`  :More Saints and Sinners page 5: ``A general belief in the precedence of Rome emerged in the Christian writings of the second century, and was accepted apparently without challenge.``  From page 6 ``The early written sources support this tradition.  A letter written around AD 96 on behalf of the Roman church to the Christians at Corinth speaks of Peter and Paul as 'our Apostles', suffering witnesses of the truth who, 'having born testimony before the rulers', went to glory.  Writing to the Roman Christians about the year 107, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, declared that 'I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did', a clear indication that he believed that the Apostles had been leaders of the Roman church.``     And this is the most significant statement that sums up the author of Saints and Sinners musings on all of this evidence on page 9 ``There is no sure way to settle on a date by which the office of ruling bishop had emerged in Rome, and so to name the first Pope, but the process was certainly complete by the time of Anicetus in the mid 150's, when Polycarp, the aged Bishop of Smyrna, visted Rome, and he and Anicetus debated amicably the question of the date of Easter.``    So my question is this: If the National Geographic puts the founding of the Church at the consecration of Peter as first bishop of Rome ``their words`` and this author of Saints and Sinners says ``There is no sure way to settle on a date... but it was certainly complete by the mid 150's``  then no person in the world is going to come up with a deliberate date without some sort of POV introduced here.  The only non-POV way to address the foundation and date of Roman Catholic Church is to do exactly what we have done ``Traditionally Jesus`` and ``Traditionally the year 30``.  May we please move on to addressing the history section?    `