The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[PRmerger]

I posted the historical info before. You can google “Hans Grimm History churches of Christ Europe.” His family was converted in the early 12th century. The history is unimportant if you take a position that God knows those who are his and that the word of God is the seed; therefore one should not refer to a pseudo-historical line of successors as does the Catholic church that then must defend its standard.

You have no paper trail from Hans Grimm, Daniel Where’s the paper trail for your church?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You have no paper trail from Hans Grimm, Daniel Where’s the paper trail for your church?

Since we do not believe apostolic succession, we do not need a paper tral, but the Catholic church DOES need it.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I believe that Clement’s letter to the Corinthians gives one insight into the lack of writing:

“…Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us…”
(from: newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm and accessed 6/ 6/ 09)

This is decisive evidence that there was no singular Bishop of Rome, by the way? Why does the “corporate” language exlude this possibility?

You seem to be inferring this, Daniel… In an ettempt to tou your own standard back on you I can ask, Where does this (above) passage specifically state that there is no singular Bishop of Rome?

The letter refers only to a plurality of bishops and deacons and is not addressed to a singular bishop as Ignatius later does. Various responders justify something by the fact “it doesn’t say the moon is not made of cheese.” Hermas refers to Clemens and Grapte, two leaders of the church in Rome.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Evidence for monarchical episcopacy:
1-See all the letters of Ignatius of Antioch.
2-See him referring to Polycarp as the bishop of Ephesus.
3-See Polycarp forwarding his letters to the church of Phillipi, explicitly praising its contents.
4-See St. Clement’s reference to a special group of chosen bishops who were given the charge over the church after it became clear to the apostles that they would have to appoint successors to their authority in the church.
5-See St. Clement interfering in the affairs of The church at Corinth, in much the same way the apostles often intervened in the affairs of churches they were in communication with.

Evidence for the papacy:

1-St. Clement’s intervention with the issues in the church of Corinth.
2-St. Victor’s exommunication of the eastern bishops over the date of easter.
3-Tertullian’s reference to Pope Callixtus who justified his stance on allowing adulterers forgivness and access back into church communion. Something Turtullian was very much against.
4-See Pope Callixtus’ condemnation of both Sebellius and St. Hyppolitus on Trinitarian issues.
5-See Pope Stephen’s condemnation of Cyprian and the church of Carthage over the issue of apostate Christians.

In all these cases we see the church of Rome acting in authoritative manner throughout the history before Damasus. We also see the church fathers developing their understanding of the role of Peter, and also the role of his successor. This central role alocated to Peter by Christ was constantly confirmed to Christians as residing in the office of the bishop of Rome as the successor to Peter in the episcopal office and by virtue of Rome being the place where both Peter and Paul were martyred, and thus under their special protection.

In all of this, I admit a development of doctrine, the pattern of which is contained in the Bible, especially in acts 15, as well as other passages illustrating the authority and initiative of Peter, and also his humility.

God bless
Ut

Certainly there are statements ABOUT Rome and ABOUT singular bishops after a hundred years, and there are in various writngs references to their condemnation of others. But what is striking in the development of the papacy is the lack of any preserved writing FROM these alleged popes for 300 years. First, we have the NT written during intense persecution, then nothing for 300 years.

 

[PRmerger]

Since we do not believe apostolic succession, we do not need a paper tral, but the Catholic church DOES need it.

We do not claim to need a paper trail, Daniel, as we do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura; we have our trail in Sacred Tradition.

Do you not see that you are holding Catholicism up to a standard that you do not hold for yourself–your church has no paper trail? AND you are also holding us up to a standard that we do not hold for ourselves. We don’t claim to need a paper trail.

 

[stephraim]

I don’t see anything I have not responded to in earlier posts. If Peter was head of the church with successors, where is the paper trail of these successors??

Where is the paper trail of your church?

 

[stephraim]

The letter refers only to a plurality of bishops and deacons and is not addressed to a singular bishop as Ignatius later does. Various responders justify something by the fact “it doesn’t say the moon is not made of cheese.” Hermas refers to Clemens and Grapte, two leaders of the church in Rome.

Actually, Clement is the only one responsible for disseminating the revelation to other churches abroad. Grapte is responsible for instructing orphans and widows, more akin to a catechist. As you yourself like to point out:

“And He gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers” Eph 4:12

Again, use of the plural “we” does not place individual authority in question (Gen 1:26; 1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:12; 8:1; Gal 1:8).

Remember too that St. Ignatius is a huge proponent of the monarchial bishop, yet 6 of his 7 epistles are addressed to Churches, not bishops; only Polycarp’s letter is to him specifically.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

We do not claim to need a paper trail, Daniel, as we do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura; we have our trail in Sacred Tradition.

Do you not see that you are holding Catholicism up to a standard that you do not hold for yourself–your church has no paper trail? AND you are also holding us up to a standard that we do not hold for ourselves. We don’t claim to need a paper trail.

You need a paper trail of papal statements because you claim papal succession. I do not claim papal or apostolic succession and so need no paper trail other than the word of God that “endures forever.” The lack of a paper trail for the successors of Peter as vicars of Christ to maintain unity and strengthen the brethren through all manner of hardship, is proof that Peter was never intended to be the head of the church with successors. The keys theory based on Isaiah 22 crumbles.

 

[PRmerger]

You need a paper trail of papal statements because you claim papal succession. I do not claim papal or apostolic succession and so need no paper trail other than the word of God that “endures forever.” The lack of a paper trail for the successors of Peter as vicars of Christ to maintain unity and strengthen the brethren through all manner of hardship, is proof that Peter was never intended to be the head of the church with successors. The keys theory based on Isaiah 22 crumbles.

Well then, Daniel, you need a paper trail because you claim to be the church that Christ founded. How can you claim that without a paper trail? Where are your theologians’ writings from the 1700’s? From the 1100’s? From the 5th century? Did no one write a book?

Does your church have any equivalent to Aquinas, Augustine, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila? Were there no thinkers in your church, or do we Catholics have the market on theology?

 

[pete_29]

Since we do not believe apostolic succession, we do not need a paper tral, but the Catholic church DOES need it.

No we don’t. It’s called FAITH!!!

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Actually, Clement is the only one responsible for disseminating the revelation to other churches abroad. Grapte is responsible for instructing orphans and widows, more akin to a catechist. As you yourself like to point out:

“And He gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers” Eph 4:12

Again, use of the plural “we” does not place individual authority in question (Gen 1:26; 1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:12; 8:1; Gal 1:8).

Remember too that St. Ignatius is a huge proponent of the monarchial bishop, yet 6 of his 7 epistles are addressed to Churches, not bishops; only Polycarp’s letter is to him specifically.

Catholic scholars agree there was no singular bishop at Rome at the time of the letter called Clement, and even Ignatius avoids referring to any singular bishop at Rome as he does other churches. Clement refers to bishops and deacons and uses bishops interchangeably with the term presbyters.

Chapter 42:
"…they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be **bishops and deacons **of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their **bishops in righteousness, and their deacons **in faith.”

Ch.44:
“For our sin will not be small, if we eject from **the episcopate those **who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now…”

Ch.47:
“…sedition against its presbyters…”

Ch.57:
“…submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent…”

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Well then, Daniel, you need a paper trail because you claim to be the church that Christ founded. How can you claim that without a paper trail? Where are your theologians’ writings from the 1700’s? From the 1100’s? From the 5th century? Did no one write a book?

Does your church have any equivalent to Aquinas, Augustine, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila? Were there no thinkers in your church, or do we Catholics have the market on theology?

I don’t want to get into a discussion of my daddy is bigger than your daddy. The only paper trail I need and want is the word of God. The books of men have error mixed with truth and are of little value by comparison.

The Catholic church on the other hand claims much more than it can prove:

1. Claim #1: Peter was the voice of Christ and head of the whole church.
2. Claim #2: Peter had successors each having the same authority as Christ to bring unity and define truth.
3. Therefore, there should be a paper trail of writing from these vicars to address the turmoil Christians were facing for 300 years before Damasus and to say, “Fear not…”
4. The fact this is completely absent is proof the claims of the papacy are false.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

We demonstrated Peter taking a leadership role among the apostles in Acts:

Acts 1: 15-21: He leads them in picking Judas’ replacement:
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’ Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

Acts 2: 14-41 He leads them at Pentacost:
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words. These people are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: ‘It will come to pass in the last days,’ God says, ‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh. Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. Indeed, upon my servants and my handmaids I will pour out a portion of my spirit in those days, and they shall prophesy. And I will work wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below: blood, fire, and a cloud of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and splendid day of the Lord, and it shall be that everyone shall be saved who calls on the name of the Lord.’ You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know. This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him. But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it. For David says of him: ‘I saw the Lord ever before me, with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed. Therefore my heart has been glad and my tongue has exulted; my flesh, too, will dwell in hope, because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld, nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’ My brothers, one can confidently say to you about the patriarch David that he died and was buried, and his tomb is in our midst to this day. But since he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that neither was he abandoned to the netherworld nor did his flesh see corruption. God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses. Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you (both) see and hear. For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

Peter doing the first healing (Acts 3: 1-7)
Now Peter and John were going up to the temple area for the three o’clock hour of prayer.
And a man crippled from birth was carried and placed at the gate of the temple called “the Beautiful Gate” every day to beg for alms from the people who entered the temple. When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked for alms. But Peter looked intently at him, as did John, and said, “Look at us.” He paid attention to them, expecting to receive something from them. Peter said, “I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, (rise and) walk.” Then Peter took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles grew strong.

Frequent mention of a name does not a Pope make.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Peter traveling the countryside, healing and even bringing back a person from the dead: Acts 9:

As Peter was passing through every region, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda. There he found a man named Aeneas, who had been confined to bed for eight years, for he was paralyzed. Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and make your bed.” He got up at once. And all the inhabitants of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord. Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated means Dorcas). She was completely occupied with good deeds and almsgiving. Now during those days she fell sick and died, so after washing her, they laid (her) out in a room upstairs. Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him with the request, “Please come to us without delay.” So Peter got up and went with them. When he arrived, they took him to the room upstairs where all the widows came to him weeping and showing him the tunics and cloaks that Dorcas had made while she was with them. Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed. Then he turned to her body and said, “Tabitha, rise up.” She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up. He gave her his hand and raised her up, and when he had called the holy ones and the widows, he presented her alive. This became known all over Joppa, and many came to believe in the Lord.

Pronouncing the first Dogma at the council of jerusalem: (acts 15: 7-11
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”

We have also seen that Paul went to confer Peter before strarting his ministry Galations 1: 15-19
But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

And Paul went back to him to verify that he was not running in vain: (Galatians 2:1-2)
Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up in accord with a revelation, 3 and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain

It seems like if we put all that together, we have the leadership commission, and a pretty good job description right out of scripture. (and this is only a fraction of the 195 mentions of Peter in the New Testament).

While we believe that this more than adequately proofs the point of Peter’ primacy, we also note that this is supplemented by Church tradition and the writings of the ECFs.

Frankly, I think we have more than met the obligation that you laid on us.

For the sake of argument, if Peter was the sole head of the church in the NT (which he was not), there is still an enormous problem in the lack of any preserved writing from his alleged successors who are suppose to have had the keys, the TEACHING chair of Peter, the voice of Christ on earth, the maintainers of unity, etc., etc. But there is NOTHING preserved from them for 300 years.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

And one other question:

Why did the church at Corinth appeal to Clement, Bishop of Rome, when the Apostle John was still alive?

Maybe because Paul who founded Corinth was also part of the Rome founding? There is no indication within the letter that the Corinthians wrote to the church in Rome BECAUSE of any unique authority of the latter.

 

[stephraim]

The Catholic church on the other hand claims much more than it can prove:

1. Claim #1: Peter was the voice of Christ and head of the whole church.
2. Claim #2: Peter had successors each having the same authority as Christ to bring unity and define truth.
3. Therefore, there should be a paper trail of writing from these vicars to address the turmoil Christians were facing for 300 years before Damasus and to say, “Fear not…”
4. The fact this is completely absent is proof the claims of the papacy are false.

Non-Catholic churches claim more than they can prove as well:

1. Claim #1: Scripture is the sole rule of faith, and anything not found explicitly in Scripture is a ‘tradition of men.’
2. Claim #2: Scripture needs no interpretation.
3. Therefore, there should be mention in Scripture to address these fundamental assertions.
4. The fact these are completely absent is proof the claims of sola Scriptura are false.
5. The fact that the opposite of each are found is proof the claims of sola Scriptura are false.

 

[stephraim]

For the sake of argument, if Peter was the sole head of the church in the NT (which he was not), there is still an enormous problem in the lack of any preserved writing from his alleged successors who are suppose to have had the keys, the TEACHING chair of Peter, the voice of Christ on earth, the maintainers of unity, etc., etc. But there is NOTHING preserved from them for 300 years.

As far writings from popes, there is some correspondence from 2nd and 3rd century popes quoted in Eusebius, and we have some knowledge of “papal decrees” in responses, writings, and correspondence of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Fermillian.

Further, where is Paul’s epistle to the Laodicians or his other epistle to the Corinthians? The fact that they are gone and we can not see them does not mean that they didn’t write. Again, we know about them from other writings, just as we know about papal epistles from other writings.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Peter traveling the countryside, healing and even bringing back a person from the dead: Acts 9:

As Peter was passing through every region, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda. There he found a man named Aeneas, who had been confined to bed for eight years, for he was paralyzed. Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and make your bed.” He got up at once. And all the inhabitants of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord. Now in Joppa there was a disciple … to her body and said, “Tabitha, rise up.” She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up. He gave her his hand and raised her up, and when he had called the holy ones and the widows, he presented her alive. This became known all over Joppa, and many came to believe in the Lord.

Pronouncing the first Dogma at the council of jerusalem: (acts 15: 7-11
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”

We have also seen that Paul went to confer Peter before strarting his ministry Galations 1: 15-19
But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

And Paul went back to him to verify that he was not running in vain: (Galatians 2:1-2)
Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up in accord with a revelation, 3 and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain

It seems like if we put all that together, we have the leadership commission, and a pretty good job description right out of scripture. (and this is only a fraction of the 195 mentions of Peter in the New Testament).

While we believe that this more than adequately proofs the point of Peter’ primacy, we also note that this is supplemented by Church tradition and the writings of the ECFs.

Frankly, I think we have more than met the obligation that you laid on us.

Frequency or order of appearance of a name does not prove Peter was head of the church. I posted this before and will again now.

Paul, did you get your authority to preach, from the apostles in Jerusalem or from Peter?

Gal.1:15But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get **acquainted with Peter **and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."

Paul did you get your commision from Peter for from God?

Gal.2:1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went **in response to a revelation **and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. 6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, **they saw **that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship **when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed **that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. 11 **When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him **to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong…"

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Non-Catholic churches claim more than they can prove as well:

1. Claim #1: Scripture is the sole rule of faith, and anything not found explicitly in Scripture is a ‘tradition of men.’
2. Claim #2: Scripture needs no interpretation.
3. Therefore, there should be mention in Scripture to address these fundamental assertions.
4. The fact these are completely absent is proof the claims of sola Scriptura are false.
5. The fact that the opposite of each are found is proof the claims of sola Scriptura are false.

[SIGN]

HELLO! WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?​

[/SIGN]

1. But you also believe scripture is the only writing that is God-breathed.
2. I would rather take scripture as my source of authority than the writings of ECF’s and of Tradition that contain error.
3. Since all agree only scripture is inspired, why don’t we just go there to prove the papacy then support it with solid proof in a paper trail from papal successors?
4. Most of the “popes” were alive in office long enough to write something, but there is nothing from 300 years. What’s wrong with this picture?
   5. We have the written NT, then nothing written from the “voice of Christ” for 300 years.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

As far writings from popes, there is some correspondence from 2nd and 3rd century popes quoted in Eusebius, and we have some knowledge of “papal decrees” in responses, writings, and correspondence of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Fermillian.

Further, where is Paul’s epistle to the Laodicians or his other epistle to the Corinthians? The fact that they are gone and we can not see them does not mean that they didn’t write. Again, we know about them from other writings, just as we know about papal epistles from other writings.

Does Irenaeus refer to the bishop of Rome in lofty phrases used of the papacy and that you claim for Peter? This would be interesting. Tertullian was FIRST to refer to the keys, then says they are given to all Christians, and he waffles on the authority of the bishop of Rome. Cyprian was a great innovator and smoozer (to compensate for running away in persecution?) Comparing Paul’s epistles is weak since we have many of his letters but NONE from the popes for 300 years.