Papal Infallibility.

[DarkLord]

"This severe procedure did not please all the bishops. Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them."

Point to note:
Since the first century then, the Bishop of Rome did have the power of excomunication. The letters sent was not happy wif SEVERITY of the punihsment rather than the PUNISHMENT (excomunication) itself.

U seem to ignore St Cyprian of Carthage.

"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

"Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this." Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344).

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

Augustine is no heretic.

"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422).

Papal Supremacy

The evidence of the papacy existing since the church was founded is concrete.

 

[S Walch]

U seem to ignore St Cyprian of Carthage.

Cyprain is the main guy who pushed the doctrine of the Priority of the Bishop. But No, I'm not ignoring Cyprain, and I fail to see how you seemed to have got that from my short post before.

"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

Here is a little tidbit from a Roman Catholic about the translation of that:

"The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam." Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original "potiorem principalitatem" may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: "For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles." (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Her it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing her orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.

Whilst I do not contend that there was certainly Head Bishops at every important Church in the First three centuries, what is not unanimous is that authority of the Bishop of Rome over all the rest.

And, according to the Book "Chrsitian priesthood Examined" written by Richard Hanson, Tertullian is actually the first writer to speak of the main Christian Priesthood.

The Priesthood grew during the Centuries, and it is most certainly historically inaccurate to say that the idea of the Bishop or Priest that arose during the centuries was how it was in the very beginning of the Church. Whilst Paul certainly established people to run the churches, even in 2 Corinthians He appeals to the Church at Corinth as a whole, and not just to the Bishop with regards to him being the head honcho over the whole thing. In fact, Paul, who planted the church, as quoted from the same book as above, using quotes from Hans Con Campenhausens book, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual power in the Church of the First Three Centuries:

"In spite of his great personal authority as founder and father of his churches, Paul never builds on this relationship "any spiritual command and hierarchy", never makes himself into an official, wilding authority. On the contrarry, -' not that we lord it over your faith (2 Cor 1:24), 'For you were called to freedom, brethren' (Cal 5:13). Paul insists upon the freedom of his converts in Christ being understood and exercised. He carefully refuses to turn his authority into something official and carefully alllows responsibility to his converts. This is because the apostle is constituted by and lives for Christ and only exists so that Christ shall be testified to and reached through him. His personal authority as a man or official is nothing. Consequently the early church is quite free from refulated hierarchical or ecclesiastical stratification. The Spirit of Christ does not lead the self-esteem of independence but to service in love."


Basically, the hierachy of Bishops then Presbyters then Deacons wasn't actualy as clear cut from the beginning as most people seem to want to put into the text.

It was something that emerged after the death of the Apostles, not during.

 

[DarkLord]

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi") who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles

Matt 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Isaiah 22:22:"And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons ("diakonoi"). Thus, Jesus Christ's Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

"Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90).

"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110).

It is obvious the church christ set up was hiearchical and apostolic in nature.

 

[S Walch]

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi") who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles

Matt 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Isaiah 22:22:"And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

Revelation 3:7

"Write this letter to the Angel of the Church in Philadelphia. this is the message from the one who is holy and true. He is the one who has the key of David. He opens doors, and no one can shut them; He shuts doors, and no one can open them

Sorry, but Isaiah 22:22 is quoted by Jesus in reference to Himself in Revelation - not to do with Peter at all.

Let's not also forget Matthew 18:18

"I tell you this: Whatever you prohibit on earth is prohibited in heaven, and whatever you allow on earth is allowed in heaven" - This is in reference to all the Apostles, not just Peter.

Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

Seeing as though episkopos can actually just mean "overseer" and that diakonos just means "helpers," He doesn't actually put them in a hierachical order. Plus, Paul first of all says in Phillipians 1:1 "to all the Holy ones in Christ Jesus" so, the entire letter was actually written to the whole church, and not just the overseers and deacons (note the use of the word Bishops, in the plural, not singular).

Let's not also forget that in the book of Titus, both the word episkopos and the word presbuteros interchangibly in refering to the exact same person.

1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons ("diakonoi"). Thus, Jesus Christ's Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

You are reading far too much into the NT of what you think it's talking about. Whilst yes, there were Bishops (who are also refered to as elders) and deacons, it was never a Hierachy. In fact, 1 Timothy 3:12, Paul gives the exact same thing that a bishop must do in as mention in Titus, the deacon must also do the same.

As Richard Hanson concludes after a good few pages on going through the quotes in the NT regarding a Christian priesthood "But of official Christian priests we must honestly admit, there is in the New Testament not the faintest whisper."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi") who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles[/quoote]

1 Timothy 3:1 say NOTHING WHATSOEVER about bishops being direct successors to the apostles.

Titus 1:7 says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about bishops being direct sucessors to the apostles.

And what in the world does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

Matt 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

We ALL KNOW the interesting spin that the RC denomination puts on this verse. Most Christians aren't convinced.

In any case, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of this thread. Peter is not called "Pope" and he is not said to be "Infallible." And even if the RC's unique spin on this is true, then the keys died with Peter since there's NOTHING WHATSOEVER in this verse that says Peter could give the keys away to anyone he chose or that some person 2000 years later would also have "them." If the RC spin is true, Peter took the keys with him to heaven when he died around 63 AD.


Back to the topic?

Isaiah 22:22:"And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

This was said nearly 800 years before Peter was even born. It didn't mention Peter, Bishops, Rome, Catholic, Infallible.

Back to the topic?

Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

This says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about their ability to trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles. Nothing.

And what in the world does that have to do with Peter or the Pope or the keys or the Roman Catholic Denomination?

Back to the topic?

1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons ("diakonoi"). Thus, Jesus Christ's Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

1 Timothy 3:8 STATES, "Deacons likewise are teo be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain."

This says NOTHING about hierarchys, nothing about bishops or priests, and NOTHING WHATSOEVER about tracing their lineage back to Peter and the apostles. NOTHING. And there's NOTHING here about Peter, the Pope, Rome, Infallibility, or the Roman Catholic Denomination. Nothing.

Back to the topic?

"Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90).

Nothing about any tracing back to Peter in this NONCANONICAL book. Nothing about the Pope. Nothing about infallible. Nothing about some clergyman 2000 years later. Nope.

Back to the topic?

"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110).

An interesting snippet form a NONCANONICAL book.

I agree that wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. Remember that "catholic" means whole, complete, universal, all-embracing; it would not be for centuries before the term would apply to a specific denomination - the Catholic Church.

But again, there is NOTHING about the Pope, Infallibility, tracing back to Peter, the Catholic denomination. Nope.

Back to the topic?







Pax!


- Josiah

 

[DarkLord]

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

"rock' in aramic is kepha which is similar to Peter. The Church is hence built on Peter (a view that is held by the Early Christians - refer to the Church Fathers)

Christ promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against that Church. This means that teh church will be protected from heresy wif the gift of infalliblity. Because the powers of hell refer to the supernatural, this must mean that the Church, although lead by sinful people, is divinely protected. Because she is so protected, the Church cannot lead the faithful into supernatural error. That is, she is unable to teach error on matters of faith and morals. The fact that the CC has consistently taught all its doctrines fer 2000yrs proves it.

In Isaiash, we see God placing the keys unto the Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom. Similarly, the new kingdom of Christ also has a prime minister (Peter and his successors) who is given the keys of the kingdom. The keys not only represent the authority the prime minister has to rule over God's people in the king's absence, but also the means of effecting dynastic succession to the prime minister's office (for example, in Isaiah 22:20-22, Eliakim replaces Shebna as prime minister in the Old Davidic kingdom). The CC alone is able to trace the papacy to peter (look at the list in wiki)

Christ granted the power of Binding and Loosing (BL) to Peter ALONE. in that time. In Mat 18:18, he grants it to the Apostles as a group. The powers of BL proves Peter and his successors are infallible in thier teachings for they cannot bind error in heaven. This shwos the divine protection of the office.

Mat 18:18 proves that the bishops in communion with the Chair of Peter is infallible. Authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

IN Mat 18:18, it mentions that in doubt we should 'hear the Church'. The Church must hence be a VISIBLE one or else it will be impossible to do so.

The uncanonical books merely shows wad christians thought at that era. In 90AD, the book of Didache was written by somone who lived in Apostolic Times and hence heard the teachings of the Apostle. St Ignatius who quoted, the Catholic Church in 107AD...was a BISHOP of Antioch...he was martyed by the Romans. A church without hierachy was not even taught by the original reformers and not by any christian fer 1500yrs. A 'anarchy' church is a new mad amde concept.

Papal infallibilty makes more sense than the Protestant belief of private intepretation whereby everyone intepretation is correct and hence infallible. One man directly linked to Peter vs 600million Popes ( with contradictory 36 000 sects).

Good tree (Papal infalliblty) produces good fruits (unity and oneness in doctrine) and bad trees (sola scriptura) produces bad fruits (division and error).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

We ALL know the spin...
Most aren't at all convinced.

Frankly, all the Catholic version seems to mean is that the church died when Peter did since if the 'keys' belonged (in some literal, physical sense) to Peter - to PETER - then there's the issue of where does he have permission to give away what was given SPECIFICALLY AND ONLY to Peter? Catholics will dig up a verse written 800 years earlier that has nothing to do with this, but IMHO, they've "painted themselves into a corner" so to speek. In any case, by Catholic brother, we all know the interpretation the RC denomination gives to this singular verse and how they've really ran with that. Some see it as profoundly weak and self-serving.

Christ promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against that Church. This means that teh church will be protected from heresy wif the gift of infalliblity.

See my post above.

This verse says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the Pope, the Roman Catholic denomination, the Bishop of Rome or any successor 2000 years later, the Magisterium, or infallability. Nothing whatsoever. And it says nothing about heresy or true or doctrine or dogma or norming. Nothing whatsoever.

"Gates" are defensive. Satan cannot stand to Christians.

Christ granted the power of Binding and Loosing (BL) to Peter ALONE. in that time. In Mat 18:18, he grants it to the Apostles as a group.

IF you are correct, then no one today has the right to baptize or teach or pronounce forgiveness. Peter and the other 12 Apostles are all died. Have been for a very long time. Let's hope you are wrong.

Mat 18:18 proves that the bishops in communion with the Chair of Peter is infallible.

1. Again, I think you need to actually read the verse. Read the words. Read what GOD said there, not the invisible words the RC denomination somehow "sees" there. Our discussion of what God says in His Holy Scriptures would be greatly advanced if we read the words there.


2. And note that Jesus spoke these words to the DISCIPLES (18:1), not to the Roman Catholic denomination.


3. This verse doesn't even mention the bishops, Peter, the Pope, the Roman Catholic denomination, infallibility, apostolic succession, Pope Benedict or any "chair." Nope. It's just not there.

IN Mat 18:18, it mentions that in doubt we should 'hear the Church'. The Church must hence be a VISIBLE one or else it will be impossible to do so.

Nope.

And your point about 'HEARING' the church negates the RC position regarding the church. No institution can speak - it has no mouth. Obviously, we can only hear people. You've embraced the Protestant position that Christians are people, not institutions.

Papal infallibilty makes more sense than the Protestant belief of private intepretation whereby everyone intepretation is correct and hence infallible.

My friend, you've confused the Catholic position with the Protestant one. You have them reversed.

It is the RC denomination that insists on private, individual interpretation. IMHO, it has the boldest and most extreme form of private and individual intepretation in all of Christianity. It insists that it ALONE is the "sole teaching authority.' It insists that it ALONE is the "sole interpreter of Scripture." It insists that it ALONE is the "sole arbiter of faith and practice.' And on top of all that, it predeclares itself to be infallible in all of that. It's the most extreme form of private, individual interpretation known to me (although the LDS comes pretty close).



Back to the topic?



Thanks for the discussion.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Trento]

Whilst I do not contend that there was certainly Head Bishops at every important Church in the First three centuries, what is not unanimous is that authority of the Bishop of Rome over all the rest.

And, according to the Book "Chrsitian priesthood Examined" written by Richard Hanson, Tertullian is actually the first writer to speak of the main Christian Priesthood.

The Priesthood grew during the Centuries, and it is most certainly historically inaccurate to say that the idea of the Bishop or Priest that arose during the centuries was how it was in the very beginning of the Church. Whilst Paul certainly established people to run the churches, even in 2 Corinthians He appeals to the Church at Corinth as a whole, and not just to the Bishop with regards to him being the head honcho over the whole thing. In fact, Paul, who planted the church, as quoted from the same book as above, using quotes from Hans Con Campenhausens book, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual power in the Church of the First Three Centuries:




Basically, the hierachy of Bishops then Presbyters then Deacons wasn't actualy as clear cut from the beginning as most people seem to want to put into the text.

It was something that emerged after the death of the Apostles, not during.

Right as St. Ignatius who was Instructed by the Apostle John tells us.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbyter (In Greek Priests) as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyraens,8 (c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89-90.

Clement of Rome who was instructed by both Peter and Paul tells us the Apostles told him to appoint men to succeed in the office of the episcopate.

"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."

Clement of Rome,Pope,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,44:1-2 (c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:17.


"Hegesippus and the Events which he mentiones. 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 churchIll 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,fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History,4:22(c.A.D. 180),in NPNF2,I:198-199.

It's too bad that some here refuse to recognise Christian history. What a shock it will be when they find out while sitting in the Judgement seat. Fortuately ignorance will bring a lighter punishment according to scripture.

 

[S Walch]

presbyter (In Greek Priests)

Presbyter means Elder in Greek, not Priests.

Hiereus is the Greek for "Priest" as proven by the Greek of Hebrew 5:6.

Use a Greek dictionary, they're quite helpful.

 

[Trento]

Whilst I do not contend that there was certainly Head Bishops at every important Church in the First three centuries, what is not unanimous is that authority of the Bishop of Rome over all the rest.



.

Protestant Patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines sums up how unanimous the Church was in the patristic period,where the documentary evidence becomes overwhelming for the primacy and authority of the Papacy --


"Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding...that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as 'the archbishop of the whole world' .....It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)

Protestant Historical scholar Harnack recognizes the original teacher here.

Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954
Taking into account the phenomenon of development, the notion of primacy needs to be established first. The Church of Rome enjoyed a Primacy over the other Churches from the earliest period for which we have records with indications that this priority was not an innovation. Dr. Harnack claimed that "The Roman Church from the end of the first century possessed a de facto primacy in Christendom" (Mission und Ausbreitung pg. 398).


Protestant Patristic scholar J.B. Lightfoot Church historian--

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'
St. Clement of Rome,90AD pg 698.

Protestant scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy:
[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church. If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome? To S. Irenaeus Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error. The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility. The Church and Infallibility by B.C. Butler pgs. 136-137 (c. 1954

Protestant Patristic scholar Philip Schaff -- HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH
CHAPTER IV:

​

In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the post apostolic period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the old Catholic episcopal system.

​

 

[Trento]

Presbyter means Elder in Greek, not Priests.

Hiereus is the Greek for "Priest" as proven by the Greek of Hebrew 5:6.

Use a Greek dictionary, they're quite helpful.

First understand that the English word "priest" is
actually a contraction of "presbyter," transliterated directly
from the Greek. In the Orthodox Church priests are still
considered to be presbyters. In the King James Bible and later
English versions, the Greek presbyteros is translated "elder,"
while the term "priest" is used only for the purely sacerdotal
term hierus (Latin: sacerdos). You never see hierus used in the
New Testament to refer to Christian leaders -- though it and its
derivative for "priesthood" are used of the Christian community
as a whole (1 Peter 2:5-9; Rev. 5:10). So, in Orthodox terms,
think of "priest" primarily as "presbyter."


American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source pres·by·ter (prěz'bĭ-tər, prěs'-)
n.

1. A priest in various hierarchical churches.
2. 1. A teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church.
   2. A ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church.
3. An elder of the congregation in the early Christian church