70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1

[Shermana]

An excellent collection though a few show a few signs of liberties. There's a lot more "A god" translations than I realized.

Is it logical to conclude that there is much more than the JWs as an authority that this reading of John 1:1 can be legitimately read as "a god"?

Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?

[jedicri]

Okay, that was a nice discourse on why you think the Catholic Church has all the answers, but it doesn't exactly hit any of the specifics about John 1:1c.

No, I didn't say above that the Catholic Church has all the answers, but I am making the claim that the Catholic Church alone, has the sole right to properly translate and interpret the Bible because it was She that canonised what we now have that constitutes Sacred Scripture. Therefore, by making such a claim, I question everybody's attempt, outside of Catholicism, to properly interpret and translate the Bible (such as John 1:1c) for it was not them or the religion of which they are part of that determined the Bible canon. The fact that they did not makes them unqualified to do so.

If some believe that the Bible is infallible, it follows that it requires an infallible interpreter.

Now as for the topic at hand, you would deny (and are denying) the Trinity dogma by citing one particular verse at the expense of other verses that would infer and show otherwise. The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

[Student]

Okay, that was a nice discourse on why you think the Catholic Church has all the answers, but it doesn't exactly hit any of the specifics about John 1:1c.

No, I didn't say above that the Catholic Church has all the answers, but I am making the claim that the Catholic Church alone, has the sole right to properly translate and interpret the Bible because it was She that canonised what we now have that constitutes Sacred Scripture. Therefore, by making such a claim, I question everybody's attempt, outside of Catholicism, to properly interpret and translate the Bible (such as John 1:1c) for it was not them or the religion of which they are part of that determined the Bible canon. The fact that they did not makes them unqualified to do so.

The Canon was not determined by the Roman Catholic Church. Whilst it might be reasonable to assert that the Canon was determined (somewhat by fatigue) by the catholic Church, the bishop of Rome did not pronounce on the matter at least until the 15th century (Council of Florence) by which time the Canon was fixed. Consequently, your claim, that the Roman church determined the Canon, and is solely placed to translate and interpret the Bible, is arrogant and offensive.

[Shermana]

On a side note, if anything, the Greek Orthodox Church was the one that did the Official Canonization, the Roman Catholic Church wasn't really a distinct entity until a few centuries after, and they had their own Canon such as dropping 3 and 4 Maccabees. Then there's also the issue of the Ethiopian canon. Whoever told you that Rome decided what Books made it into the "Official church Canon" was incorrect, it was more or less Byzantium that decided this, and before that, there was the Muratorian Canon (which included Peter's Apocalypse) and those like it. The Syriac Orthodox Church didn't use the same canon, and even after the Orthodox Church passed their Canon, it wasn't exactly uniform all over the empire until later.

As for the Didache, it's universally considered that the Formula there was a later addition, along with its presence in other manuscripts, and wasn't in the original. Matthew 28:19 is widely considered to be a later addition (That crept into later manuscripts which claim to quote it), Eusebius (and its suspected that Origen as well) had a different version that simply said "In my name", which matches with all the rest of the times its invoked such as in Acts. As for Ignatius, perhaps you're unaware of the fact that there's "Short forms" and "Long forms" of his writings, the "Short forms" don't contain the passage, and the "Long forms' are widely considered to be interpolated later versions (which naturally had their place in "Church" doctrine). Did Ignatius make two different versions of his own writings?

Also, this thread is not really intended to be about debunking the Trinity per se, (I have numerous other threads and postings for that), but simply a look at the grammatically correct way of translating the Anarthrous Theos in John 1:1c.

[jedicri]

The Canon was not determined by the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes it was. (And if not, by whom pray tell?)

Whilst it might be reasonable to assert that the Canon was determined (somewhat by fatigue) by the catholic Church, the bishop of Rome did not pronounce on the matter at least until the 15th century (Council of Florence) by which time the Canon was fixed.

Here is a more accurate rendering on the matter: the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice, Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

Consequently, your claim, that the Roman church determined the Canon, and is solely placed to translate and interpret the Bible, is arrogant and offensive.

Based on what is posted above, my claim that the Catholic Church determined the canon is historically correct. Furthermore, it is neither arrogant nor offensive that only the Catholic Church has the proper teaching and interpreting authority for right reason and logic dictates that whoever determines a canon of infallible books, (no less inspired by God, or specifically speaking, the Holy Spirit, of Whom is the Bible's true author,) must also be it's infallible interpreter and no one else.

[Student]

The Canon was not determined by the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes it was. (And if not, by whom pray tell?)

Whilst it might be reasonable to assert that the Canon was determined (somewhat by fatigue) by the catholic Church, the bishop of Rome did not pronounce on the matter at least until the 15th century (Council of Florence) by which time the Canon was fixed.

Here is a more accurate rendering on the matter: the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice, Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

Consequently, your claim, that the Roman church determined the Canon, and is solely placed to translate and interpret the Bible, is arrogant and offensive.

Based on what is posted above, my claim that the Catholic Church determined the canon is historically correct. Furthermore, it is neither arrogant nor offensive that only the Catholic Church has the proper teaching and interpreting authority for right reason and logic dictates that whoever determines a canon of infallible books, (no less inspired by God, or specifically speaking, the Holy Spirit, of Whom is the Bible's true author,) must also be it's infallible interpreter and no one else.

The first occasion when all 27 books of the New Testament were listed was in the Festal Letter written by Athanasius (c.296-373), Bishop of Alexandria to the Egyptian Churches in 367. In the letter Athanasius told his bishops that these twenty seven books were to be regarded as canonical.

Athanasius, a Greek bishop of a Greek see, would not have considered himself inferior to the Bishop of Rome. At that time the Bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were all entitled to be called Pope.

Also, at that time, about two thirds of all Christian bishops were Greek. So it would be wrong to attribute the formation of the canon to the Latin church, which was in the minority.

The synod of Rome c.382 was not an Ecumenical (universal) council and as such its canons had no authority outside the see of Rome.

There is no extant record of what transpired at this synod (the so-called Decretum Gelasianum is considered to be a pseudonymous literary production of the first half of the sixth century) however it would have been strange, if indeed Damasus had “fixed� the Canon, and if he was considered the supreme head of the Church, that three later regional synods, the Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synods of Carthage in 397, and 419, all under the control of Augustine, should have had the temerity to consider canonicity.

Most significantly perhaps, Jerome makes no mention of any such list in his preface to the Vulgate.

The synods of Hippo in 393, Carthage 397 & 419 were not Ecumenical i.e. general councils, but rather the provincial councils of African bishops, under the control of Augustine, so their canons had no jurisdiction outside of his see of Hippo.

Innocent I, in his list of canonical books addressed to Exsuerius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405, specifies all but one of the current canonical books of the New Testament. He excludes Hebrews, which was not at that time universally accepted by the Western Church. It was only accepted later by the West on the authority of the East.

The fact that Innocent I’s list was not the complete list of 27 New Testament books somewhat confounds your statement that “In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today.�

In the East, there were various attempts to close the canon. For example, the Trullan Synod in 691 and 692 met in Justinian’s II’s palace at Constantinople with the intention of completing the work of the Fifth (553) and Sixth (680) Ecumenical councils. They sanctioned several incongruous and contradictory lists of canonical books. The confusion continued. Indeed, Westcott estimated that in the tenth century no fewer than six different canonical lists were received by the Greek Church.

There never was a pronouncement by a central authority, such as the Pope, until 1443 A.D at the Council of Florence and it was not made an absolute article of faith until the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

The church in the 4th century might be described as catholic but it could not be described as “Roman� i.e. Latin. The majority of Christians [and Bishops] were Greek speaking. Certainly the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch would not have considered the Bishop of Rome their superior.

The Bible was the “creation by consensus� of the body of the early Christian Church at a time before there was a major schism between east and west and before the reformation. Therefore no one denomination or sect can claim the Bible as their own or to have any special authority over its contents.

[jedicri]

The Canon was not determined by the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes it was. (And if not, by whom pray tell?)

Whilst it might be reasonable to assert that the Canon was determined (somewhat by fatigue) by the catholic Church, the bishop of Rome did not pronounce on the matter at least until the 15th century (Council of Florence) by which time the Canon was fixed.

Here is a more accurate rendering on the matter: the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice, Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

Consequently, your claim, that the Roman church determined the Canon, and is solely placed to translate and interpret the Bible, is arrogant and offensive.

Based on what is posted above, my claim that the Catholic Church determined the canon is historically correct. Furthermore, it is neither arrogant nor offensive that only the Catholic Church has the proper teaching and interpreting authority for right reason and logic dictates that whoever determines a canon of infallible books, (no less inspired by God, or specifically speaking, the Holy Spirit, of Whom is the Bible's true author,) must also be it's infallible interpreter and no one else.

The first occasion when all 27 books of the New Testament were listed was in the Festal Letter written by Athanasius (c.296-373), Bishop of Alexandria to the Egyptian Churches in 367. In the letter Athanasius told his bishops that these twenty seven books were to be regarded as canonical.

Athanasius, a Greek bishop of a Greek see, would not have considered himself inferior to the Bishop of Rome. At that time the Bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were all entitled to be called Pope.

Also, at that time, about two thirds of all Christian bishops were Greek. So it would be wrong to attribute the formation of the canon to the Latin church, which was in the minority.

The synod of Rome c.382 was not an Ecumenical (universal) council and as such its canons had no authority outside the see of Rome.

There is no extant record of what transpired at this synod (the so-called Decretum Gelasianum is considered to be a pseudonymous literary production of the first half of the sixth century) however it would have been strange, if indeed Damasus had “fixed� the Canon, and if he was considered the supreme head of the Church, that three later regional synods, the Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synods of Carthage in 397, and 419, all under the control of Augustine, should have had the temerity to consider canonicity.

Most significantly perhaps, Jerome makes no mention of any such list in his preface to the Vulgate.

The synods of Hippo in 393, Carthage 397 & 419 were not Ecumenical i.e. general councils, but rather the provincial councils of African bishops, under the control of Augustine, so their canons had no jurisdiction outside of his see of Hippo.

Innocent I, in his list of canonical books addressed to Exsuerius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405, specifies all but one of the current canonical books of the New Testament. He excludes Hebrews, which was not at that time universally accepted by the Western Church. It was only accepted later by the West on the authority of the East.

The fact that Innocent I’s list was not the complete list of 27 New Testament books somewhat confounds your statement that “In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today.�

In the East, there were various attempts to close the canon. For example, the Trullan Synod in 691 and 692 met in Justinian’s II’s palace at Constantinople with the intention of completing the work of the Fifth (553) and Sixth (680) Ecumenical councils. They sanctioned several incongruous and contradictory lists of canonical books. The confusion continued. Indeed, Westcott estimated that in the tenth century no fewer than six different canonical lists were received by the Greek Church.

There never was a pronouncement by a central authority, such as the Pope, until 1443 A.D at the Council of Florence and it was not made an absolute article of faith until the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

The church in the 4th century might be described as catholic but it could not be described as “Roman� i.e. Latin. The majority of Christians [and Bishops] were Greek speaking. Certainly the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch would not have considered the Bishop of Rome their superior.

The Bible was the “creation by consensus� of the body of the early Christian Church at a time before there was a major schism between east and west and before the reformation. Therefore no one denomination or sect can claim the Bible as their own or to have any special authority over its contents.

What you refer to as the "early Christian Church at a time before there was a major schism between east and west and before the reformation" was and is the Catholic Church of today. The Church started out as one as Jesus intended it to be: one Flock, One Shepherd. Regardless of what language was spoken, be it Latin or Greek, the Church was one --- Catholic (katholikos=universal) --- and whose head was the Pope as you yourself may trace through historical records.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

On a side note, we consider St. Athanasius to be one of the 4 great Church Fathers from the east in the Catholic Church. He was a "renowned Christian theologian, ... the chief defender of Orthodoxy against Arianism, and a noted Egyptian leader of the fourth century."

Faith, doctrinal, moral and theological teachings be it from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century onwards was then and is still the same today. No other denomination can claim this, not even the Greek Orthodox Church.

Just because St. Jerome makes no mention of the OT is red herring argumentation: his Latin Vulgate includes both the Old and New Testament. "After the death of the Pope [Damasus], Jerome who had been the Pope's secretary, settled in Bethlehem, where he produced a new version of the Psalms, translated from the Hexaplar revision of the Septuagint. But from 390 to 405 A.D., Jerome translated anew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible, including a further, third, version of the Psalms, which survives in a very few Vulgate manuscripts. This new translation of the Psalms was labelled by him as "iuxta Hebraeos" (i.e. "close to the Hebrews", "immediately following the Hebrews"), but it was not ultimately used in the Vulgate. The translations of the other 38 books were used, however, and so the Vulgate is usually credited to have been the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint."

The Bible did come from Catholicism.

[Student]

What you refer to as the "early Christian Church at a time before there was a major schism between east and west and before the reformation" was and is the Catholic Church of today. The Church started out as one as Jesus intended it to be: one Flock, One Shepherd. Regardless of what language was spoken, be it Latin or Greek, the Church was one --- Catholic (katholikos=universal) --- and whose head was the Pope as you yourself may trace through historical records.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

On a side note, we consider St. Athanasius to be one of the 4 great Church Fathers from the east in the Catholic Church. He was a "renowned Christian theologian, ... the chief defender of Orthodoxy against Arianism, and a noted Egyptian leader of the fourth century."

Faith, doctrinal, moral and theological teachings be it from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century onwards was then and is still the same today. No other denomination can claim this, not even the Greek Orthodox Church.

Just because St. Jerome makes no mention of the OT is red herring argumentation: his Latin Vulgate includes both the Old and New Testament. "After the death of the Pope [Damasus], Jerome who had been the Pope's secretary, settled in Bethlehem, where he produced a new version of the Psalms, translated from the Hexaplar revision of the Septuagint. But from 390 to 405 A.D., Jerome translated anew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible, including a further, third, version of the Psalms, which survives in a very few Vulgate manuscripts. This new translation of the Psalms was labelled by him as "iuxta Hebraeos" (i.e. "close to the Hebrews", "immediately following the Hebrews"), but it was not ultimately used in the Vulgate. The translations of the other 38 books were used, however, and so the Vulgate is usually credited to have been the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint."

The Bible did come from Catholicism.

Your claims have no historical basis.

“The Greek and Latin churches were never organically united under one government, but differed considerably from the beginning in nationality, language, and various ceremonies.� [P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol IV Chap V]

So, no unity of governance under the Bishop of Rome.

“The principal sees of the East were directly founded by the apostles—with the exception of Constantinople—and had even a clearer title to apostolic succession and inheritance than Rome. The Greek church took the lead in theology down to the sixth or seventh century, and the Latin gratefully learned from her. All the ecumenical Councils were held on the soil of the Byzantine empire in or near Constantinople, and carried on in the Greek language.�[ibid]

So, Rome’s claim to apostolic succession was no better than several of the Eastern sees and certainly does not appear to have conferred upon the office any special rights or jurisdiction e.g. leading the development of early theology.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with your comments regarding Ignatius:

Ignatius of Antioch
"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

The bishop to whom Ignatius refers is the bishop of the Philadelphian church. Although Ignatius omits the name of the bishop he has clearly met him: “I was deeply impressed by his self effacing nature; reserve in him is more effectual than any volubility in others.�

However, and perhaps more significantly, Ignatius, writing c.120 to the Christians at Rome, says nothing of any bishop there. In all his other six (genuine) letters he addresses the bishop specifically by name or by title. It would be the height of discourtesy for Ignatius to ignore a bishop, and it goes against his advice to the Philadelphians.
Consequently we can only conclude that at that time Rome had no bishop. This rather dents the concept of unbroken apostolic succession at Rome.

As for

Faith, doctrinal, moral and theological teachings be it from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century onwards was then and is still the same today. No other denomination can claim this, not even the Greek Orthodox Church.

Patently untrue. Take for example, the celebration of Easter.

“Irenaeus was shocked when, about 190, bishop Victor of Rome proceeded to make a demand for uniformity in the observance of Easter which the churches of Asia Minor regarded as autocratic and offensive. � (H. Chadwick, “The Early Church�, p.84)

While Rome, following the lead of Alexandria, celebrated Easter on the Sunday following the Jewish Passover, the Churches in Asia Minor preserved the most ancient of all methods of determining the date of Easter: they kept it at the same time as the Jewish Passover.

“Victor apparently believed that the Roman custom must have been inherited from the instructions of Peter and Paul, and declared that those who observed the feast on any different day could not be regarded as Catholic Christians.� (Chadwick)

Irenaeous remonstrated with Victor pointing out that when Polycarp of Smyrnia had travelled to Rome, c.160, Rome did not keep Easter. However, neither Polycarp nor bishop Anicetus of Rome regarded the divergence as grounds for a breach of communion. Victor was forced to back down.

So, prior to c.160 Rome did not celebrate Easter, making it hard to maintain your claim of continuity between the first century and the present day.

We might speculate how a church supposedly founded by apostles could possibly fail to celibrate Easter, but that perhaps should be the subject of a seperate thread.

As for the Great Schism, the split between east and west, this came about for a number of reasons, including the eastern Patriarchs rejection of Rome’s increasingly strident claims to primacy and Rome’s insistence on the inclusion of the Filioque in the creed.

The eastern church objected to, and rejected Papal claims to the authority to unilaterally impose changes upon the whole of Christendom. It was the Papal legates who excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople on 16th of July, 1054 [they didn’t actually present the Patriarch with the document of excommunication ~ they just left it on the altar of the church of Hagia Sophia before making a swift departure ~ it was a good job the cleaners were off that day]

By so doing the Church of Rome ejected the eastern Patriarchs and effectively split the Church. The Patriarchs responded in kind and excommunicated the Pope, thereby accepting the situation, but the split was instigated by the demands of Rome.

Finally, I am mystified by your comments regarding Jerome.

Just because St. Jerome makes no mention of the OT is red herring argumentation

I never referred to the Old Testament in the context of Jerome. You are simply making things up to justify your disparaging remarks.

I simply pointed out that Jerome failed to make any mention of a Damasine list of canonical books in his preface to the Vulgate. From this it is safe to conclude that no such list existed.

[jedicri]

Your claims have no historical basis.

History says otherwise as I will show herein...


Popes then and now...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
1.St. Peter (32-67)
2.St. Linus (67-76)
3.St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4.St. Clement I (88-97)
5.St. Evaristus (97-105)
6.St. Alexander I (105-115)
7.St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8.St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9.St. Hyginus (136-140)
10.St. Pius I (140-155)
11.St. Anicetus (155-166)
12.St. Soter (166-175)
13.St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14.St. Victor I (189-199)
15.St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16.St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17.St. Urban I (222-30)
18.St. Pontain (230-35)
19.St. Anterus (235-36)
20.St. Fabian (236-50)
21.St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22.St. Lucius I (253-54)
23.St. Stephen I (254-257)
24.St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25.St. Dionysius (260-268)
26.St. Felix I (269-274)
27.St. Eutychian (275-283)
28.St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
29.St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30.St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31.St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32.St. Miltiades (311-14)
33.St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34.St. Marcus (336)
35.St. Julius I (337-52)
36.Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
37.St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
38.St. Siricius (384-99)
39.St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40.St. Innocent I (401-17)
41.St. Zosimus (417-18)
42.St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43.St. Celestine I (422-32)
44.St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45.St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46.St. Hilarius (461-68)
47.St. Simplicius (468-83)
48.St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49.St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50.Anastasius II (496-98)
51.St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
52.St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53.St. John I (523-26)
54.St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55.Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
56.John II (533-35)
57.St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
58.St. Silverius (536-37)
59.Vigilius (537-55)
60.Pelagius I (556-61)
61.John III (561-74)
62.Benedict I (575-79)
63.Pelagius II (579-90)
64.St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65.Sabinian (604-606)
66.Boniface III (607)
67.St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68.St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69.Boniface V (619-25)
70.Honorius I (625-38)
71.Severinus (640)
72.John IV (640-42)
73.Theodore I (642-49)
74.St. Martin I (649-55)
75.St. Eugene I (655-57)
76.St. Vitalian (657-72)
77.Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78.Donus (676-78)
79.St. Agatho (678-81)
80.St. Leo II (682-83)
81.St. Benedict II (684-85)
82.John V (685-86)
83.Conon (686-87)
84.St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
85.John VI (701-05)
86.John VII (705-07)
87.Sisinnius (708)
88.Constantine (708-15)
89.St. Gregory II (715-31)
90.St. Gregory III (731-41)
91.St. Zachary (741-52)
92.Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
93.Stephen III (752-57)
94.St. Paul I (757-67)
95.Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
96.Adrian I (772-95)
97.St. Leo III (795-816)
98.Stephen V (816-17)
99.St. Paschal I (817-24)
100.Eugene II (824-27)
101.Valentine (827)
102.Gregory IV (827-44)
103.Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
104.St. Leo IV (847-55)
105.Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
106.St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107.Adrian II (867-72)
108.John VIII (872-82)
109.Marinus I (882-84)
110.St. Adrian III (884-85)
111.Stephen VI (885-91)
112.Formosus (891-96)
113.Boniface VI (896)
114.Stephen VII (896-97)
115.Romanus (897)
116.Theodore II (897)
117.John IX (898-900)
118.Benedict IV (900-03)
119.Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
120.Sergius III (904-11)
121.Anastasius III (911-13)
122.Lando (913-14)
123.John X (914-28)
124.Leo VI (928)
125.Stephen VIII (929-31)
126.John XI (931-35)
127.Leo VII (936-39)
128.Stephen IX (939-42)
129.Marinus II (942-46)
130.Agapetus II (946-55)
131.John XII (955-63)
132.Leo VIII (963-64)
133.Benedict V (964)
134.John XIII (965-72)
135.Benedict VI (973-74)
136.Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
137.John XIV (983-84)
138.John XV (985-96)
139.Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
140.Sylvester II (999-1003)
141.John XVII (1003)
142.John XVIII (1003-09)
143.Sergius IV (1009-12)
144.Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
145.John XIX (1024-32)
146.Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
147.Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
148.Benedict IX (1045)
149.Gregory VI (1045-46)
150.Clement II (1046-47)
151.Benedict IX (1047-48)
152.Damasus II (1048)
153.St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154.Victor II (1055-57)
155.Stephen X (1057-58)
156.Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
157.Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
158.St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
159.Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
160.Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
161.Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
162.Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
163.Callistus II (1119-24)
164.Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
165.Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
166.Celestine II (1143-44)
167.Lucius II (1144-45)
168.Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
169.Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170.Adrian IV (1154-59)
171.Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
172.Lucius III (1181-85)
173.Urban III (1185-87)
174.Gregory VIII (1187)
175.Clement III (1187-91)
176.Celestine III (1191-98)
177.Innocent III (1198-1216)
178.Honorius III (1216-27)
179.Gregory IX (1227-41)
180.Celestine IV (1241)
181.Innocent IV (1243-54)
182.Alexander IV (1254-61)
183.Urban IV (1261-64)
184.Clement IV (1265-68)
185.Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186.Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187.Adrian V (1276)
188.John XXI (1276-77)
189.Nicholas III (1277-80)
190.Martin IV (1281-85)
191.Honorius IV (1285-87)
192.Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193.St. Celestine V (1294)
194.Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195.Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
196.Clement V (1305-14)
197.John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
198.Benedict XII (1334-42)
199.Clement VI (1342-52)
200.Innocent VI (1352-62)
201.Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
202.Gregory XI (1370-78)
203.Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
204.Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
205.Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
206.Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
207.Martin V (1417-31)
208.Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
209.Nicholas V (1447-55)
210.Callistus III (1455-58)
211.Pius II (1458-64)
212.Paul II (1464-71)
213.Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214.Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215.Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216.Pius III (1503)
217.Julius II (1503-13)
218.Leo X (1513-21)
219.Adrian VI (1522-23)
220.Clement VII (1523-34)
221.Paul III (1534-49)
222.Julius III (1550-55)
223.Marcellus II (1555)
224.Paul IV (1555-59)
225.Pius IV (1559-65)
226.St. Pius V (1566-72)
227.Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228.Sixtus V (1585-90)
229.Urban VII (1590)
230.Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231.Innocent IX (1591)
232.Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233.Leo XI (1605)
234.Paul V (1605-21)
235.Gregory XV (1621-23)
236.Urban VIII (1623-44)
237.Innocent X (1644-55)
238.Alexander VII (1655-67)
239.Clement IX (1667-69)
240.Clement X (1670-76)
241.Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
242.Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243.Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244.Clement XI (1700-21)
245.Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246.Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247.Clement XII (1730-40)
248.Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249.Clement XIII (1758-69)
250.Clement XIV (1769-74)
251.Pius VI (1775-99)
252.Pius VII (1800-23)
253.Leo XII (1823-29)
254.Pius VIII (1829-30)
255.Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256.Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
257.Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258.St. Pius X (1903-14)
259.Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
260.Pius XI (1922-39)
261.Pius XII (1939-58)
262.Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263.Paul VI (1963-78)
264.John Paul I (1978)
265.John Paul II (1978-2005)
266.Benedict XVI (2005—)

“The Greek and Latin churches were never organically united under one government, but differed considerably from the beginning in nationality, language, and various ceremonies.� [P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol IV Chap V]

So, no unity of governance under the Bishop of Rome.

I explicitly said there was one Church under one leader --- the Bishop of Rome. Regardless if there was no unity, there still was present the head of the Church and that is the Pope as the list above clearly shows and even as your post implicitly infers where you state "under the Bishop of Rome" implying that there was a leader present then even if there was no unity.

“The principal sees of the East were directly founded by the apostles—with the exception of Constantinople—and had even a clearer title to apostolic succession and inheritance than Rome. The Greek church took the lead in theology down to the sixth or seventh century, and the Latin gratefully learned from her. All the ecumenical Councils were held on the soil of the Byzantine empire in or near Constantinople, and carried on in the Greek language.�[ibid]

So, Rome’s claim to apostolic succession was no better than several of the Eastern sees and certainly does not appear to have conferred upon the office any special rights or jurisdiction e.g. leading the development of early theology.

The writings of the early Fathers of the Church says otherwise:

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, 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 a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?" Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

"Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: 'And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.'" Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. …To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine…Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200).

"And that you may still be more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? Which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit." Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be save?, 42 (A.D. 210).

"We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us." Origen, Commentary on Matthew (post A.D. 244).

"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers." Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 1 (A.D. 250).

"Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination." Firmilian, To Cyprian, Epistle 75[74]:16 (A.D. 256).

"It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing... When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria...Linus ...was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there...Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325).

"Lo! In these three successions, as in a mystery and a figure ... Under the three pastors,--there were manifold shepherds" Ephraem, Nisbene Hymns, The Bishops of Nisibis (Jacob, Babu, Valgesh), 13,14 (A.D. 350).

"[W]hile before your election you lived to yourself, after it, you live for your flock. And before you had received the grace of the episcopate, no one knew you; but after you became one, the laity expect you to bring them food, namely instruction from the Scriptures ... For if all were of the same mind as your present advisers, how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit this state of mind, how will the Churches be able to hold together?" Athanasius, To Dracontius, Epistle 49 (A.D. 355).

"believe as we believe, we, who are, by succession from the blessed apostles, bishops; confess as we and they have confessed, the only Son of God, and thus shalt thou obtain forgiveness for thy numerous crimes." Lucifer of Calaris, On St. Athanasius (A.D. 361).

"[W]e shall not recede from the faith ... as once laid it continues even to this say, through the tradition of the fathers, according to the succession from the apostles, even to the discussion had at Nicea against the heresy which had, at that period, sprung up." Hilary of Poitiers, History Fragment 7 (ante A.D. 367).

"[D]uring the days of that Anicetus, bishop of Rome, who succeeded Pius and his predecessors, For, in Rome, Peter and Paul were the first both apostles and bishops; then came Linus, then Cletus ... However the succession of the bishops in Rome was in the following order. Peter and Paul, and Cletus, Clement..." Epiphanius, Panarion, 27:6 (A.D. 377).

"He [St. Athanasius] is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense." Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21:8 (A.D. 380).

"For they [Novatians] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.'" Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, 7:33 (A.D. 384).

"It has been ordained by the apostles and their successors, that nothing be read in the Catholic Church, except the law, and the prophets, and the Gospels." Philastrius of Brescia, On Heresies (ante A.D. 387).

"If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it!' For to Peter succeeded Linus, Clement...Damsus, Sircius, Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is too be found." Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400).

"Let a bishop be ordained by three or two bishops; but if any one be ordained by one bishop, let him be deprived, both himself and he that ordained him. But if there be a necessity that he have only one to ordain him, because more bishops cannot come together, as in time of persecution, or for such like causes, let him bring the suffrage of permission from more bishops." Apostolic Constitutions, 8:27 (A.D. 400).

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known." Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400).

"'To the fellow-Bishops and Deacons." What is this? Were there several Bishops of one city? Certainly not; but he called the Presbyters so. For then they still interchanged the titles, and the Bishop was called a Deacon. For this cause in writing to Timothy, he said, "Fulfill thy ministry,' when he was a Bishop. For that he was a Bishop appears by his saying to him, 'Lay hands hastily on no man.' (1 Tim. v. 22.) And again, 'Which was given thee with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.' (1 Tim. iv. 14.) Yet Presbyters would not have laid hands on a Bishop. And again, in writing to Titus, he says, 'For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge. If any man is blameless, the husband of one wife' (Tit. i. 5, 6); which he says of the Bishop. And after saying this, he adds immediately, 'For the Bishop must be blameless, as God's steward, not self willed:' (Tit. i. 7.)" John Chrysostom, Homilies on Phillipians, 1:1 (A.D. 404).

"And to Timothy he says: 'Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.'… For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles." Jerome, To Evangelus, Epistle 146:1 (ante A.D. 420).

"We must strive therefore in common to keep the faith which has come down to us to-day, through the Apostolic Succession." Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-432], To the Council of Ephesus, Epistle 18 (A.D. 431).

"Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received." Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith 6:15 (A.D. 434).

"Moreover, with respect to a certain bishop who, as the aforesaid magnificent men have told us, is prevented by infirmity of the head from administering his office, we have written to our brother and fellow-bishop Etherius, that if he should have intervals of freedom from this infirmity, he should make petition, declaring that he is not competent to fill his own place, and requesting that another be ordained to his Church. For during the life of a bishop, whom not his own fault but sickness, withdraws from the administration of his office, the sacred canons by no means allow another to be ordained in his place. But, if he at no time recovers the exercise of a sound mind, a person should be sought adorned with good life and conversation, who may be able both to take charge of souls, and look with salutary control after the causes and interests of the same church; and he should be such as may succeed to the bishop's place in case of his surviving him. But, if there are any to be promoted to a sacred order, or to any clerical ministry, we have ordained that the matter is to be reserved and announced to our aforesaid most reverend brother Etherius, provided it belong to his diocese, so that, enquiry having then been made, if the persons are subject to no fault which the sacred canons denounce, he himself may ordain them. Pope Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], Epistle 6 (A.D. 602).

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with your comments regarding Ignatius:

Ignatius of Antioch
"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

My point was that there is to be only one Church, one Faith and under one head, Jesus Christ (unfortunately there are presently many splintered Protestant denominations since the Reformation).

However, and perhaps more significantly, Ignatius, writing c.120 to the Christians at Rome, says nothing of any bishop there. In all his other six (genuine) letters he addresses the bishop specifically by name or by title. It would be the height of discourtesy for Ignatius to ignore a bishop, and it goes against his advice to the Philadelphians.

That is your opinion. The Pope then would have been Sixtus I (115-125).

Consequently we can only conclude that at that time Rome had no bishop. This rather dents the concept of unbroken apostolic succession at Rome.

Ahh, no. See above list.

As for

Faith, doctrinal, moral and theological teachings be it from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century onwards was then and is still the same today. No other denomination can claim this, not even the Greek Orthodox Church.

Patently untrue. Take for example, the celebration of Easter.

“Irenaeus was shocked when, about 190, bishop Victor of Rome proceeded to make a demand for uniformity in the observance of Easter which the churches of Asia Minor regarded as autocratic and offensive. � (H. Chadwick, “The Early Church�, p.84)

While Rome, following the lead of Alexandria, celebrated Easter on the Sunday following the Jewish Passover, the Churches in Asia Minor preserved the most ancient of all methods of determining the date of Easter: they kept it at the same time as the Jewish Passover.

“Victor apparently believed that the Roman custom must have been inherited from the instructions of Peter and Paul, and declared that those who observed the feast on any different day could not be regarded as Catholic Christians.� (Chadwick)

Irenaeous remonstrated with Victor pointing out that when Polycarp of Smyrnia had travelled to Rome, c.160, Rome did not keep Easter. However, neither Polycarp nor bishop Anicetus of Rome regarded the divergence as grounds for a breach of communion. Victor was forced to back down.

So, prior to c.160 Rome did not celebrate Easter, making it hard to maintain your claim of continuity between the first century and the present day.

Notice I said "Faith, doctrinal, moral and theological teachings" which refer to the beliefs outlined in the Apostles Creed, God's 10 Commandments, Oral Apostolic Traditions and doctrines that were further defined as seen through the theological writings of the early Fathers of the Church. Your example of the Easter controversy is incorrect. What is perhaps most important to remember is that the Church throughout held that the determination of what day Easter was to be celebrated was primarily a matter of ecclesiastical discipline and not a matter of Faith and Morals. You must also remember, the Church was still in its infancy, but with the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the centuries, such controversy was overcome.

We might speculate how a church supposedly founded by apostles could possibly fail to celibrate Easter, but that perhaps should be the subject of a seperate thread.

With regards to the bolded above, again refer to the writings of the early Church Fathers regarding Apostolic Succession.

As for the Great Schism, the split between east and west, this came about for a number of reasons, including the eastern Patriarchs rejection of Rome’s increasingly strident claims to primacy and Rome’s insistence on the inclusion of the Filioque in the creed.

The eastern church objected to, and rejected Papal claims to the authority to unilaterally impose changes upon the whole of Christendom. It was the Papal legates who excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople on 16th of July, 1054 [they didn’t actually present the Patriarch with the document of excommunication ~ they just left it on the altar of the church of Hagia Sophia before making a swift departure ~ it was a good job the cleaners were off that day]

By so doing the Church of Rome ejected the eastern Patriarchs and effectively split the Church. The Patriarchs responded in kind and excommunicated the Pope, thereby accepting the situation, but the split was instigated by the demands of Rome.

The eastern church rejected the Church of Rome's rightful authority over them regarding all matters of faith, doctrines, teachings and whatnot. As Cyprian of Carthage writes:
"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).

Finally, I am mystified by your comments regarding Jerome.

Just because St. Jerome makes no mention of the OT is red herring argumentation

I never referred to the Old Testament in the context of Jerome. You are simply making things up to justify your disparaging remarks.

I simply pointed out that Jerome failed to make any mention of a Damasine list of canonical books in his preface to the Vulgate. From this it is safe to conclude that no such list existed.

That is not what I understood from what you wrote. I apologise if I misunderstood you.

[jedicri]

The synod of Rome c.382 was not an Ecumenical (universal) council and as such its canons had no authority outside the see of Rome.

The synods of Hippo in 393, Carthage 397 & 419 were not Ecumenical i.e. general councils, but rather the provincial councils of African bishops, under the control of Augustine, so their canons had no jurisdiction outside of his see of Hippo.

Regardless, the fact-of-the-matter is that the canon was formally identified and that from the end of the fourth century on, in practice, Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter. No other books were admitted or used.

The fact that Innocent I’s list was not the complete list of 27 New Testament books somewhat confounds your statement that “In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today.�

Does this undermine the fact that from the 4th century onwards, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)?

There never was a pronouncement by a central authority, such as the Pope, until 1443 A.D at the Council of Florence and it was not made an absolute article of faith until the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

Indeed, and it still was these self-same canon of books identified at the synods of Hippo in 393, Carthage 397 and 419, all the more demonstrating the Holy Spirit working and guiding the Catholic Church throughout the centuries thereby preventing Her from admitting into the canon of Scripture spurious works.

The Bible did come from Catholicism.

[Student]

Your claims have no historical basis.

History says otherwise as I will show herein...

jedicri,
Please don't insult my intelligence by posting yet another extensive cut & paste, this time from a Roman Catholic propagandist website, and claiming it is factually correct.

Newadvent is an internet organ of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore does not qualify as disinterested or objective source of historically accurate material when it relates to matters concerning the purported supremacy of the Roman see.

Unless you can provide evidence, from recognised, objective historians, I consider the matter closed. I have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Roman Catholic Church did not determine the canon and that it is not uniquely placed to interpret the New Testament.