Was Peter the 1st Pope?

[Albion]

The word pope is not in the bible and neither is the word trinity, but we believe in the trinity.

I agree. We believe X and/or Y because the idea, the teaching, the concept is clear in scripture. It is not because we need any single word or set of words.

This means that saying "'Bible alone' is not in scripture" (as we were told in an earlier post) does not in any way disprove the unique teaching role and authority of the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

Albion,

I read this entire post with some interest because I was interested in the validity of it at the time of my conversion. Spent a lot of time studying regarding it. I picked some posts, happens to be all from Albion because they touch of some points that have not been clearly developed in this thread.

I have to say that this is another example of finding in Scripture what one has already been told is there to find. There is nothing at all in Scripture about Apostolic Succession. What you are referring to appears to be the evidence of one clergyman (as we might call him for purposes of neutrality in language) commissioning another. But that happens in every church, even those which don't believe in Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession is a theory about the meaning of the ordaining of one man by another--and this is not in Scripture. If you want to contend that all of today's bishops and other ministers are symbolically united to the Apostles, I'd agree. But the idea of a certain laying on of hands conferring validity to preach and administer the sacraments which other ministers not claiming such a theoretical continuity don't have is not sound.

It is not a matter of what has been told but taught and practiced before any letters of the NT were ever written. The NT is entirely based on the faith and practice of the Early Church for almost 30 years before the first letter or Gospel. They were not necessarily considered sacred, special at the time. Historically, it was the Oral Tradition that was the mode of transference of information and history since the beginning. The entire OT is from Oral Tradition. This can only be True unless you believe that Moses, who is given credit for the first 5 Books, actually lived during the time of Adam.
Having said that, the Bible is just a partial written record of God's Revelation to man via Christ while on this earth and the Apostles.
The Bible is based on Holy Tradition. They cannot be separated. One cannot understand the written without the larger portion of Oral and practice. By Oral, today we mean other writings that are based on what was done, how it was done, what it means and why. There are such documents that are older than the some of the latter writings that became Canon.
Regarding, Apostolic Succession. It is in the Bible. But it is not defined, it is not explained. Why? Because simply mentioning the form it took, "laying on of Hands" the Transferance of Apostolic "Church" authority was understood by early Christians. Ignatius uses it to establish the correct bases of the True Church in the first century from some of the Gnostics who claimed writings of their own as inspired and revelation. This conflict eventually led the Church to determine the Apostolic writings and to put them in a Canon. That Canon became the Bible.
I have not found anything that is done by Tradition, that is not inferred, mentioned in the Bible. But the fact, that something is done in the Early Church and not in the Bible does not make it incorrect or invalid. It has just as much validity as the written. It is all Gospel. It is the full Gospel when taken together.
One other aspect in regard to this principal is that other writings confirm that the Early Church looked upon the Apostles as being direct authority of Christ. It was not that Christ was the Head of the Church, and the Apostles His representatives here on earth. It was not a parallel authority but direct authority and that is what is passed on from generation to generation. That is the authentic work of the Holy Spirit residing in the Body of Christ, working to preserve and protect His Body. He does it with people directly. Means to an end.

Now the Papacy.

The Early Church Fathers spoke against Peter as having a position above all other Apostles in jurisdiction and against the bishops of Rome later on claiming any supremacy. The first century church has virtually no evidence (a single, ambiguous letter) of the Christian communities from Britain to the Middle East acknowledging any universal jurisdiction from the Roman bishop. Yet, in time, and with the fall of Roman political unity, it is not hard to see that the religious leader of the city of Rome could present himself to a world needing unity and leadership as some kind of divinely-intended successor to the Caesars and Apostles both, uniting religious and secular authority under God.

I think the confusion is over the definition of terms.
In the early Church there was no pope. Peter was accorded a leadership role. He and others were apostles. They never either gave themselves that title of even bishop, though they would certainly fulfilled the role until a Church was established, then appoint a bishop to rule. What evolved is the concept of conciliar or episcapal authority. Every Bishop was equal, every bishop had the same aurthority as any other. Every local Church was a complete Body of Christ. It needed three elements, Christ as head, the bishop as corporate representative, and at least one lay person. That consituted the definition of a Church and was a complete or whole Body. Thus the word catholic which means complete or whole. Within this framework, one, it became Roman See, bishop was acorded primacy. Had no ecclesiatical power of his own and no administrative power outside of his see, but did represent the Church on common issues and gave it some centrality and a common voice.
Here is where the problem starts. Because of politcal, geographic, cultural and language issues, the Roman See became isolated from the remainder of the Church. The problem of the primacy being made Supremacy by the Roman See is attributed to the fact that after the fall of Rome, the Church in Rome was the seat of power, the existance of any culture, education that remained. It also was struggling for its life. Because it held absolute power and control in other areas, they assumed that they could do this with the Church as well. The other Patriarchs never accepted it as it would break the catholicity as well as the Christological understanding of what the Church was and who was the Head. So for almost 600 years Rome attempted to remake primacy into Supremacy and eventually split from the Church.
Thus, historically, a Pope does not exist in the Church, the Original one, to this day. But the Papacy began its development in early 11th century as we know and understand it today - 1054. Even in Rome it was not solidified until the Council of Trent. It took that long for other bishops in the Roman See to agree with this change even in their own See, now called the Roman Catholic Church.

Any unbiased reading of all the available material indicates that the Papal office is something that evolved as the bishops of Rome tried to replace the leadership that the Emperors of the Roman world had once held.

An excellent statment about the events.

You are right to discern that, as historical research goes, those who write long after the events in question are more likely to be affected by what has been thought about those events since their occurance than those close to the action.

This is a very interesting and astute statement. Remember that most in the West and definitely a very large majority of US citizens are all from western European countries. All countries that had been territories within what became known as the Holy Roman Empire. The dark Ages fell on the west, the period of time that the Roman Church was the only center in the Western World. What they wrote, what they interpreted was obviously biased from their vantage point. Thus, even today, historians take it as fact that the Roman Catholic Church has existed since the Apostles as an established entity. That the rest of the Church split from this Roman Church rather than the other way around which is how most secular or non-catholic historians describe it.
It is much like saying in US history that the North separated from the South in the American Civil War.

 

[St.Augustine]

I just have absolut no acceptance of Sola Sciptura because it is very flawed, and was invented by Martin Luther. Before him it has always been scripture and tradition...

The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists held to sola Scriptura

The view promoted by the Council of Trent contradicted the belief and practice of the Early Church. The Early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura. It believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.

The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.

Source: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

 

[Albion]

Hello!

Albion,

I read this entire post with some interest because I was interested in the validity of it at the time of my conversion. Spent a lot of time studying regarding it. I picked some posts, happens to be all from Albion because they touch of some points that have not been clearly developed in this thread.

It is not a matter of what has been told but taught and practiced before any letters of the NT were ever written. The NT is entirely based on the faith and practice of the Early Church for almost 30 years before the first letter or Gospel.

I recognize the point. However, Apostolic Succession was not part of that faith of the Church of the first 30 or so years. Since it is not in scripture, we can't even presume that it would have been, the historical record aside.

They were not necessarily considered sacred, special at the time. Historically, it was the Oral Tradition that was the mode of transference of information and history since the beginning. The entire OT is from Oral Tradition. This can only be True unless you believe that Moses, who is given credit for the first 5 Books, actually lived during the time of Adam.

This doesn't shed any light on Apostolic Succession.

Having said that, the Bible is just a partial written record of God's Revelation to man via Christ while on this earth and the Apostles.

That's a statement of a personal belief. There is no reason to believe so, and the Bible--which you consider truthful if not complete vis a vis revelation --testifies that IT IS SUFFICIENT. There is nothing in scripture that tells us that we need additional revelation to accomplish the purposes for which God gave us scripture.

The Bible is based on Holy Tradition.

The Bible is divine revelation. Only the recognition of it is related in anyway to man's traditions, unless you are referring narrowly to the standardization of the Bible books. That has little to do with the Bible as the standard of faith used in the Churches prior to that point.

One cannot understand the written without the larger portion of Oral and practice.

Try it. You'll find it quite liberating and comforting to place yourself into God's hands and not having to make human logical and philosophical matters part of understanding God. He gave us "revelation" in order to be "revealing.' For us to believe we have to help him out with completing the task is neither scriptural or reasonable when you really think about it. I used to say just what you did, until I realized that fighting back against God wasn't such a good idea.

Regarding, Apostolic Succession. It is in the Bible. But it is not defined, it is not explained. Why? Because simply mentioning the form it took, "laying on of Hands" the Transferance of Apostolic "Church" authority was understood by early Christians.

No, IT is not in the Bible. Ministers commissioning other ministers is in the Bible, but that is not Apostolic Succession as Catholics of various churches argue it.

Ignatius uses it to establish the correct bases of the True Church in the first century from some of the Gnostics who claimed writings of their own as inspired and revelation. This conflict eventually led the Church to determine the Apostolic writings and to put them in a Canon. That Canon became the Bible.

We've already agreed that the idea was introduced after the end of the Apostolic age. The question is on whether it is in the Bible or was believed by the first Christians. Ignatius doesn't speak for them but does show that it was a fairly early, not original, notion. We've arleady noted that.

I have not found anything that is done by Tradition, that is not inferred, mentioned in the Bible.

I doubt that there is ANY idea that the mind of man can concoct that cannot be linked in some very strange way to some passage in the Bible. Cults, for instance do that all the time. Baptism for the Dead can be inferred from the Bible, some say. That Jesus was not human...or that he was not God...or that he was raciall Black...anything has some hook, but serious study usually dispells that sort of thing.

One other aspect in regard to this principal is that other writings confirm that the Early Church looked upon the Apostles as being direct authority of Christ.

I have to say that it is not the authority of the Apostles we are discussing. It is succession from them as something special, the idea that they could give to others what no passage in scripture nor even logic says had to happen. It's "Apostolic SUCCESSION" that is the theory, not that the Apostles were commissioned by Christ.

 

[Jay2004]

Source: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-e...arlychurch.html

St. Augustine,
I looked at that website for 2 minutes and found many errors.
It shows how people have to lie or twist the facts to try to prove sola scriptura..

Thats the problem with sola scriptura supporters, they act like the bible fell out of the sky.
The church was there before the bible.... so tradition would have to come with that....

read this website, it will explain more..
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

 

[Albion]

Thats the problem with sola scriptura supporters, they act like the bible fell out of the sky.
The church was there before the bible.... so tradition would have to come with that....

I guess you're going to call the following a twist and a lie, then, but think on this for a few minutes.

1. The Bible itself tells us where it comes from, and no believer in the Bible, i.e. Sola Scriptura, therefore thinks it fell from the sky. It was given to men by divine revelation and they recorded as they were inspired to do.

2. The church was not "there" before the Bible. Two-thirds of the Bible was in use before the Incarnation. The New Testament was in use long before any church council recognized, gathered, and arranged the books. Several hundred years before. It is "tradition" that accepted the books of the Bible, but they already existed and were used by the Christian churches of the time.

 

[Matt16]

For anyone interested in the legitamcy of the Papacy please visit my post with the writings of Early Chirstian Leaders.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1544964-early-christian-quotes.html

 

[sojourner]

Albion,

I recognize the point. However, Apostolic Succession was not part of that faith of the Church of the first 30 or so years.

Timothy is the best example of it in the NT. Apostolic Succession is the transference of the authority within the Church and of faith and practice. That was definitely taking place in the first 30 years. The earliest of the writings, most were from Paul, clearly acknowledge this. That is why the texts refer to the mode in which this was done.

This doesn't shed any light on Apostolic Succession

It shows and confirms that the Tradition, both of the OT and the very beginning of the NT were dominant, not the written. The written not only came later, but the fact is that the Church followed Tradition for almost 300 years, of which the letters and Gospels were part but not considered separate from it. Even after they were added to the Canon they did not take precedence over Tradition but always has worked along side of Tradtion.

That's a statement of a personal belief. There is no reason to believe so, and the Bible--which you consider truthful if not complete vis a vis revelation --testifies that IT IS SUFFICIENT. There is nothing in scripture that tells us that we need additional revelation to accomplish the purposes for which God gave us scripture.

The Bible is suffecient but it is not the whole of the Gospel. Tradition, faith and practice that brought forth the written is the Gospel as given. That we don't need additional is exactly correct. Yet, Protestants don't feel this way. They have reinterpreted, added, substracted, have done a lot with what they claim is their sole authority, yet the Bible has no authority whatsoever. It is man that is doing the interpreting, that has the authority over it, thus you multitude of opinions, denominations all attesting to different gospels, rather than the one Given, ALL Truth.
It is sufficient only within the context and content of the whole, not set apart and separate.

The Bible is divine revelation. Only the recognition of it is related in anyway to man's traditions, unless you are referring narrowly to the standardization of the Bible books. That has little to do with the Bible as the standard of faith used in the Churches prior to that point.

No, the Gospel is divine Revelation. Revelation given to the Apostles by Christ when on earth and by the Holy Spirit later. We are not speaking of man's traditions, but the Tradition of Christ through the Apostles, who were men. The Bible is Tradition.

Try it. You'll find it quite liberating and comforting to place yourself into God's hands and not having to make human logical and philosophical matters part of understanding God. He gave us "revelation" in order to be "revealing..

Oh, it surely m ust be liberating to be able to set up one's own gospel. The evidence is all around us with all the confusion of men. Your method has very little to so with putting yourself in God's hands, it is all man. God gave us ALL Truth. He set it up in His Church, His Body. That is the Gospel of Christ, complete and sufficient. He revealed Himself in the Flesh. He gave us all we need for salvation in His Gospel and placed it in the hands of the Apostles and His Church with the Holy Spirit working to protect and preserve that Gospel and Church in the world.

For us to believe we have to help him out with completing the task is neither scriptural or reasonable when you really think about it. I used to say just what you did, until I realized that fighting back against God wasn't such a good idea

But that is what you are doing precisely. Helping Him complete it for you personally. You add whatever you think it might, should mean, instead of what He has given to us from the beginning. We need not help Him in the least, except that He uses believers, members of His Body, to do the preserving, protecting with the working of the Holy Spirit within that Body and individual members. There is an ontological connection, an organic unity.

No, IT is not in the Bible. Ministers commissioning other ministers is in the Bible, but that is not Apostolic Succession as Catholics of various churches argue it.

That must be the protestant interpretation, otherwise their whole house of cards falls. Of the Catholic Church also, their house of cards falls as well if one acknowledges what it meant before they left the Church. Each is justifying their own existance outside of what the Bible actually says and what was the practice and teaching of it for the first 1000 years. The Orthodox still adhere to the original understanding.

We've already agreed that the idea was introduced after the end of the Apostolic age. The question is on whether it is in the Bible or was believed by the first Christians. Ignatius doesn't speak for them but does show that it was a fairly early, not original, notion. We've arleady noted that.

Actually during the Apostolic Age. It was definitely believed and accepted by the early christians of whom one is Ignatius. By original, I gather you want it to be proclaimed by Christ himself and recorded in Red Ink. It is Original, just as many other practices were original which are not specifically explained in Scripture. They are simply refered to, almost in passing.
Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch. He was, no doubt, taught by Peter, possibly even Paul.
He is known to be a possible disciple of St John. The Letters he wrote on his way to Rome to die, included one to his friend, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. We do not know when he was born, but he died in 107 during the first part of the Emperor Trajan reign (98 - 117). Outside of the Apostles directly, Ignatius, Polycarp are originals.

I doubt that there is ANY idea that the mind of man can concoct that cannot be linked in some very strange way to some passage in the Bible. Cults, for instance do that all the time. Baptism for the Dead can be inferred from the Bible, some say. That Jesus was not human...or that he was not God...or that he was raciall Black...anything has some hook, but serious study usually dispells that sort of thing.

We are not speaking of the mind of man here. We are speaking of what was given, ALL Truth, to the Apostles and preserved in His Church. By virtue that Truth has prevailed, has been protected, has not changed from the beginning is testament to the divine work of the Holy Spirit in His Church. False teaching is simply that which has never been believed and practiced from the beginning.

I have to say that it is not the authority of the Apostles we are discussing. It is succession from them as something special, the idea that they could give to others what no passage in scripture nor even logic says had to happen. It's "Apostolic SUCCESSION" that is the theory, not that the Apostles were commissioned by Christ.

Yes, and that has been clearly documented and established within the Church. That you do not find a very precise statement, clear explanation is meaningless. It is the practice of the Church that is preeminent along with faith. The Bible is not the authority, it is Christ who is the authority, the Head of that Church. The Bible is a partial recording of that interaction between God and man.
I would think it very logical, that Christ imparted this authority and proclamation to men and that they, since they would not live forever, would entrust this authority and faith to succeeding generations. That the Holy Spirit working in the lives of members and comprising His Body, works to preserve that authority/faith/practice. We see that verified in history.
Since that very Bible proclaims that the Church is the pillar of Truth, not a book, even though it might be the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

Albion,

2. The church was not "there" before the Bible. Two-thirds of the Bible was in use before the Incarnation. The New Testament was in use long before any church council recognized, gathered, and arranged the books. Several hundred years before. It is "tradition" that accepted the books of the Bible, but they already existed and were used by the Christian churches of the time.

The Bible, both as a word, and a concept, did not exist in any shape or form until 325 when it was adopted, the first time, at the Council of Nicea.
The OT had the Septuigent which was not called the Bible. That would make about 2/3 of the what became the Bible in existance before the NT era.
The rest is just very poor understanding of Church History, from outside sources as well as from the Bible itself, which recorded that history.
The Church began, officially, with Pentacost. Over 3000 souls were added in that one day. At that point in time, all the Church had were the Apostles. They would have immediately began to teach and to proclaim the Gospel as it was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. They proclaimed, set up the practices of the new Church and this Church existed for 30 or so years before we ever get the first document, that would eventually be called a Book of the NT. Even then, the early Church did not accord these letters any more weight that all the rest of the Gospel as they knew and understood it from the teachings of the Apostles and subsequent bishops. Each was entrusted with the preserving of that Gospel with the work of the Holy Spirit. It is not so much that they wrote with inspiration, but that they taught from Inspiration. Paul, in particular, had been to all the places, except Rome, when he wrote his letters to further impart more knowledge and add to and exhort and confirm what he had earlier taught. It is not so much the Bible as you know it, but the Gospel that was Inspired.

You are correct however, is saying that this Church did later give particular acceptance of these letters as being Apostolic and adopted the Canon. They actually established the Bible as you know it at that time. They joined the OT with the new books and called it the Bible.

 

[mythbuster]

my 2 cents.

Let the book of Acts be our source of information regarding Peter and the church.
But halfway through Acts, Peter (and James) are not heard from again. And there is a turn to the apostle Paul. This is the most signifcant item in the bok of Acts: the turn from Peter and James to Paul.

shalom

 

[AliOgg]

[

My Catholic NAB has a very interesting note on this passage that is an interesting read:

Please advise, what is NAB

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[Antman_05]

I hold to Jesus being the Head of the Church, not man, weather it was James or Peter. i don't really care though Scripture is strongly for James and not Peter. as for the Pope well His just a human with a tittle, sounds harsh and don't mean to cousre offence, but if he doesn't have Jesus then he will go to hell as well. Just like anyother person in the World.

 

[Albion]

Albion,

Timothy is the best example of it in the NT. Apostolic Succession is the transference of the authority within the Church and of faith and practice. That was definitely taking place in the first 30 years. The earliest of the writings, most were from Paul, clearly acknowledge this. That is why the texts refer to the mode in which this was done.

No, you're reading something into that information which isn't there. What we know is that certain of the Apostles commissioned other clergy, not that there was any trail thereafter that was intended, not that any special power is attached to these men as the advocates of AS claim, or that the church itself knew of and/or believed in anything like AS until later.

It shows and confirms that the Tradition, both of the OT and the very beginning of the NT were dominant, not the written.

It doesn't show any such thing. But if you can show it yourself in some other way, go ahead.

The written not only came later, but the fact is that the Church followed Tradition for almost 300 years, of which the letters and Gospels were part but not considered separate from it. Even after they were added to the Canon they did not take precedence over Tradition but always has worked along side of Tradtion.

That's just denominational theory. The historic record doesn't support that; it's just an article of belief to people who want to accept it as having happened. Again, where's the evidence?

The Bible is suffecient but it is not the whole of the Gospel.

You can't have it both ways. If the Bible is sufficient, nothing else is necessary.
]

 

[Albion]

Albion,

The Bible, both as a word, and a concept, did not exist in any shape or form until 325 when it was adopted, the first time, at the Council of Nicea.

You need to get your facts in order. It was several councils that came after Nicaea that you should be saying invented the Bible (as silly as that claim is, since all the books of the Bible were in use before then). But that does put your argument in a bind since the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, in the Creed, testified that they based their confession of faith upon "the scriptures."

No mention of any Tradition...and absolutely a mention of scripture which yolu are saying didn't exist!

]

 

[JesseRaymondBassett]

I am not Catholic, but I do believe Peter was the 1st pope. He was the one who started the Catholic Church, therefore making him the first pope. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Albion]

I am not Catholic, but I do believe Peter was the 1st pope. He was the one who started the Catholic Church, therefore making him the first pope. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

OK. The term "Pope" wasn't even used for about four hundred years after Christ. The bishop of Rome who claimed it had never before based such a claim upon any Bible evidence. The other patriarchs of the time in Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, never accepted it and have not accepted that claim to the present. The various churches of the first few centuries had no central organization.

However, centuries later, the bishops of Rome gradually asserted that they SHOULD be seen as the supreme authority for the Church. But it had not been accepted before and the whole church never has until this day--only sections of it.

What can be said is that long after Peter, bishops who were in Rome (but remember that Peter also had headed the church in Antioch before Rome) claimed a singular position as descendents of Peter. Peter gave no hint of thinking this way. It is somewhat like the Mormons saying that George Washington is a baptized Mormon. Although Washington was an Anglican, Mormons "baptised" him as a Mormon, in absentia, hundreds of years later. Does that mean he actually was a Mormon or only something in the minds of later Mormons? Same with the Popes and Peter.

 

[Wigglesworth]

Please advise, what is NAB

New American Bible, the translation of the Scriptures used for the liturgy by the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.

I appreciate Sojourner's comments in this thread. I like that Orthodox position (for today anyway).

It seems to me that Timothy was consecrated in apostolic succession by Paul, and I suspect that Paul was actually consecrated by some of the original twelve when he visited them after his ministry began. Of course, I recognize that Jesus Christ, Himself, appointed Paul on the Damascus road. I expect that some of the original twelve laid their hands on Paul when they got to meet him in person. I sure would have laid my hands on him and imparted any power for ministry I had at the time.

Whether everybody is defining "apostolic succession" in the same way seems an inconsequential point to me. I find these word games disturbing.

As for sola Scriptura, I gave it up in order to believe in the pizza I was eating last night. Since pizza is not in the Bible, it would have been error for me to believe in it at all as a Bible Onlyist.

Which came first, the church or the Bible? What did those 3,000 new believers read after Pentecost until 95 A.D. or so? I bet they just sat around and told each other their testimonies about what God had done, and told each other what they had heard from their preachers. Then some religious folk started calling that kind of stuff "Holy Tradition" and got the nonreligious folk all huffy and stuck up about it. That's what I bet happened.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

OK. The term "Pope" wasn't even used for about four hundred years after Christ. The bishop of Rome who claimed it had never before based such a claim upon any Bible evidence. The other patriarchs of the time in Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, never accepted it and have not accepted that claim to the present. .

Incorrect, Ignatius of Antioch (born around 50 A.D.) clearly gave honour to the See of Peter as center to which the whole church turns.

 

[Albion]

OK. The term "Pope" wasn't even used for about four hundred years after Christ. The bishop of Rome who claimed it had never before based such a claim upon any Bible evidence. The other patriarchs of the time in Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, never accepted it and have not accepted that claim to the present. .

Incorrect, Ignatius of Antioch (born around 50 A.D.) clearly gave honour to the See of Peter as center to which the whole church turns.

It's not incorrect. Ignatius of Antioch did not emerge from the womb praising the bishop of Rome. As you know, it was only much later that his comments on the subject were made, long after the Church had been established in many parts of the Empire. Even then, they contrast with the perceptions given us by other Church Fathers.

All that is somewhat on the edges of what I was really speaking to in my post.

As for the rest of it, those are also above denying. It was Pope Leo I who first used the word "Pope" for himself and began the Roman Catholic use of Matt 16.18 to "prove" a claim to leadership. And the bishops of the East never did or have till this day accepted Papal claims, making any assertion of a consensus in the Early Church in favor of Roman primacy clearly incorrect.

I'd also call to your attention the fact that "gave honour to the See of Peter as center to which the whole Church turns" is not the same as saying that it was seen as having universal jurisdiction over the Church. That's a distinction that has to be made.

Rome was the largest and richest diocese and the location of the political center of the Empire; of course it would have "honour" and influence. That doesn't equate tol what the Papacy claims for itself religiously.

 

[Albion]

Incorrect, Ignatius of Antioch (born around 50 A.D.) clearly gave honour to the See of Peter as center to which the whole church turns.

Ignatius did not do that in AD 50. He spoke at a later time, therefore claims about what the Church did from the beginning cannot rest on him. Additionally,. receiving honor and having worldwide jurisdiction are two totally different things. You have only quoted something relating to the former, not the latter.