If Peter had no primcay, why was he to “feed [Jesus’] sheep”? Why do the Early Church Fathers unanimously agree that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy, and not just of honor? For instance, Irenaus in his “Against Heresies”:
“…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 annoucned by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, [i:3vffsq09]all Churches must agree[/i:3vffsq09], that is, the faithful in the whole world…”
This is not made up, James. And passages such as these could be multiplied. All Church history goes against the ideas you are promulgating. And you do not think the Papce had its complete power before the [i:3vffsq09]nineteenth century[/i:3vffsq09]? Truly, you must have one very little research on the matter. Before the nineteenth century, the Dogma of infallibility had not been infallibly defined, but the Pope had ALWAYS had this. I do not even KNOW how many mounds of evidence could be brought forward to support that.