What He sends the Spirit for is Truth.

I would say that Christ instituted the Church. I believe that the Spirit has been sent to guide us in the Truth, but I disagree with your contention that you have all of it and others only have some of it.

Which is why even in their darkest hours, the bad Popes never taught error. They are hypocrites for sure for not practicing what they preached but Praise be to the Lord our God, they DID NOT PREACH WHAT THEY PRACTICED.

Tell me who was to be the arbiter between what they taught and what they practices? Who was to tell the people, “oh you don’t need to buy the indulgences” Did Leo issue a statement saying that you did not need to purchase them? That it wasn’t official teaching?

Don’t you see the error in that thinking? You are claiming that up to a certain point the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit. But who decides that? You? Your Church? How do you know that the guidance was not withheld earlier or later?
What makes you/your church the authority on the determination of when the guidance of the Holy Spirit ceased? Furthermore, is it no contrary to scripture to say that?

I am certain today that the Holy Spirit guides the church today. However sometimes the Spirit is ignored. I think the church as a whole should be the decider not the Roman Pontiff.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MikeofFaith,

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I will do my best to respond in a similar way

Unfortunately Tom you and I will disagree on the validity of the priesthood. I’m sure you are going down the apostolic succession route to a valid priesthood. But that’s fine. Just remember just because you think your priesthood is valid or in apostolic succession doesn’t make it so either. The statement that Luther wanted nothing to do with the organizational church is completely inaccurate. Rejecting the absolute authority of the papacy is different than getting rid of the entire organization. And if you want to define real presence of Christ being there only in the fact of having what you define as a valid priest than good for you. I question your definition of a valid priest, however I don’t believe that his questionable line of succession does not deny the real presence in your church.

Prior to last Sunday’s Super Bowl game - there were two really great teams going to compete against one another. There were a lot of folks that were conviced that the Steelers were the best … and I’d say an equal number that thought Green Bay was the best. When Sunday night came - there was no room for speculating on which team was best. It is now in the history books. In the same way, Luther’s break with the Catholic Church is not a matter of opinion, but one of simply reading the history. Let’s start at the beginning.

At the Last Supper, Christ told His Apostles to “Do this in rememberance of me” - giving them - the First Bishops of what would be called the Catholic Church in at least 107AD - the God given power to conscecrate common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Note Christ did not say, “Any anyone else who wants to do this can do it, too!” This Power to stand in the place of Christ and consecrate these earthly items into Christ is passed through the Bishops. Luther was an ordained priest, but did not have the power to consecrate someone into being a bishop. There were no bishops under Luther. The Power to transform bread and wine into Chrsit was never passed on. And, that is the meat of the nut right there.

Notice there is quite a difference with the Orthodox Church - they kept their bishops after the split with Rome and to this day have a valid consecration of bread and wine into the Real Presence. The Protestants at the time of Luther and afterwards were so distressed with the Bishop of Rome that they wanted nothing to do with him - and they broke ever attachment to Rome they could find.

For you to prove you point, you would need to show a succession of bishops with the power to validly consecrate other bishops from the time of Luther to today. That isyour burden. My burden of proof is to show a direct line from Peter to Benedict XVI - and here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm There were 217 Popes prior to Pope Leo ascending to the Chair of Peter and excommunicating Luther for his heresies. It really isn’t a matter of opinion.

Luther did his best to break with anything he found offensive in the organizational Catholic Church - and he took most offense at the Vicar of Christ on Earth - Pope Leo X. When he severed his ties with the Church founded by Christ on Peter - and now represented by Pope Leo X, Luther severed his ties with the Catholic Church. Anything he tried to keep was strictly for show and sentiment. Luther cut himself off from the Vine,the source of all life in Christ.

God bless

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I will do my best to respond in a similar way

 

[Mikeoffaith]

*Hello Mike!

I would be pleased to know your belief regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Jesus said that the HS would guide us into all truth and that He would never leave us etc. Despite all the sins of Popes etc and struggles within the Church do you believe that the HS gave up on us?

*

No I don’t believe that the HS has abandoned the church, nor do I think it has jettisoned Rome, but I do believe that at times during the life of the church, the church has done a bad job at listening to the HS.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

See Cinette, this is what I mean. Now to me you have put Mike on the defense right off the bat. Maybe my grammar is not the best but here is how I would have asked this question.

I would have found what we have in common and agree on that first, and that is of course the Holy Spirit. Our heart tells us Mike does not reject the HS.

I would have said okay Mike we agree that the HS is leading us into all truth. Now with that said we are both in agreement the HS can’t be wrong. So what we need to find out is how did we get separated in our thinking. I feel it would be fair to say not the HS thats for sure, so we are united in our thinking there.

So now what we need to figure out, where did we fall apart, Then let him tell you what HE thinks happened.

Maybe I am wrong. I just feel that its how we ask, not what we ask, that causes misunderstanding.

Hi Rinnie-

I wasn’t on the defense with this question at all. It was a genuine and honest question.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No I don’t believe that the HS has abandoned the church, nor do I think it has jettisoned Rome, but I do believe that at times during the life of the church, the church has done a bad job at listening to the HS.

And the church has suffered dearly for her mistakes Mike. Yet it doesn’t change the truth of what is, Just means people are human and make errors.

 

[sfish68]

Every denomination claim to be inspired buy the holly spirit, reads from the same bible yet teach contrary to each other. I converted to catholicisum 12 years and I have never been closer to jesus.

A few things I can think of is christ’s gift is the church to his to administer the sacraments so we can become saints.

1. If satan can stop us from recieving the sacraments (grace) he will.
2. The church is the instrament God has chosen to administer the sacraments.
3. And jesus said if they persecuted him they will do the same to the church ( His body )

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Talked about this on a different thread and it comes up much these days. But heres what was said early on.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON {c. 180-199 AD}

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or “preeminent authority”] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION.”

 

[Mikeoffaith]

So it’s your belief that the protestant churches, the eastern orthodox church (including the eastern and oriental offshoots of that church) - and the catholic church (including the protestant offshoots of the catholic church) - are all branches/offshoots of the one church founded by Jesus Christ, circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem???

Yes Joe, in a nutshell, I do. I know you disagree and that’s fine. I don’t need you to believe it, just understand my position.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Scriptures tell us that the Apostles were the foundation of the Church and Christ was the cornerstone… In scriptures, we don’t see a number of Churches with different doctrines, neither slight or great. Scriptures seem clear to me that there was an authoritative Church. There are no examples of differences being acceptable, or people in disagreement starting another Church.

You are right Prodigal Son, I don’t see that either and the church as a whole was authoritative. And quite honestly, we do see different communities with distinctions that Paul seems to be the only one speaking authoritatively.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are right Prodigal Son, I don’t see that either and the church as a whole was authoritative. And quite honestly, we do see different communities with distinctions that Paul seems to be the only one speaking authoritatively.

Yes Paul wrote many letters and epistles, of course he was more educated than most of the others. Then we have to look at the fact that Paul spoke ONE doctrine to all Churches.

Peter’s authority is pronounced in several areas of scriptures, but they are largely overlooked especially when someone is using scriptures to try and denounce the Catholic Church.

I never saw Martin Luther dispute the Chuch’s history. His problem seemed to be with the sinful men of his time.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes Paul wrote many letters and epistles, of course he was more educated than most of the others. Then we have to look at the fact that Paul spoke ONE doctrine to all Churches.

Peter’s authority is pronounced in several areas of scriptures, but they are largely overlooked especially when someone is using scriptures to try and denounce the Catholic Church.

I never saw Martin Luther dispute the Chuch’s history. His problem seemed to be with the sinful men of his time.

He couldn.t he was a Catholic Monk early on. You know if we really want to change something how about we all get together and do it from inside the church. But before we do that I suggest everyone take a look at truth and their own apathy.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MikeofFaith,

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you … I see that you have received serveral other excellent responses that you should address… But let me make my own humble contribution to this discussion.

Thanks for the links. I will agree that Peter had a special place among the apostles. However, I don’t believe that that special place went to any successor and even if you do follow that it was inherited by all the Bishop’s of Rome, I still do not see anything in the early church and certainly not in the early ecumenical councils that yields to Rome as an authority other than asking for an opinion and the councils making the decision.

Now, I know it would certainly be a real convenience to your argument to posit that after Peter’s death at the hands of Nero, that the Early Catholic Church just sort of hung together with no visible leader claiming the mantel of Peter. And, that all the men that followed in the listing I provided to you in my previous post were just men who invented a leadership role for themselves - and, more astoundingly, others agreed to. And, this situation just sort of lasted into the 16th Century when Luther challenged this organizational house of cards as he championed his own doctrines of SF and SS.

The only problem with this argument … is reality… Yeah, we need to look back to the historical record - and remember prior to Constantime, the Early Catholic Church was under constant and murderous persecution by the Roman Empire. Here is a link that gives you what the Early Church Fathers (and, that would be Catholic Church) had to say about Peter’s Successors.

Please refer to the previous post I provided so you can really draw that straight line from Peter to Benedict XVI. Your argument has no line available to draw after Peter’s death - and if that were the case, then the Catholic Church is a much bigger miracle than even I imagined! You see, for this to happen - along with all of the doctrines that were taught back then to what we have today - the Hand of God must truly be visible!

I submit that the consistency of doctrine, however, is only one item - it is the unbroken chain of legitimate successors to Peter that stand firm against such arguments as you try to make!

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MikeofFaith,

Thank you for dividing these into manageable sizes … it does make responding much easier. Now, for the essence of Matt 16 - and the reality of its meaning.

So what are you getting at here, because of “whatever you bind” means that if the pope sanctions the selling of indulgences that it is OK? The fact of the matter that people even in this forum can not make a judgement of certainty what papal pronouncement is a matter of teaching and matter of opinion. It is even muddier outside of the church and can you imagine what it was like for the populace in 1517? Just because the official teaching of the church says one thing and if the pope sanctions the actions that are clearly wrong, how is one supposed to decided what is proper and what is not? If the pope comes out tomorrow and says “Condoms for everyone” what is going to be your first reaction?

I think I neglected to give you the link on the Early Church Fathers with regards to the successors of Peter: catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp Sorry about the omission.

Here are two links you may find helpful:

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/excommunication/page2

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Item 2121) simony has a long history of being condemned!

2121 Simony is defined as the buying or selling of spiritual things. To Simon the magician, who wanted to buy the spiritual power he saw at work in the apostles, St. Peter responded: “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money!” Peter thus held to the words of Jesus: “You received without pay, give without pay.” It is impossible to appropriate to oneself spiritual goods and behave toward them as their owner or master, for they have their source in God. One can receive them only from him, without payment.
What is noteworthy that the Pope did not approve and was never a teaching of the Catholic Church that indulgences could be sold. The ‘sale’ of indulgences was a gravely wrong action done by individuals with nothing on their minds but world gain. They totally abused their office - but they did so as individuals.

I think you are laboring under the illusion that a Pope wakes up one day and makes an official announcement, sees that it gets into print and then retires for the day knowing that his binding and losing authority is not only intact but has been officially exercised. After all, tomorrow is another day - and a new pronouncement will take care of any blunders caused by a previous one! Please recall, when Christ gave the Keys to the Kingdom to Peter (Matthew 16:18) He did not say, “And, you can do what you jolly well please!”

The Catholic Church has a long history of condemning all acts of artificial birth control - because they violate the Natural Law. I do not have to worry about the Pope saying, “Condoms for everyone!” because it isn’t going to happen. Recall, that Benedict XVI had such a marvelous opportunity when visiting Africa and everyone was pressing on him the value of condoms in preventing AIDS. The problem with this line of reasoning is that - in reality - this is just the illusion of ‘safe sex’. Condoms have a known failure rate in preventing pregnancy of about 19% (youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html) and recall a woman is only capable of concepton <5 days out of every roughly 28 day cycle! Do you have any idea how small the HIV is (0.01 microns) (hiv-info.org/hiv-virus.htm) and people are always available for this infection. Condomns do not prevent AIDS and that is a fact. But, expecting the Pope to violate the Natural Law - just isn’t going to happen… and, that is another fact.

Please note - that ever since the Last Supper - the Catholic Church has taught that the Consecrated Bread and Wine is the Real Presence. This same Catholic Church has taught that validly ordained priests can forgive or retain the sins of men - (John 20:18-21) and this same Catholic Church can call upon the Holy Spirit to impart His Special Gifts and Blessings in Confirmation. The list goes on … but, what is important is that the Power of bind and lose is really directed by the Holy Spirit - and not the whims of men.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MikeofFaith,

About the only general comment I can make here is that personal anecdote is not the singular for data. Your post appears to be long on the former and short on the latter.

Briefly: Alexander the Great conquered the known world and from 336BC to 146BC Greek was the language spread to and through the known world. Greek conquest stopped in 146BC with the Roman invasion and their conquest of Greece. And Latin moved off of the Italian Peninsula to all over the known world. By the time of Christ (roughly 1-33AD) Latin was gaining ground as the common language, but Greek was still very much in use. Most of the peoples of the world were at least in some form multilingual with both Greek and Latin as basic languages for trade and law, and then their own language for day-to-day activities. By the time of Constantime ( 272-337AD) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great and St. Jerome (347-420AD) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome, Latin had become the standard language for everyday activities. Jerome’s choice of words for his translation of the bible in Latin was called the ‘Vulgate’ - and from this we derive ‘vulgar’ or ‘common’. Latin was the common language of the Cathoic Church, the Roman Empire (which went well beyond the boundaries of Italy) and the average citizen. While Greek was displaced as the common language, it was preserved.

One can not over-estimate the impact of the Dark Ages on learning, literacy, numeracy
and language. All of Europe took a tremendous hit.

Personal experiences are good, as far as they go. The problem comes in when we try to push them into explaining realities that simply transcend our limited field of view.

Your experiences with accompanying your uncle are just that, your experiences. The Catholic Church has been around for about 2,000 and they have formed and relaxed various disciplines concerning the celebration of Mass. The bottom line is that those who receive the Consecrated Bread - receive the entire Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. There is nothing lacking when we received Holy Communion under One Species. Additionally, there is nothing added if we received Holy Communion under Both Species.

God bless

The language was Latin for who? Latin was not the common language at the time. It was the common language for the Roman Church, I would say that the more common language was probably Greek at the time and probably for most of the life in the early church except on the Italian peninsula close to Rome, I would imagine that Greek was the language of choice or one that was common. The fact that after a period of time, the only people to read and understand Latin would be the Clerics of the church, the upper class, and the well educated. The fact that any ordinary person going to mass probably missed out on most of it and it didn’t change until over 400 years after Luther that the mass was in the common language of the people rather than a language spoken by no one outside of the church.

As for the common cup, even though it was around, it wasn’t used especially for the laity. I remember as a kid and going to Mass with my uncle and thought it very bizarre that the cup was withheld from the laity. I am certainly that it was even more common before then and I know that it was common during the 15th century. And if I am not mistaken, it was also common practice for the laity to be communed only once a year. So no Luther didn’t invent it, develop it, but he did put it into routine practice which it is only right.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MikeofFaith,

And, blessings to you.

Believe me, we can not simply re-define items to fit our conveniences.

Ultimately, history is out there for all to see. Some of it is recorded in Scripture and some from the hand of mere historians. An objective eye can determine that the Catholic Church derived its origin from Christ (Matt 16:18) that as this young Church developed, it was attacked by various threats to doctrine - and these truths of the Faith were defended in the various Church Councils. Your own Lutheran church has received the benefit of these Catholic Councils. The choice to accept them lies with you - but, since the 4th (not 16th) Century, the Church Councils have made significant contributions to the Faith of all who claim to follow Christ.

My recommendation would be not to retreat into an insular existence of 16th Century re-definitions to fit a political (the influence of the German princes) and religious agenda. Rather, expand your study of Christ to incorporate the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. They were the chronologically closest to Christ and the Apostles - they were the ones that helped their fellow Christians withstand the murderous persecutions of hte Roman Emperors. They are also the ones that can shed some light on your questions.

God bless

And you know what Tom, I think that’s great! My definition is going to be slightly different so the answer to the question of this post is going to be different. And I am certain that the Orthodox are going to have yet another take on this as well.

Blessings to you Tom.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MikeofFaith,

It seems to me you have been shooting from the hip in all of your posts. Not one footnote, reference or link to back up anything you have said. I am glad you have an opinion and you are so eager to share it - but, your responses to Benedictus2 are falling way short of convincing. Let me give you just two examples:

And on the contrary, if you focus only on Matt 16, then I think you are missing out on everything he said and did.

Primacy, first, yes, sole authority, no, definitely not.

These statements you have given cry out for some kind of backing - besides your personal opinion. Please recall, Christ did not have eleven set of Keys to hand out to the other Apostles when He had finished speaking with Peter! Peter had the authority.

The Catholic Church does not “…focus only on Matt 16…” to identify the Primacy of Peter.

From the Bible: catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202vbv.asp

From the ECF: catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

Luther had real hatred for the Pope - and was blinded by pride and inflexibility so that he could not see beyond the failings of a man to see the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He had lost his Faith that the Holy Spirit could lead the Bride of Christ (the Catholic Church) by using sinful men. This same Holy Spirit guided a Peter who denied Christ three times, ran away from the Crucifixion, had doubts about the Resurrection and even gave bad example to the Gentile Christians after Pentecost - and was called down for it by St. Paul. No doubt about it - every Pope - beginning with Peter, has been a sinful man! Now what?

You seem to be saying, “Well, we do not want sinful men!” - but, that simply flies in the face of what Christ designed for His Church - and, that would be the Catholic Church. While you may not like the Bishop of Rome, that is really of no consequence. God not only loves him - but, is guiding him as he guides the Church. It isn’t a bunch of guys getting together and having some type of vote - the Pope must approve the teachings of the Catholic Church. The proof of that pudding lies in the fact that after about 2,000 years there has been NO defined doctrine that has ever been recalled with the idea that, “Oops, we mis-spoke on this one!” Not only has this not happened - but, it will not happen. And, the reason for this is that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to teach error in matters of Faith or Morals.

Hey, do Popes make mistakes… Yes, indeed! Your attention is directed to the Treaty of Tordesillas and the Papal Bull Aeterni regis issued by Spanish born Pope Alexander VI. Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas. Please note, this was not a matter of Faith or Morals - but, one of political action.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GaryTaylor,

Excellent post!

God bless

Talked about this on a different thread and it comes up much these days. But heres what was said early on.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON {c. 180-199 AD}

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or “preeminent authority”] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION.”