Let me try the first sentence of my first post today again:
“And if such were the case, and the Church of the fourth century is that of Rome today, then they certainly were amiss in failing to put even one example of believers praying to the departed, or instructions thereto, or for the church to submit to Peter as it’s supreme head, etc.”
The text to speech software failed to read my mind, and i missed proofing this sentence.
“And if such were the case, and the Church of the fourth century is that of Rome today...
I never said the Roman Catholic Church is necessarily that of the fourth century. The Latin Church was always prone to innovations, which is a sure way to lose track of your roots. But they are trying to get back on track, having realized they strayed too much.
then they certainly were amiss in failing to put even one example of believers praying to the departed, or instructions thereto...
In the fourth century the Latin Church was using the Antiochan and Alexandrian divine liturgies and as such most certainly offered prayers for (not to) the dead, and the Greek Church was using the divine liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom while likewise have paniklhida, or parastas services for the departed.
or for the church to submit to Peter as it’s supreme head, etc.”
And by the end of the fourth century the primal privilege and honor (but no universal jurisdiction) was granted to Peter's successor in Rome, as the first among equals (primus inter pares) of the bishops, without the authority to lord over other patriarchs.
This pribvilege was granted to the successor of Peter explicitly on the basis of Old Rome being the seat of the Senate and the dignity it carried and not, as the Latins claim, on any biblical authority.
The text to speech software failed to read my mind, and i missed proofing this sentence.
Maybe you should try to let your fingers do the talking and type what your mind says. :)