The Primacy Of Peter

[Catholic Christian]

pax vobis from
the Catholic Crusader

Everyone know that Catholics believe in the primacy of St Peter and that he was the first pope:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

But what did the first Christians believe? Here is a list of quotes from early Christians. Please read and comment:

Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).


Tertullian
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).


The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).


Origen
"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).


Cyril of Jerusalem
"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27).


Ephraim the Syrian
"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).


Ambrose of Milan
"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).


Jerome
"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).


Augustine
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

 

[Revelation1217]

Peter was an extremely important figure in the early church.

But so what?

Peter has nothing whatsoever to do with popery.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Peter was an extremely important figure in the early church. But so what? Peter has nothing whatsoever to do with popery.

pax vobis from
the Catholic Crusader

Are you aware the the word "popery" is an insult to Catholics? Is that how you respond to the historical facts I put forth, by lobbing an insult at me? Is that the Christian thing to do?

 

[Brennin]

Peter was an extremely important figure in the early church.

But so what?

Peter has nothing whatsoever to do with popery.

What he said.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Peter has nothing whatsoever to do with popery.

"Popery"...

From Wiki:
Historically, the words "popery", "papistry" and "popish" have been used as derogatory terms for Roman Catholicism and a Roman Catholic, respectively. They were often used by Puritans and conservative Orthodox Christians to denote the idea that the Pope is a tyrant and that Catholics slavishly worship him like an idol. They also refer to the ritual of the Church, such as baroque vestments and decoration, that some Protestants view as excessive and not warranted by Scripture.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Peter was an extremely important figure in the early church.

But so what?

Peter was the ONLY Apostle to receive the Keys to Heaven.

These Keys are symbolic of the one who is to hold the seat of Steward or Master of the Kingdom when the King is away and we all know Jesus will not return until the End of Days.

Read Isaiah 22 to learn more about how the Davidic Kingdom recognizes the symbol of the Key.

Shalom

 

[Brennin]

Peter was the ONLY Apostle to receive the Keys to Heaven.

These Keys are symbolic of the one who is to hold the seat of Steward or Master of the Kingdom when the King is away and we all know Jesus will not return until the End of Days.

Read Isaiah 22 to learn more about how the Davidic Kingdom recognizes the symbol of the Key.

Shalom

No, the other apostles received that authority as well:

Matthew 18
18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.’

 

[simonthezealot]

Everyone know that Catholics believe in the primacy of St Peter and that he was the first pope:

Having primacy amongst the apostles and passing on universal authority are 2 different things based on these 3rd and 4th century people you are quoting, I don't think you understand this.

Clement of Alexandria doesn't refer to Peter having universal jurisdiction. He doesn't refer to Peter having successors who are exclusively Roman bishops. In all of his many writings on Christian doctrine and practice, Clement never refers to a papal office.

Let me show you a couple things, you used...

Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

I would like to know who put the Matt 19:27 into the credits? This is Clements literary homily of MARK 10:17-31
Furthermore let’s look at what Eusibius quoted him as saying…
Clement of Alexandria in Outlines Book VI (quote by Eusebius)
Quote:
Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Savior, did not claim pre-eminence because the Savior had specially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.

 

[simonthezealot]

Origen[/B]
"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Origen

Origen wrote a lot about Christian doctrine, church government, the authority of scripture, church tradition, etc. He never mentioned a papacy.
Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno explains that "a plain recognition of Roman primacy or of a connection between Peter and the contemporary bishop of Rome seems remote from Origen's thoughts" (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 43). Origen was one of the earliest interpreters of Matthew 16. He contradicted the Roman Catholic interpretation:

"And if we too have said like Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, 'Thou art Peter,' etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, 'The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,' hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, 'Upon this rock I will build My church'? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, 'Receive ye the Holy Spirit,' etc....And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was." (Commentary on Matthew, 12:10-11)

 

[simonthezealot]

Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian believed in a primacy of Peter, but explains that the primacy is chronological and symbolic, not jurisdictional:
"The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, 'I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;' yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity." (On the Unity of the Church, 4)
Cyprian refers to all bishops as successors of Peter, and he refers to all of them possessing the keys and having the words of Matthew 16 applied to them:
"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers." (Epistle 26:1)
In contrast to what Roman Catholicism teaches, Cyprian tells us that church leaders are to be appointed by laymen:
"a bishop is appointed into the place of one deceased, when he is chosen in time of peace by the suffrage of an entire people, when he is protected by the help of God in persecution, faithfully linked with all his colleagues, approved to his people by now four years' experience in his episcopate" (Letter 54:6)

 

[simonthezealot]

Cyril of Jerusalem
[A.D. 350]).

Ephraim the Syrian
[A.D. 351]).


Ambrose of Milan
[A.D. 379]).


Jerome
[A.D. 393]).

Augustine
[A.D. 411]).

No disrespect intended but these guys have no more of a clue from 300 years prior than me...Maybe even less.

 

[Brennin]

No disrespect intended but these guys have no more of a clue from 300 years prior than me...Maybe even less.

Right you are.

 

[tblaine74]

No disrespect intended but these guys have no more of a clue from 300 years prior than me...Maybe even less.

Someone 200 years removed from particular events has no more a clue than someone 2000 years removed those events? I don’t agree with the overall suggestion of the OP either, but I am certainly not going to resort to chronological snobbery.

Rather than re-quote all of the quotes in the OP, I’ll note the author to refer to said quotes:

Clement of Alexandria – We know what meaning you are inferring from “first among the disciples”, but what meaning should one infer from it?

Tertullian – Did a Roman pope ever indoctrinate Montanist practices? Shall we judge a man by what he says or what he does?

The Letter of Clement to James – Clement was a pope of Rome, why would he need to argue for primacy?

Origen – this quote and others you have provided do not by themselves argue your point. I would question any argument for papal primacy that relies solely on these scripture passages. If this was the teaching of the early Church, why did it need to be proven to the early Church, and why was the only proof in these passages? It was questioned no doubt, but by whom? By a couple of dissenters, by everyone but Rome, by whom?

Cyprian of Carthage – Cyprian later reworded this himself, after he changed his mind.

Cyril of Jerusalem – You had me for a minute. I had to go check Acts 9:32-34. See comment for Origen.

Ephraim the Syrian – See comment for Origen.

Ambrose of Milan – See comment for Origen.

Jerome – See comment for Origen.

Augustine – See comment for Origen.

Here are some other early Church writings:

Council of Carthage (A.D. 257)
The Synod held at Carthage over which presided the Great and Holy Martyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage.

For no one [of us] has set himself up [to be] bishop [of bishops], or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone has the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions [in that position].



First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325)

Canon 6
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.



Synod of Constantinople (A.D. 382)

We beseech your reverence to rejoice at what has thus been rightly and canonically settled by us, by the intervention of spiritual love and by the influence of the fear of the Lord, compelling the feelings of men, and making the edification of churches of more importance than individual grace or favour. Thus since among us there is agreement in the faith and Christian charity has been established, we shall cease to use the phrase condemned by the apostles, I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas, and all appearing as Christ's, who in us is not divided, by God's grace we will keep the body of the church unrent, and will boldly stand at the judgment seat of the Lord.

 

[simonthezealot]

Someone 200 years removed from particular events has no more a clue than someone 2000 years removed those events? I don’t agree with the overall suggestion of the OP either, but I am certainly not going to resort to chronological snobbery.

.

Chronological snobbery...ROFLOL...
FIRST>>>the ones I didn't comment on were 300 years removed from Christs conversations with Peter and the apostles...
SECOND>>>Some of these writings were out of circulation for centuries and then found you can surely bet that what we have access to via libraries and the internet is tenfold what 1 writer in 1 area may have had access to...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Having primacy amongst the apostles and passing on universal authority are 2 different things based on these 3rd and 4th century people you are quoting, I don't think you understand this.

We can see two things from these early writings, that there was apostolic succession and that Peter held a primacy over the other Apostles.

Irenaeus in his "Against Herecies" book 3 and chapter 3 wrote about the succession of bishops and their authority and that this succession was proof of Apostolic Tradition.

QUOTE:
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, spoke 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. Soter 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.


LINK: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And further we have Eusebius and"Church History" from around 211 AD that shows attention to Peter in Rome and his successors. It is not written to show the Papcy perse but it does show an importance in Apostolic Succession and in this case an importance of going back to Peter.

QUOTE:
For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter, but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth had been corrupted.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Those are but twwo examples of a succession of Bishops from the Apostles.

But what of Peter's Primacy?

Origen who was a great Apologist for the Catholic Church wrote some great stuff even if he became a heretic himself later.

One such writing shows how the Early Church saw an importance in Peter that was above anyone else.

QUOTE:
But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," has been specially set before the words, "And what things soever you shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens. The better, therefore, is the binder, so much more blessed is he who has been loosed, so that in every part of the heavens his loosing has been accomplished.

LINK: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101613.htm

 

[simonthezealot]

We can see two things from these early writings, that there was apostolic succession and that Peter held a primacy over the other Apostles.

Irenaeus in his "Against Herecies" book 3 and chapter 3 wrote about the succession of bishops and their authority and that this succession was proof of Apostolic Tradition.

QUOTE:
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, spoke 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. Soter 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.


LINK: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

For complete context....
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html
Jack you and RCs are known to be good at misrepresenting the writings of the early Christian theologians to favor your bias.
This one is no exception.

Looking into the whole of chapter 3 what does it speak of?
Notice that Irenaues said that Rome has authority, undoubtedly a controversial view but he certainly felt that way as did others at that time, but look at the reason why. Not because Peter had a specific successor but by their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible). Notice Peter and Paul. So it speaks of traditions derived from the apostles. Yet the RCs we know now have traditions other than that derived from the apostles. Exalting Mary and the Pope just to name 2 of the 62 or more.
It speaks of a universally known Church founded and organized at Rome. This is obviously the churches in Rome. According to Irenaeus, it was co-founded by two most glorious apostles: Peter and Paul.
If Peter was truly a Pope how come Peter and Paul were considered as equals here? Again this blows against the RCs who misuse it.
It speaks how the churches in Rome came by succession of Bishops. It doesn't say of succession of Popes for if it was so, then the RCs have a case but no it came by Bishops, this is the way it should be.
It speaks of a necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority. Of course it was pre-eminent because of the Empire which sat in Rome. This whole passage blows away the argument that there was only one Church and that was the Roman Church..
Lastly it speaks of the apostolical tradition that has been preserved continuously by faithful men who exist everywhere. Again it speaks of apostolic tradition that is continuously preserved. Like stated earlier, we know that the RC of today is far removed from the churches in Rome then. Because the RC today has accumulated man-made traditions thus making insignificant the tradition of the apostles.

 

[simonthezealot]

Those are but twwo examples of a succession of Bishops from the Apostles.

But what of Peter's Primacy?

Origen who was a great Apologist for the Catholic Church wrote some great stuff even if he became a heretic himself later.

One such writing shows how the Early Church saw an importance in Peter that was above anyone else.

QUOTE:
But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens,"

2 things...
1st.
Origen refers to Matthew 16:18-19 being applicable to *all* Christians. Having I assume read this you know
He has said, repeatedly, that all Christians are rocks upon whom the church is built and that all Christians possess the keys of the kingdom. Thus, Peter can be said to have a chronological or symbolic primacy, but not a jurisdictional primacy.

2nd Origen further tells us about the universal urisdiction of Paul
"I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ." (Against Celsus, 1:63)

 

[tblaine74]

The authority of Rome was unquestionably respected in the early Church, and there are many writing which demonstrate the Church’s submission to that authority. However, what evidence demonstrates that this authority was respected as emanating from the chair of Peter as opposed to emanating from this chair’s apostolic succession, in addition to the sociopolitical landscape of the time? How can there be question that agreement must be made with the church at Rome due to its apostolic succession? On the other hand, the exclusive rite due to Peter’s chair appears to have been questioned from very early on.