Hello my friends,
The thought had never occurred to me beforehand, but while I was reading through H.W. Crocker III’s book, Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, when he was explaining the foundation of the Church, he noted that a characteristic of the Church was that it was Roman, that the Church was founded, grew within the confines of the Roman Empire et cetera. While Mr. Crocker is no theologian, the thought of the Church having the mark of being Roman was an interesting point. Would it necessarily be incorrect to assume that the Church has a Roman character, excluding the fact that See of Peter was in Rome? Forgive me if my inquiry sounds a little discombobulated but hopefully you ascertain the gist of what I’m trying to say.
Thank you very much for reading.
God bless you.