Papal primacy

[ezeekl]

Side with Tertullian ? If he believed in Christ’s virgin birth are you not sideing with him? My last sentence told you why .Merely to show the debate of primacy succession took place then. It is not an invention of Protestantism. It is apart from any accusations against Callistus.

No, even if Tertullian believed in the virgin birth I am not siding with him. Instead I am siding with the Church because that is what the church taught before Tertullian was born as was the universal bishoprick of the pope. So Tertullian is the one siding with the church on the Virgin birth. As for Tertullian, when he wrote On Modesty he was a Montanist. Compare what he wrote as a Montanist with what He wrote as a Christian and you will see a decided difference. Tertullian, as a Montanist, believed that the new prophecies superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles. Tertullian also repudiates his own earlier teaching that the keys were left by Christ through Peter to His Church (*Scorpiace *Ch10):

“… For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him.”"

He now declares (*On Modesty *21) that the gift was to Peter personally, and cannot be claimed by the Church. So what is the difference? Simply this, Scorpiace was written about 203AD when Tertullian was still a christian and allegedly on the verge of Montanism. On Modesty was written when he was a strict Montanist. In order to be a Montanist one had to believe what Montanus taught. Specificly that the new prophecies,of Montanus and/or his propetesses, superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles and passed down to the church. There is no other way.

By the way, there was no debate on “primary succession” in Tertullian’s day. In fact, On Modesty was apparently the last thing he wrote before his death.

 

[JohnR77]

See nothing of laying hands on a head bishop.or a transference of keys to one individual.

We see a clear hierarchical structure in the Old Testament.
Where does Jesus say that He there will no longer be a hierarchical structure in the New Covenant ?

For a Bible word study on the laying on of hands as the passing on of Authority please see ?

defendingthebride.com/ch/hand.html#2

John

.

 

[JohnR77]

, we should use Isaiah 51:1-2 in reading Matthew 16:18, this suggests that Peter is the rock because of the lasting influence he would have on the faith, rather than as possessing any special authority not common to the other apostles.
Zack

Isaiah 51:1 -2
“Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. 2 Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him many.”

Abraham did have an authority that was passed down. Isaac, Jacob, …

More importantly, look to the Keys.

Fr. Stanley L. Jaki does a great job pointing out the importance of the keys

To understand the significance of Jesus giving to Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven we need to think about the importance that keys have. To do this we need to reflect on the significance of what a lock does. For example, if everyone had keys to a given lock then that lock would serve absolutely no purpose at all. It would keep no one out. A lock only has value because only one key works. Only one particular key (or set of duplicate keys,) out of the whole range of different possibilities of possible keys, can open that given lock. Therefore, whoever holds the keys to a given lock has the UNIQUE position of being able to open that lock.

For more see his book

The Keys of the Kingdom, A Tool’s Witness to Truth, pp. 226,
by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki
The footnotes in the back are great,
Published by The Franciscan Herald Press, Quincy Ill.,
1-217-228-5670

John
.

 

[pocohombre]

We see a clear hierarchical structure in the Old Testament.
Where does Jesus say that He there will no longer be a hierarchical structure in the New Covenant ?

For a Bible word study on the laying on of hands as the passing on of Authority please see ?

defendingthebride.com/ch/hand.html#2

John

.

You go from defending the most extreme form of heiarchy /authority. that of pope of which you do not find in Judaism, to a heiarchy structure,as in any form of structure . I only denied a head bishop(pope) heirarchy/structure.

 

[pocohombre]

No, even if Tertullian believed in the virgin birth I am not siding with him. Instead I am siding with the Church because that is what the church taught before Tertullian was born as was the universal bishoprick of the pope. So Tertullian is the one siding with the church on the Virgin birth. As for Tertullian, when he wrote On Modesty he was a Montanist. Compare what he wrote as a Montanist with what He wrote as a Christian and you will see a decided difference. Tertullian, as a Montanist, believed that the new prophecies superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles. Tertullian also repudiates his own earlier teaching that the keys were left by Christ through Peter to His Church (*Scorpiace *Ch10):

“… For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him.”"

He now declares (*On Modesty *21) that the gift was to Peter personally, and cannot be claimed by the Church. So what is the difference? Simply this, Scorpiace was written about 203AD when Tertullian was still a christian and allegedly on the verge of Montanism. On Modesty was written when he was a strict Montanist. In order to be a Montanist one had to believe what Montanus taught. Specificly that the new prophecies,of Montanus and/or his propetesses, superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles and passed down to the church. There is no other way.

By the way, there was no debate on “primary succession” in Tertullian’s day. In fact, On Modesty was apparently the last thing he wrote before his death.

Thank you. I don’t side with him either. Are you denying he argued against “primary succession” in “on Modesty” ? Are you Ok with other reformers, even protestants, saying the same thing about succession he did, irregardless of his heretical downslide ?

 

[pocohombre]

You imply a dichotomy where none exists.

There should and there does. Otherwise you could lay hands on anyone, and not to worry what happens afterwards either. There are scriptural admonishments for all these things…

 

[JohnR77]

Isaiah 22 says that God will remove Shebna from office and replace him with Eliakim because of his misdeeds; is Jesus therefore implying that God might remove one of Peter’s successors from office because of their misdeeds? But that is something that the Catholic Church argues cannot happen, …

But if they are the same person, this implies that Shebna was reduced in rank from steward to secretary first, and sometime later was exiled or abducted to a foreign land, and then died when he got there. But, by Catholic teaching, that could never happen to a Pope. So, it seems to me that the concept of succession is not fully transferable from Is 22:22 to Mt 16:19; you argue that it nonetheless should be transferred in part, while I would ask, if it does not fully carry over, should it be carried over at all?

Hi Zack,
Thanks for you good questions.
The Pope can be removed. God can take out or remove the Pope because God is the Author of Life. He can call the Pope to his particular day of judgment, his death.
John

 

[JohnR77]

You argue that “Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never [end]. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, and the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office that Jesus established in His royal court.” Hezekiah’s office as king came to an end, and he was succeeded by Manasseh, while Jesus’ office as King is eternal. But if Jesus’ office is eternal, why not Peter’s? …

So there are two senses in which Peter’s office can be said to be eternal, as continuing in Heaven and as a continuing influence in Church history, without supposing he has any earthly successors as Prince of the Apostles.

Peter has a role that cannot be fulfilled after his death. The pope’s role is the earthly steward of the keys. He is the earthly visible voice of God’s judgment. His death means he can no longer maintain that role. He has to be replaced.

John
.

 

[JohnR77]

… and if King is non-successive in the New, why should not Steward also be non-successive in the New?

The Kings in the OT were prefigures of the King of Kings, Jesus. Since, stewards job is to give earthly decrees about what God wills he cannot do that after he dies. Therefore, he has to have a successor.
John
.

 

[pocohombre]

So, Clement was pope. Thank you

. According to some but not all. Bishop yes, even head bishop of Rome. But with titles that head Roman bishop (pope) has today , no. Thank you for admitting the lineage is somewhat murky between the two. It certainly wouldn’t happen today.

Clement is mentioned in scripture and we have an extant letter from him. That’s more than we have from MOST of the Apostles!

Well it is a letter he wrote, or at least transcribed for others (the church at Rome), according to tradition. Not quite definitive evidence for today’s papal doctrine.

 

[pocohombre]

Just gonna throw in my two cents. I’m no expert on Ecclesiastical history, but weren’t the letters to Corinth written to all the members of the churches there? Wouldn’t it make sense then to address it to all members rather than just the bishop?

Actually, I don’t remember the exact words but I believe the letter merely said, “to the Church at Corinth”. If I recall cities had many congregations,even meeting places but were still known by there city ,ala Revelations .Like to the angel of the church at Ephesus, not to the angel of the churches at Ephesus.But thanks .

 

[JohnR77]

You go from defending the most extreme form of heiarchy /authority. that of pope of which you do not find in Judaism, to a heiarchy structure,as in any form of structure . I only denied a head bishop(pope) heirarchy/structure.

I believe that in Judaism we do find a singular authority, Moses.

**Cf.
Numbers 16:1-33
“Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi … took two hundred and fifty Israelites who were leaders in the community, members of the council and men of note. They stood before Moses, and held an assembly against Moses and Aaron, to whom they said, ** ‘Enough from you! The whole community,
all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD’S congregation?’ …
Moses also said to Korah, ‘Listen to me, you Levites! Is it too little for you that the God of Israel has singled you out from the community of Israel, to have you draw near him for the service of the LORD’S Dwelling … and yet you now seek the priesthood too. …
Then each of your two hundred and fifty followers shall take his own censer, put incense in it, and offer it to the LORD; and you and Aaron, each with his own censer, shall do the same.’ …
and the LORD said to Moses and Aaron,
‘Stand apart from this band, that I may consume them at once. …
Speak to the community and tell them: Withdraw from the space around the Dwelling’ (of Korah, Dathan and Abiram). …

No sooner had he finished saying all this than the ground beneath them split open, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their families (and all of Korah’s men) and all their possessions. They went down alive to the nether world with all belonging to them; the earth closed over them, and they perished from the community.” NAB

John

 

[JohnR77]

John 14:18
“I will not leave you orphans”

If we look more closely into Jesus’ promise we can see how the office of the Papacy was instituted by Him to last us to the end of time.

defendingthebride.com/ch/hand.html#3

**3. THE CHURCH IS THE FAMILY OF GOD
**
Romans 8:14-16
“For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, ‘Abba, Father!’ The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God”
In John 14:18 Jesus promises not to leave us orphans. However, we cannot appreciate this promise unless we clearly distinguish what it means to be an orphan.

What is an “orphan” ?
**
**
Most people assume that they know what this word means, while in actuality they do not. Their assumptions are best tested so that they may become humble enough to accept a better definition. This will also help startle them enough to better remember the the significance of Jesus’ promise. So, it is usually best to ask them,
“What does it mean to be an orphan ?”

They will usually respond by saying, “An orphan is someone without a mother or father.”

NO ! That is wrong. An orphan has a father. His father may be in heaven, hell, or purgatory, but he has a father. The following example helps to clarify the meaning of the term.

**A man writes his last will and testimony on how to divide up his family fortune among his kids. He and his wife die, but the children find the will and testimony can be interpreted in various and conflicting ways. The oldest child, who was very close to his father, believed with all his heart that he knew his father and his wishes because this son had a close intimate relationship with him.
**

And this child really believed that he knew the spirit in which the father wrote the last will and testimony, so he believed that his interpretation was correct. However, the other children also claimed to have a close intimate relationship with their father and they also claimed to know the spirit with which he wrote his last will and testimony. And they disagreed on how to interpret certain passages on how to divide the family fortune.

And so, a great disagreement arose between them. Some of the children no longer even wanted to speak to the others. The rift became so bad that these siblings no longer wanted to live together or share a common meal. And because of this great division which arose among them all the children moved out and built their own houses.

Therefore, we can see that an orphan is someone who cannot hear an audible voice from his father giving a clear and infallible interpretation of the words that his father has previously spoken or written.

The Bible is infallible in what it’s authors intended to teach. It does not teach error. However, the question remains on how to interpret it. This has led to over 32,000 different Protestant denominations who all contradict each other on what it means and yet each of those denominations claims to be following the Bible and the Bible alone. And the position that no one can infallible interpret the Bible leaves it as a book that serves no certain and definite purpose.

John 14:18
“I will not leave you orphans”

**However, because we are not orphaned we must be able in some way to hear God’s voice spoken to us through His Church. Jesus comes to us through the Church that He established. And it is the Holy Spirit working through the Holy Father, the vicar of Christ, that overcomes any personal sins that Pope might have to give us an infallible guidance of what we should do to get to heaven.
Cf. Acts 9:4-5. The term “Pope” comes from the term “papa” which means father. His authority over us is as a father over his spiritual children.

Luke 10:16
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

The Church that Christ built See Matthew 16:18 below] is the pillar and foundation of truth which God works through to guide us in how to follow Jesus Christ and what it means to have faith in Him.

**1 Timothy 3:15
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

John
.

 

[JohnR77]

de Sales argues (p. 238) that by Isaiah 51:1-2 , “this name of rock very properly refers to paternal authority”.
Zack

Hi Zack,
You raise many points worth considering. However, if you want a great Bible study on what rock means see

And On This Rock,
Also by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki
Order from
EWTN 1-703-791-2576,

john

 

[pocohombre]

The first error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)

Revelations says the 12 apostles formed our foundation, not just Peter.
"

The gates of hell will not prevail against it."(Mt 16:18)

This is not about Peter but about the church .The church shall prevail.

“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)

Now this indeed had special meaning for Peter,first amongst equals and for his many firsts ( sermon to Jews, Samaritans,and gentiles) That you needed succession beyond that is the question, for once the door is open, do you need the keys to an exclusive office ? Do you need to open those doors again ? For indeed the apostles and apostles that followed (missionaries) definitely had some sort of keys and did do many “firsts”, and opened doors also.

“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]

Thank you for saying it was not to Peter alone.

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

If I were catholic I would see it in your light. I am not and see it for what it simply says. Peter wasn’t being made pope here but simply being reinstated as an apostle, even lead apostle as he was before, from the beginning. Remember he failed miserably and denied Christ thrice publicly. He went back to fishing for fish when Jesus met him there on the beach and had this reinstating discourse. I see first amongst equals and you see head over the other apostles .I am not even sure Christ meant the just others here but the brethren, the followers of Christ, to that point (more than twelve) and those to come. I would think these two scriptures were eventually done by the other apostles also

So the other Apostles were NOT given this supreme authority given to Christ’s Supreme Vicar.

You have stated nothing that can not be explained by the term of first amongst equals as opposed to head over all.

The second error is in disregarding history.
Christ Himself proclaimed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:18). “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) "But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. (John 16:13-15)

Alleluia brother. I consider the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ. This was for all believers ,the promise of the indwelling and empowering Holy Spirit .That is why John states in his epistles we all have this unction to know all things. The old priesthood is gone and we are all priests,with differing gifts.

On the Council of Jerusalem, , but there is no indication that Jerusalem itself had been designated as the “chief See”. At the Council, St. Peter manifested his superior authority by speaking first, giving his decision and declaring that, by means of a vision, the course to be adopted had been indicated to him by God. His verdict did not need the approval of the assembly, and it left no room for discussion. “All held their peace” once Peter had spoken (Acts, 15:11). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by Peter (Gal 1:I8

) .Perhaps Jerusalem was not designated first see, but was Rome where the ancient church was founded as Iraneus states? Peter did not speak first but was the first recorded speaker…Why did he wait to speak ? Was this after he was hypocritical with the gentiles for fear of the Jews ? Peter did not make the verdict nor the decree.He did testify to what God had done.He did put forth his opinion on the matter in the form of a question. I think his humility was based on the fact that he viewed himself as first amongst equals, and left it for all to decide. Paul and Barnabus also testified about the gentiles.Then and only then did James speak adding authority of scripture on the matter. The testimony was what God said ( to Peter), what He did ( with gentiles), what he wrote (scripture). Then James made the decree, not Peter,with, “Wherefore my sentence is … and that we write unto them”. Then it pleased the apostles and elders with the whole church to send men…and they wrote letters by them after this manner, "the apostles and elders and brethren send greeting to the brethren in Antioch…for as much as we have heard…it seemed good unto us being assembled in one accord ". There was such beautiful harmony and deference to others (submit ye one to another) The gentiles would have no hint that Peter was like a pope of today from this story. The model was set and history shows that major decrees thereafter were made by council, not by popes, for they did not have that supreme authority as you state. History also shows the delicate balance therein, where even at Trent the struggle for power and influence was evident between the two.

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John,

Actually Paul is mentioned more than Peter in scripture,wrote more and travelled more.

Thus the reality that heretics and miscreants are first punished by the first Vicar of Christ, St Peter, is yet another fact of Peter’s primacy so clearly and irrefutably established by Christ Himself.

No one is denying Peter’s greatness. It is just that “first amongst equals” fits the bill better than pontificus maximus (?) and all the other titles that eventually evolved.

 

[ezeekl]

So, Clement was pope. Thank you.

Clement is mentioned in scripture and we have an extant letter from him. That’s more than we have from MOST of the Apostles!

Also the Apostle John was still and was closer to Corinth than Clement. Still the church at Corinth went to the successor of Peter rather than to the “Apostle that Jesus loved.” That literally speaks volumes.

 

[pocohombre]

Also the Apostle John was still and was closer to Corinth than Clement. Still the church at Corinth went to the successor of Peter rather than to the “Apostle that Jesus loved.” That literally speaks volumes.

Maybe, maybe not. “All roads lead to Rome”. If I had a beef and wanted a heavy hitter I would go to the center of the known world, Rome, with it’s speedy access for quicker response and to the largest church around (Rome), to where there were “connections” because of Paul. It would have clout even without the pope issue. Furthermore how old was John and where was he?/ Was he at Patmos ? Did John have any connection to Corinth, certainly not as much as Paul,who last presided at Rome.

 

[pocohombre]

**John 14:18
**“I will not leave you orphans”

If we look more closely into Jesus’ promise we can see how the office of the Papacy was instituted by Him to last us to the end of time.

defendingthebride.com/ch/hand.html#3

3. THE CHURCH IS THE FAMILY OF GOD

**Romans 8:14-16 **
“For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, ‘Abba, Father!’ The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God”
In John 14:18 Jesus promises not to leave us orphans. However, we cannot appreciate this promise unless we clearly distinguish what it means to be an orphan.

What is an “orphan” ?
**
**
Most people assume that they know what this word means, while in actuality they do not. Their assumptions are best tested so that they may become humble enough to accept a better definition. This will also help startle them enough to better remember the the significance of Jesus’ promise. So, it is usually best to ask them,
“What does it mean to be an orphan ?”

They will usually respond by saying, “An orphan is someone without a mother or father.”

NO ! That is wrong. An orphan has a father. His father may be in heaven, hell, or purgatory, but he has a father. The following example helps to clarify the meaning of the term.

**A man writes his last will and testimony on how to divide up his family fortune among his kids. He and his wife die, but the children find the will and testimony can be interpreted in various and conflicting ways. The oldest child, who was very close to his father, believed with all his heart that he knew his father and his wishes because this son had a close intimate relationship with him.
**

And this child really believed that he knew the spirit in which the father wrote the last will and testimony, so he believed that his interpretation was correct. However, the other children also claimed to have a close intimate relationship with their father and they also claimed to know the spirit with which he wrote his last will and testimony. And they disagreed on how to interpret certain passages on how to divide the family fortune.

And so, a great disagreement arose between them. Some of the children no longer even wanted to speak to the others. The rift became so bad that these siblings no longer wanted to live together or share a common meal. And because of this great division which arose among them all the children moved out and built their own houses.

Therefore, we can see that an orphan is someone who cannot hear an audible voice from his father giving a clear and infallible interpretation of the words that his father has previously spoken or written.

The Bible is infallible in what it’s authors intended to teach. It does not teach error. However, the question remains on how to interpret it. This has led to over 32,000 different Protestant denominations who all contradict each other on what it means and yet each of those denominations claims to be following the Bible and the Bible alone. And the position that no one can infallible interpret the Bible leaves it as a book that serves no certain and definite purpose.

**John 14:18
**“I will not leave you orphans”

**However, because we are not orphaned we must be able in some way to hear God’s voice spoken to us through His Church. Jesus comes to us through the Church that He established. And it is the Holy Spirit working through the Holy Father, the vicar of Christ, that overcomes any personal sins that Pope might have to give us an infallible guidance of what we should do to get to heaven.
Cf. Acts 9:4-5. The term “Pope” comes from the term “papa” which means father. His authority over us is as a father over his spiritual children.

Luke 10:16
**“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

The Church that Christ built See Matthew 16:18 below] is the pillar and foundation of truth which God works through to guide us in how to follow Jesus Christ and what it means to have faith in Him.

1 Timothy 3:15
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

John
.

Thank you -a lot of work. Funny but I don’t feel orphaned without a pope. Do the Orthodox feel orphaned?

 

[pocohombre]

I believe that in Judaism we do find a singular authority, Moses.

Good point. After him, and Joshua, then what ? After prophets then kings, but did they rule on religious things ? Did their magisterium have a head or president ? Don’t think it was the high priest. There were many leaders, people who had God’s authority and spoke for Him. God raised them and chose them. God still raises leaders today. Sometimes they are priests, bishops even popes. Sometimes they are missionaries, or lay people or even women. One must be careful when institutionalizing supreme authority under God. Something the Jews did when they bugged God for a king, like their the worldly neighbors. That God ok’d it and some kings were good does not mean it was God’s perfect will, nor His idea.

 

[ezeekl]

Maybe, maybe not. “All roads lead to Rome”. If I had a beef and wanted a heavy hitter I would go to the center of the known world, Rome, with it’s speedy access for quicker response and to the largest church around (Rome), to where there were “connections” because of Paul. It would have clout even without the pope issue. Furthermore how old was John and where was he?/ Was he at Patmos ? Did John have any connection to Corinth, certainly not as much as Paul,who last presided at Rome.

That is a bunch of baloney. All roads may lead to Rome but Rome was not a seaport. Corinth was. In fact its geographical position made it a very important port of call. All ships going from East to West stopped there. It was in many respects what Chicago was to train travel in the US. Travel by sea was faster and safer than the land route. As for John, the indications are he was in Ephesus at the time not Patmos. According to Eusebius, John was sent to Patmos in the year 95 by the Roman emperor Domitian but was released less than 2 years later. But being bannished to an island did not mean one was imprisoned there. Indeed John was able to communicate with the outside world. After all, that is how we got the Book of Revelation.

In any event, The Corinthians must have valued the response they got from Clement. In fact in 170 AD Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter and stated the following:

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

So almost 100 years later they are still reading Clements letter.

In 107 AD Bishop Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch after Peter and Elvodius said that the Church of Rome “held the presidency” and taught others.