Peter the First Pope?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

For evidence of Linus see Eusebius and Poem Against Marcion below.

Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).

The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).

Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).

Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).


Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).

Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).

Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).

The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).


Athanasius (340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).


Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).

Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).


Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).


Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).

Thank you.

Of course, Mormons can list LOTS of Mormons that agree with Mormonism too so such quotes just don't sway me to a great extent, but history certainly is relevant to this discussion.

Since you are the expert on early Christianity and I'm not, perhaps you could provide me with the first solid reference to Peter as a POPE - not that he was in Rome, not that he was a bishop there, not that he was a part of the college of bishops, not that he was a part of the Magisterium, not that he was "first among EQUALS," but that he was the POPE - infallible and supreme. Because otherwise, it seems moot to the discussion. Him being in Rome hardly supports the RCC claims about him and itself.

Since we have nothing in God's Holy Word about this, all we have is contemporary objective history. The closer to 65AD and the more objective (and less biased and self-authenticatin) the stronger. And since this is all we have, it would need to be very strong - especially since this is such a divisive point among Christians.


Catholics reject the claims of the LDS because they see the "historical confirmation" as weak and self-authenticating, and the "confirmation" comes from 10 years after the fact and primarily from Mormons who clearly had a self interest and bias in this regard. So, let's see the Catholic history here.



Thank you! I eagerly await the information.



Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[DarkLord]

"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."

"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." Isaiah 22:22


In these verses, we see the following. First, Jesus builds His Church (“ecclesia”) upon the person of Peter. Jesus changes Simon's name to "Kepha," and says that on this "Kepha" He will build the Church. Kepha, in Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke), means a massive rock formation, and Jesus' use of Kepha to rename Peter signifies Peter's foundational leadership in the Church. (See also Mark 3:16 and John 1:42 where Jesus renames Simon "Cephas" which is a transliteration of the Aramaic "Kepha."). Only the Catholic Church recognizes and proves through an unbroken lineage of successors that her foundation is Peter.

Secondly, Jesus says the powers of death will never prevail against the Church. So even though Jesus appoints sinful human beings such as Peter to lead the Church, Jesus promises that hell will not prevail against her. 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. This inability to teach error on faith and morals is called "infallibility" (it has nothing to do with the sinfulness of the Church's leaders, which deals with "impeccability"). If the Church were not infallible, the powers of death would indeed prevail over her sinful members. The consistent, 2,000 years of the Church’s teaching on faith and morals proves that Jesus has kept His promise.

Third, Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The "keys" means that Jesus appointed Peter as the guardian of the gates of heaven, the "keys" actually refer to Peter's authority over the earthly Church (which Jesus often described as the "kingdom of heaven." Matthew 13:24-52; 25:1-2; Mark 4:26-32; Luke 9:27; 13:19-20, etc.) In the Old Davidic kingdom, the king had a prime minister on whose shoulder God placed the keys of the kingdom (Isaiah 22:22). 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). Only the Catholic Church claims and proves a succession of prime ministers (popes) all the way back to Peter, and this succession is facilitated by the passing of the keys of the kingdom.
Finally, Jesus declares to Peter that whatever he binds and looses on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. As in the Old Davidic kingdom, whenever Peter the prime minister opens, no one shall shut, and whenever he shuts, no one shall open. Jesus, therefore, gives Peter the authority to make decisions that will be ratified in eternity. In order for sinful Peter (and his successors through the passing on of the "keys") to make such decisions, he must be divinely protected. Once again, this evidences Jesus' gift of infallibility to the Church. Only the Catholic Church claims and has proven that her 2,000 year-old teachings on faith and morals, which have never changed, are infallibly proclaimed.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Jesus built His Church on Petra - the Boulder - the confession/fact that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.
He did not build His Church on the person of Peter - Petros - the Pebble. If that were the case, we would have been instructed to worship Peter.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Jesus built His Church on Petra - the Boulder - the confession/fact that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.
He did not build His Church on the person of Peter - Petros - the Pebble. If that were the case, we would have been instructed to worship Peter.

... and the church would have died in 67 AD when Peter did.

 

[DarkLord]

Jesus built His Church on Petra - the Boulder - the confession/fact that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.
He did not build His Church on the person of Peter - Petros - the Pebble. If that were the case, we would have been instructed to worship Peter.

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people's names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee&#8221 generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros&#8221. Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Matt. 16:17 - to further rebut the notion that Jesus was calling Peter a small pebble, Simon in Aramaic means "grain of sand." If Simon's name meant "grain of sand," it would be pointless for Jesus to change his name from "grain of sand" to "pebble."

Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people's names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Matt. 16:17 - to further rebut the notion that Jesus was calling Peter a small pebble, Simon in Aramaic means "grain of sand." If Simon's name meant "grain of sand," it would be pointless for Jesus to change his name from "grain of sand" to "pebble."

Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.

I'm fully aware that you're regurgitating Catholic dogma. But I'm saying that I disagree.

And it isn't just me that disagrees. Overwhelming evidence - other then the self-serving assertions of the Roman Catholic Church - points to Peter not even being significant in the early life of the church at Rome. He didn't start it, was by no means the first apostle there, and was at best a "johnny-come-lately".

Jesus would not build His Church on a person - regardless of how badly you want that to be true. There is no salvation in Peter, it is in Jesus.

 

[GospelStandard]

I can see the bible saying the Church is the pillar of truth.

As can I but what you think that means is well where we differ.

 

[hsilgne]

... but that he was the POPE - infallible and supreme. Because otherwise, it seems moot to the discussion. Him being in Rome hardly supports the RCC claims about him and itself.

Since we have nothing in God's Holy Word about this,

Thank you! I eagerly await the information.

Pax!

- Josiah

Hello my brother...

Here you go.

Matthew 16(NAB)
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hello my brother...

Here you go.

Of course, we ALL know the odd and surpemely difficult interpretation of the RC denomination of this verse. But we also ALL know the verse doesn't mention the Bishop of Rome (or any successor 2000 years later) or the Roman Catholic Denomination or the Magisterium thereof.



Here is my post to which you "responded" -

Thank you.

Of course, Mormons can list LOTS of Mormons that agree with Mormonism too so such quotes just don't sway me to a great extent, but history certainly is relevant to this discussion.

Since you are the expert on early Christianity and I'm not, perhaps you could provide me with the first solid reference to Peter as a POPE - not that he was in Rome, not that he was a bishop there, not that he was a part of the college of bishops, not that he was a part of the Magisterium, not that he was "first among EQUALS," but that he was the POPE - infallible and supreme. Because otherwise, it seems moot to the discussion. Him being in Rome hardly supports the RCC claims about him and itself.

Since we have nothing in God's Holy Word about this, all we have is contemporary objective history. The closer to 65AD and the more objective (and less biased and self-authenticatin) the stronger. And since this is all we have, it would need to be very strong - especially since this is such a divisive point among Christians.


Catholics reject the claims of the LDS because they see the "historical confirmation" as weak and self-authenticating, and the "confirmation" comes from 10 years after the fact and primarily from Mormons who clearly had a self interest and bias in this regard. So, let's see the Catholic history here.



Thank you! I eagerly await the information.



Pax!


- Josiah

Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[racer]

Jesus built His Church on Petra - the Boulder - the confession/fact that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.
He did not build His Church on the person of Peter - Petros - the Pebble.

This is basically confirmed by none other than Peter, himself:

1Pe 2:5; Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6; Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
​

Jesus was telling Peter that he was a "lively stone," one of the many which comprise the "spiritual house."

 

[Trento]

Of course, we ALL know the odd and surpemely difficult interpretation of the RC denomination of this verse. But we also ALL know the verse doesn't mention the Bishop of Rome (or any successor 2000 years later) or the Roman Catholic Denomination or the Magisterium thereof.



Here is my post to which you "responded" -


[/size]



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

Nowhere in Scripture is authority given for anyone to start another church other than the ONE which Jesus Christ founded. However, there are many verses which warn against forsaking GOD given authority regarding His Congregation (O.T.) or Church (N.T.) which He bestowed upon prophets such as Moses (Exodus 3-40), and on the Apostles (John 20:21-23), and to their successors (Hebrews 13:7-8,17).
Read of the rebellion of Korah (Core in some Bibles) against the GOD given authority of Moses in Numbers 16. See how Moses pleaded with him and his followers to end their revolt which was from within Moses' own tribe of Levites. The rebellious were adamant in their "No" to him in verse 14.
Pay special attention to what happened to Korah, and to his followers in Numbers 16:25-35.
It isn't pretty.

Yet again does history repeat itself:
Read the parallel story of Martin Luther, at the beginning of the reformation where he displayed the same obstinacy toward the GOD given Papal authority, as Korah had done to the GOD given authority of Moses some 3000 years earlier.

1521, Martin Luther started the Lutherans when he broke away from the one true Church that had already existed for 15 centuries. Prior to this time, the false doctrine of "Sola Scriptura, had not existed, and neither had the false man made doctrine of "Individual Interpretation" of Holy Scripture.
1521, Thomas Munzer started Anabaptists by breaking from Lutheranism in the same year.
1534, King Henry VIII started the Church of England. (Anglican)
1536, John Calvin, teaching predestination, formed the Calvinists.
1560, John Knox, who studied under Luther, started Presbyterians.
1582, Congregationalists started by Rob Brown, as a branch from Puritanism.
1609, John Smyth formed the Baptists. They have severely splintered since then.
1739, John Wesley started the Methodists, in a split from Anglicanism.
1774, Theophilus Lindley started Unitarians.
1789, Samuel Seabury started Episcopalians.
1793-1809, Churches of Christ had four separate founders.
1830, Joseph Smith founded the Mormons in Palmyra New York.
1860, William Miller, a farmer, started the Adventists.
1863, Ellen Gould White started the Seventh-Day Adventists.
1865, William Booth started the Salvation Army.
1875, New Age was started by Helena Blavatsky. *COL 2:8
1879, Mary Baker Eddy started Christian Scientists.
1879, Charles Russell started the Jehovah's Witnesses.
1895, French Abbe, Alfred Loisy and English Jesuit, George Tyrrell started Modernism.
1900-1920, conservative Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists,
formed a consortium, and started Fundamentalism.
1901, Pentecostalism was started in the United States. It has since split into many independents.
1914, Felix Manalo started Iglesia ni Cristo.
1930, Independent Churches of America (IFCA), was formed by a consortium of churches.
1952, L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology.
1965, Chuck Smith began Calvary Chapel.
1968, Disciples of Christ, started as a splinter of Churches of Christ.
1974, Ken Gullickson started the Vineyard Christian Fellowship.
20th century. Assemblies of GOD, and other splinter Pentecostal groups, are some of hundreds of new sects founded by mere men.

Did GOD examine and approve the plans for all, or for even one, of these splits in His Body?

Did any of these people receive authority from GOD to form their own ecclesial communities?
Did any of these people receive authority from Holy Scripture to form their own ecclesial communities?

 

[Trento]

This is basically confirmed by none other than Peter, himself:

1Pe 2:5; Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. ​

1Pe 2:6; Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.​

Jesus was telling Peter that he was a "lively stone," one of the many which comprise the "spiritual house."

According to Protestant biblical scholars Peter is Rock which the Church will be built on.


According to
William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary
The meaning is, "You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church." Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, "And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church." Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.


New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14
Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.


"The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate"
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17
Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock". The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.


The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18
The word Peter petros, meaning "rock" (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken "rock" to be anything or anyone other than Peter.


Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18
John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: "Thou art Rock, and upon this rock", etc.


Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19
John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, "Thou are kipho, and on this kipho". The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, "Thou are kepha, and on this kepha".... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: "Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre"; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, "Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier."



Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20
J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words "this rock" Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, "You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church". As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.


"Matthew"
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30
Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname "Peter" (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus' declaration, "You are Peter", parallels Peter's confession, "You are the Christ", as if to say, "Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are." The expression "this rock" almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following "the Christ" in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word "rock" (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.


The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32
David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the "rock" as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.


"The Gospel of Matthew"
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34
Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. "Simon", the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the "rock" on which God will build the new community.


The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.


Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

[SIZE=+1]All of the preceding quotations are from Protestant biblical scholars. Do you consider youself a scholar?[/SIZE]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Nowhere in Scripture is authority given for anyone to start another church other than the ONE which Jesus Christ founded.

I completely agree!

However, there are many verses which warn against forsaking GOD given authority regarding His Congregation (O.T.) or Church (N.T.) which He bestowed upon prophets such as Moses (Exodus 3-40), and on the Apostles (John 20:21-23),

I completely agree!

Yet again does history repeat itself:

Read the parallel story of Martin Luther, at the beginning of the reformation where he displayed the same obstinacy toward the GOD given Papal authority, as Korah had done to the GOD given authority of Moses some 3000 years earlier.

There is no God-given papal authority.
The Pope is not mentioned even once in the Bible - as authoritative or not authoritative or in any other fashion. Nor is the RC denomination or the Bishop of Rome or Pope Benedict or the Vicar of Christ. Nope. Not once.

Nope, Luther did not rebell against the church or against God's authority. He questioned a few of the doctrines and practices of the RC denomination - just as you question some of the doctrines and practices of the Lutheran denomination. And the Pope's propensity to excommunicate all who disagreed with his claim to power did not divide the church - it only served to split a denomination (sad, nonetheless).

1521, Martin Luther started the Lutherans when he broke away from the one true Church that had already existed for 15 centuries.

Perhaps you are unaware that the Pope excommunicated him.

No, the Pope's excommunication did not break the one holy catholic church - you are giving the Pope FAR too much authority, my good friend. Christ founded the church, not even the Pope (for all his self-claims) can split it.

Prior to this time, the false doctrine of "

Sola Scriptura, had not existed, and neither had the false man made doctrine of "Individual Interpretation" of Holy Scripture.

1. Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it's an epistemological approach to norming.


2. Sola Scriptura is well demonstarted in God's Holy Word (First Century and before). What is NOT mentioned, taught or illustrated in the Bible is the self-claim of the RC denomination that it is the Authority and Arbiter for faith and practice. Most notice that the RC denomination is not mentioned in the Bible at all - not even once. Nor is the Pope or the Vicar of Christ or the Magisterium or Pope Benedict. Ah, Jesus refers to God's Holy Scriptures some 50 times as authoritative and normatively, but the RC denomination not once. The Pope not once. The Bishop of Rome not once. 50 times seems more often than none to many.

What we do not see until centuries LATER is the Roman Catholic teaching that the RC denomination alone is the "sole interpreter" of Scripture and whatever else it considers authoritative, that it alone is the "sole arbiter" for all issues relating to itself and anything else it alone choose to arbitrate, and that is is infallible and therefore unaccountable. Nope. We don't see that in the OT. We don't see that in the NT. We don't see that in the First Century. Yes, the RCC and LDS both claim it for themselves, but these are much later than the Sola Scriptura we see illustrated in the Bible, in the First Century and before.


3. Individual interpretation is the RC position. I disagree with it. I embrace Sola Scriptura. It's the RC denomination that self-claims that it ALONE is the SOLE Teaching Authority, that it ALONE is the SOLE interpreter of Scriptue and anything else it declares to be authoritative, that it ALONE is the SOLE arbiter of all issues related to it's teachings and claims, and that it ALONE is infallible and therefore unaccountable. It's the most radical and extreme form of individual, private interpretation known to me - even more so than in the LDS.

Did GOD examine and approve the plans for all, or for even one, of these splits in His Body?

His body can't be split. Not even by the Pope's propensity to excommunicate or exterminate those regarded as threatening.

Did any of these people receive authority from GOD to form their own ecclesial communities?

Did any of these people receive authority from Holy Scripture to form their own ecclesial communities?

IMHO, it's unlikely. But that's true for the RCC and LDS, too.

But just because a Catholic parish divides and starts a new parish over on the other side of town doesn not mean that we now have to change the Creed to read, "We believe in two holy catholic and apostolic churches." You are confusing institutions with His church. Apples and oranges, my friend.



Thank you for the lively and helpful conversation.
Your input is valued
And thankful for reading my $0.01



Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Trento]

I'm fully aware that you're regurgitating Catholic dogma. But I'm saying that I disagree.

And it isn't just me that disagrees. Overwhelming evidence - other then the self-serving assertions of the Roman Catholic Church - points to Peter not even being significant in the early life of the church at Rome. He didn't start it, was by no means the first apostle there, and was at best a "johnny-come-lately".

Jesus would not build His Church on a person - regardless of how badly you want that to be true. There is no salvation in Peter, it is in Jesus.

Peters prominence and preeminance among the apostles is shown throughout the Gospels, while his leadership and headship in the early church is seen in the Acts of the Apostles, where Peter clearly takes the dominant role as chief shepherd on earth, fulfilling Jesus' statement to him in John 21:15-17, leading, ruling, guiding the infant church. This cannot be denied according to Protestant, Orthodox, even Jewish scholars: "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence" (Albright/Mann, Matthew, page 195); "

...Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church." (JND Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 5); "

...it is, of course, a matter of historic fact that Peter was the acknowledged leader of the group of disciples, and of the developing church in its early years" (R.T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, page 254 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 36);


"The authority of Peter is to be over the Church, and this authority is represented by the keys" (S.T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, page 256 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 53);


"Peter's role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church" (M. Eugene Boring, The New Interpreter's Bible, volume 8, page 346);

You cannot ignore the authority the Apostles had for correct or orthodox teaching (Acts 1:1ff; 4:18; 5:25,28,42; 15:28,35; 18:11; 28:31; etc). The teaching that Christ gave through His apostles to His Catholic Church was infallible (Luke 10:16; Matt 10:19-20,40; 1 Thess 2:13). "He who hears you, hears Me [Christ]; and he who rejects you, rejects Me [Christ]." That is very clear from the Scriptures. St. Peter, the Rock and foundation of the Church according to Jesus (Matt 16:18; cf. Eph 2:19f; Rev 21:14), was given personally the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and the power of binding and loosing (Matt 16:19). Later the binding/loosing power was given to the apostles as a whole (Matt 18:18; cf. John 20:21-23). This was rabbinical terminology that what the apostles taught on earth would be confirmed, ratified, sealed by God in heaven. If God and Christ have all authority in heaven and earth (Matt 28:18) and cannot err (Hebrews 6:13-18), neither can God's Church, being Christ's Body on earth endowed with the Holy Spirit of truth (John 16:13; 14:16f) to continue the mission, authority and teaching of Christ and His apostles (see Matt 28:18ff; Luke 10:16; John 14:16f; 16:13; Acts 15:1ff; Eph 3:10; 4:4f,11; 1 Tim 1:3; 3:1ff; 4:11ff; 5:17,22; 6:2f,20; 2 Tim 1:6,13f; 2:2; 4:2; Titus 1:5ff; 2:1,15; 3:1; etc and St. Clement of Rome; St. Ignatius of Antioch; St. Irenaeus of Lyons, etc).

In three very significant passages, PETER is singled out by Christ: as the one whose faith would not fail and to strengthen his brethren (Lk 22:31-32), as the one who is to shepherd, feed, tend His sheep (Jn 21:15-17), as the one on whom the Church would be built against which the gates of hell would never prevail and to whom was given the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 16:18-19; cf. Isa 22:15ff).


To quote Protestant scholar and archaeologist W.F. Albright again -- "To deny the PRE-EMINENT position of PETER among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a DENIAL of the evidence."

 

[Ruzz]

Trento[/left];29776241]For evidence of Linus see

Eusebius​

and Poem Against

Marcion​

below.

Tertullian​

(c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining his episcopal successor (De

Praescrip​

Haer​

32).

The Poem Against

Marcion​

(c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (

cathedra​

) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).

Caius​

of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (

Euseb​

HE V, 28).

Hippolytus​

(225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).


Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of Peter" (

Ep ad​

Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (

Ep ad​

Pope Cornelius).

Firmilian​

(257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (

Ep ad​

Cyprian).

Eusebius​

(314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (

Chron​

an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (

Chron​

an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).

The Council of

Sardica​

"honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (

Sardica​

Canon IV, and

Ep ad​

Pope Julius).

Athanasius​

(340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist

Arian​

ad Monarch 35).


O

ptatus (370) says that ​

the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church.​

" (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).

Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).


Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).


Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).

Those are all 200 years or more after the fact. It would be like me writing about the election of John Adams 225 years later as if I actually saw it happen. However, we do have first hand accounts of John Adams election.

Do we have first hand accounts of Linus' sucession?
Just saying it happened 200 years later doesn't mean it happened. It just means YOU the author 200 years later believe it happened.

Obviously it was believed and accepted that Linus suceeded Peter. But would you accept that George Bush was elected without knowing there was an election?
What I am seeking is evidence of a sucession (see Acts) and the drawing of lots, who was there, when it took place, what happened to Peter. All that kind of stuff. Commentary 200 years later proves nothing.

PS. That BIG RED font is hard on my eyes.

 

[Trento]

Those are all 200 years or more after the fact. It would be like me writing about the election of John Adams 225 years later as if I actually saw it happen. However, we do have first hand accounts of John Adams election.

Do we have first hand accounts of Linus' sucession?
Just saying it happened 200 years later doesn't mean it happened. It just means YOU the author 200 years later believe it happened.

Obviously it was believed and accepted that Linus suceeded Peter. But would you accept that George Bush was elected without knowing there was an election?
What I am seeking is evidence of a sucession (see Acts) and the drawing of lots, who was there, when it took place, what happened to Peter. All that kind of stuff. Commentary 200 years later proves nothing.

PS. That BIG RED font is hard on my eyes.

We have first hand accounts in the Catacombs of the first Christians. A sarcophagus with Linus name and the year he was Bishop of Rome etched in stone . Last week archeologists found under the altar at St. Paul Outside-the-Walls Basilica in Rome a white-marble sarcophagus which is the tomb of St. Paul.
The basilica stands at the site of two fourth-century churches -- including one ruined by a fire in the 1820s that had left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt. After the fire, say reports, the crypt was filled with earth and covered by a new altar. A slab of cracked marble with the words "PAULO APOSTOLO MART" or "Paul Apostle Martyr" in Latin was also found embedded in the floor above the tomb.

I woud advise you to do what this Protestant Patristic scholar suggests.

Next to the Holy Scriptures, which are themselves a history and depository of divine revelation, there is no stronger proof of the continual presence of Christ with his people, no more thorough vindication of Christianity, no richer source of spiritual wisdom and experience, no deeper incentive to virtue and piety, than the history of Christ's kingdom.Every age has a message from God to man, which is of the greatest importance for man to understand.”
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The early Church fathers steered this young church through turbulent cultural and mythological currents of the world around them. Their writings provided guidance and assurance to early Christians whose faith was not only doctrinally challenged, since copies of Scripture were rare and costly, but who often suffered persecution and even martyrdom. Contemporary believers will find in these records a fascinating glimpse of the first centuries following the death and resurrection of Christ, and will be given rich insight into the growth and history of the Christian Church.
They represent primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament. Written before the Canon was established, the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers offers itself as a means to defend the Christian faith, to record the martyrdom of the early Christian church body, and to stand as monuments to the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.



[/FONT]

 

[Ruzz]

We have first hand accounts in the Catacombs of the first Christians. A sarcophagus with Linus name and the year he was Bishop of Rome etched in stone .

Last week archeologists found under the altar at St. Paul Outside-the-Walls Basilica in Rome a white-marble sarcophagus which is the tomb of St. Paul.
The basilica stands at the site of two fourth-century churches -- including one ruined by a fire in the 1820s that had left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt. After the fire, say reports, the crypt was filled with earth and covered by a new altar. A slab of cracked marble with the words "PAULO APOSTOLO MART" or "Paul Apostle Martyr" in Latin was also found embedded in the floor above the tomb.

I woud advise you to do what this Protestant Patristic scholar suggests.

Next to the Holy Scriptures, which are themselves a history and depository of divine revelation, there is no stronger proof of the continual presence of Christ with his people, no more thorough vindication of Christianity, no richer source of spiritual wisdom and experience, no deeper incentive to virtue and piety, than the history of Christ's kingdom.EveryEveryEvery age has a message from God to man, which is of the greatest importance for man to understand.”
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] copies of Scripture were rare and costly, but who often suffered persecution and even martyrdom. d in these records a fascinating glimpse of the first centuries following the death and resurrection of Christ, and will be given rich insight into the growth and history of the Christian Church.
They represent primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament. Written before the Canon was established, the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers offers itself as a means to defend the Christian faith, to record the martyrdom of the early Christian church body, and to stand as monuments to the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.



[/FONT]

Okay, so what do those first hand account in the catacombs say? Who was there? How did Peter transfer his authority? What happened to Peter afterwards? Where where the other apostles and who drew lots? (See Acts).

A sarcophogus doesn't prove sucession from Peter.

And what does Paul's tomb have to do with sucession. I know Paul was executed in Rome. Did he transfer authority to Linus? Why is this the only sucession without witnesses or details?

Lastly: What's with all the fonts and colors? It's very difficult to read your posts.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

We have first hand accounts in the Catacombs of the first Christians. A sarcophagus with Linus name and the year he was Bishop of Rome etched in stone .

1. I've never understood why graffiti is considered to be Authorative and Normative equally to God's Holy Word, but...


2. Question: Does this graffiti some unknown person put up have a date on it, and does it state that Peter was the First Pope? Not simply a Bishop (ONE with many) or first among others, but infallible and above all others, the vicar of Christ? If not, it seems like it's just graffiti. Ever been to LA? I can show you LOTS of it.


Thanks!


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Okay, so what do those first hand account in the catacombs say? Who was there? How did Peter transfer his authority? What happened to Peter afterwards? Where where the other apostles and who drew lots? (See Acts).

A sarcophogus doesn't prove sucession from Peter.

And what does Paul's tomb have to do with sucession. I know Paul was executed in Rome. Did he transfer authority to Linus? Why is this the only sucession without witnesses or details?

Yeah.



.

 

[DarkLord]

"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

Roman Church has supremacy.

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

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth - St Irenaus, Chapter III Against Heresies.

Their is a succession of Bishops of Rome who claims authority over office of the episcopate. The Roman Church has authority over the rest thats why the Bishop of Rome claims authority.