You may well be right, but obviously others, such as Irenaeus would've been keen to demonstrate that the Church in Rome is in a line of succession from St. Peter, so it's not something absent of the Fathers, even early on. However, this applied as much to Rome as anywhere else...Rome however as a conservative bastion of impeccable orthodoxy and being of venerable age and origin, in the Second century, it was an obvious choice of example of a church that all churches claiming the title 'Orthodox' should necessarily be in agreement with: Of course whether this is still valid depends on how 'orthodox' one believes Rome to be. As for some of your points Cranmer, I'm still not wholly persuaded that even with wriggle room for disagreement, the lack of eye-to-eye we have in the Communion (let alone those on the outside fringe of it) is really in accord with Cyprian's vision: we can't agree on what I thought would be rather big things like the place and role of scripture, what happens at Eucharist, soteriology and atonement, Mary, a good number of moral issues, styles of worship, Women'sordination, any number of things some of greater, some of lesser importance- and we don't have the excuse of limited communication links either...Whilst there is disagreement in Roman Church the discord and difference does not stretch as far as it does in ours does it? They may challenge the line, but at least they know where it has been drawn in their church... The rest frankly, I don't think is worth rising to, I shall just hope and trust that the good lord doesn't look on Catholics, be they Anglican or Roman in the same way as you do. As long as you find the notion of some sinister fifth column infiltrating your Church as amusing as I find having this shifty, treacherous Guy Fawkesian image applied to me and my ilk. You may have noticed it was the anniversary of Latimer and Ridley's death yesterday, naturally, I celebrated the occasion by setting fire to some protestants I caught walking home late at night and sacrificing them as burnt offerings to the pope in a secret Catholic/wiccan/satanic (really they are indistinguishable these days) ritual. Because that's just what Anglo-Catholics do.
Regarding the Divorce, there was no divorce, it wasn't asked for, to do so might have stirred the lower orders too much! Henry asked for an ,.'Annulment," the pope and the papal court dealt a trade in 'em! Henry II had purchased one from the Papacy as did the French king a few years before Henry's request was refused. A Divorce enabled you to ignore your marriage vows, and your marriage, whilst an Annulment said that there had been no marriage. It was the latter that Henry sought. I bet he'd have got it, but for the pope being a prisoner of the Emperor! What stirred Henry's ire, was the fact that all the Cardinals and officials had been paid as well as the pope and not only did they not,'divi up,' as it were, but they kept the money. It was the Anglican Church that got the best of the matter, because the pope's lust for money directed Henry's wrath in to supporting the Conciliarist idea of making the pope subject to the Council. (Thomas More favoured this point!) It was the bishop of Rome who broke with Henry and in 1570, with the Anglican Church! As far as I can tell, the papal claims gain no support from, scripture, or tradition, the earliest claim is usually said to be by Leo 1st about 350 AD. It got nowhere of course and the Britons, or Celts, rubbished Gregory's claims in 607.
Irenæus of Lyons cited Rome only to give an example on how the correct faith had been preserved by means of apostolic succession. He did not deny that other churches had kept the correct faith. Further in his work, he cited the example of Polycarp of Smyrna. He did not say that all the churches should agree with Rome forever, but it was true at the time he was writing his treaty. Later on, Irenæus conflicted with bishop Victor of Rome over the issue of the date of Easter (emphasis mine): Bishop Victor I of Rome excommunicated as heterodox the bishops who did not celebrate Easter on a Sunday. Irenæus rebuked him for that and declared that, although he gave preference to celebrating Easter on a Sunday, bishops in Asia who did not adhere to this tradition ought not to be excommunicated since their tradition came from apostle John and that even the predecessors of Victor did not see this difference as a matter of excommunication. There was a conflict about which traditions were orthodox and which traditions were heterodox and ought to be anathematized, and Irenæus did not support Victor's view. The conflict between Victor and Irenæus occurred after that the latter wrote Against Heresies. We know that the succession of bishops of Rome did not free the See of Rome from heresy, if we have in mind the case of pope Honorius.
Hermas, I shall assume that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and that your repetition of my point a sign of its validity, for I trust your opinion on these matters greatly. For as I said, and indeed, as you've quoted me saying, '...this applied as much to Rome as anywhere else...Rome however as a conservative bastion of impeccable orthodoxy and being of venerable age and origin, in the Second century, it was an obvious choice of example of a church...' I am sorry if I was not clear, but I am pleased we have come to an alike conclusion on the topic. The open question is whether Rome today has preserved the apostolic faith properly, though I don't think there's anyone here who wishes to take that position...
In fact your point was clear, I did not mean to contradict you. Sorry if you thought I did. The reason of my last post was that most Roman Catholic apologists use the quote of Irenæus of Lyons to show that he meant that every church should agree with the bishop of Rome at any time and forever. Irenæus of Lyons did not mean it since he himself conflicted with a Roman bishop afterwards. I wanted the point to be clear for all the readers (but the point was clear to you).
I'm back after more than a year's absence to tell you I've discovered more stuff on Irenaeus' quote. It has to do with the verb convenire ad being mistranslated. http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/christia/library/irenaeus.html Sorry if it is off topic, we are far from Cyprian's ecclesiology.