> >no, the church of rome had authority over the whole church from the time peter established it. > this isn't true at all. there was no such thing as a chief church until constantine elevated himself as pontiff maximus. try finding a record of that happening.  ignatius of antioch ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the romans, worthy of god, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after christ and named after the father (letter to the romans 1:1 [a.d. 110]). you [the church at rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. i desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (ibid., 3:1). pope damasus i likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our lord and savior, who says: you are peter, and upon this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and i will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .  [matt. 16:1819]. the first see, therefore, is that of peter the apostle, that of the roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it (decree of damasus 3 [a.d. 382]).
United States