Divine Institution of the Papacy

[MilesVitae]

I have no problems with universal primacy or universal jurisdiction (properly understood). If I did, I would not have joined the Catholic Church.

Of course I meant it was troubling for one trying to deny the papacy.

I’m not sure what you are trying to arrive at. If the local Church, reflecting the Church universal in its fullness, has a principle of unity, is it not more logical to conclude that the unitive principle is also present in the Church universal? In other words, if the local Church - which is the Church in its fullness - has a necessary explicit principle of unity, why would the Church universal (which, who can doubt, is also the Church in its fullness) be missing this explicit principle of unity? It does not make sense, do you agree?

I haven’t decided if I agree, but I understand your point and am considering it.

I’m sorry, I still don’t understand your point. Cyprian is referring to a local problem in a local Church, as we both agree. So he is obviously using the Matthean verse to apply to the local level. But Pastor Aeternus, referring to the Church universal, applies the same text on the universal level. I don’t understand why you would insist that Cyprian needs to apply it to the universal level, when he is only referring to a local problem.

The problem is that, from a Catholic perspective, the passage is about the universal primate (not the founding of the episcopacy), but Cyprian says it is about the episcopacy. It’s not like applying, for instance, the Apostolic canon to different levels, since that provides a general principle for any level of primacy. This passage from Matthew is specifically about Peter and his position.

Pastor Aeternus is a definite statement on the prerogatives of the papacy. If we are to understand that the Pope has inherited the keys, it would have said so. Further, though there are loads of patristic evidence connecting the primacy of the bishop of Rome to the primacy of St. Peter, none of them say that St. Peter has relinquished the keys. Pastor Aeternus is simply being faithful to Sacred Tradition. And we, as Catholics, should remain faithful to it as well.

Peter alone does not hold the keys - that was the point of the whole debate in the Mt 16 thread, at least between brother Gary and myself. But it was to Peter that the Lord gave the keys, and, as taught by Pope St. Leo, it was expected to be held in common with the other Apostles. Is the problem here that you are conceiving of “the keys” as some sort of physical thing that is restricted by time and space? It is not. The “keys” are the very power and authority of Christ Himself which he has given to the Church, primarily to St. Peter, who thence shares it (not in any physical sense) with the Apostles, and is likewise shared with all their successors in the Apostolic succession.

Fair enough - I wasn’t really making any point based on my understanding of the keys, however.

 

[MilesVitae]

First of all “not” universally accepted means there are a couple contrary thoughts, none of which denied the primacy

When I say not universally accepted, I mean that was not universally believed. There need not be explicit denials of it for it to be non-universal.

There are certainly passages which, as far as I can tell, make the RC claims for the bishop of Rome. Interestingly, though, they almost all seem to be from western Fathers (Jerome, Augustine perhaps, Optatus, the Popes themselves). Although, there are, of course, Maximos and Theodore - I think I need to give Cyprian a break and look over these Fathers a bit.

 

[josie_L]

When I say not universally accepted, I mean that was not universally believed. There need not be explicit denials of it for it to be non-universal.

There are certainly passages which, as far as I can tell, make the RC claims for the bishop of Rome. Interestingly, though, they almost all seem to be from western Fathers (Jerome, Augustine perhaps, Optatus, the Popes themselves). Although, there are, of course, Maximos and Theodore - I think I need to give Cyprian a break and look over these Fathers a bit.

And St. Epiphanius and St. Ephraem and St. Flavinus and St. Athanasius. . . .etc.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Miles,

Fair enough. When I said communion does not require a primate, I merely meant that the notion of* communion does not, by itself*, imply the need for a primate. If, as a matter of fact, a primate is required by Christ’s institution, that is another matter, of course.

That was what the parable of the wise and faithful servant is all about - that Christ would establish a head servant for His household, not different parts of His household. Those were Christ’s words, which was enshrined in the ancient and hallowed Apostolic Canon 34. Yes, there are certain Orthodox who claim that AC 34 only applies to the regional level, but the praxis and statements of many Fathers and the Ecum Councils contradict this claim (as well as Christ’s words, of course).

I don’t think this follows. Cyprian was dealing with schism from the local bishop - why does the existence of regional primates prove that he was applying Matthew 16:18 to anything more than the local bishop?

That’s the primary job of a primate, to maintain the unity of the Church. How can we claim otherwise given the various synods called and presided over by St. Cyprian?

Christ did not institute Titus and Timothy. They were not bishops at the very beginning of the Church, even if they became bishops early on. The Church began with the Apostles and without local bishops or multiple local churches - that was my point.

The Apostles were not restricted to one particular local Church, yet they had a unique, visible principle of unity among them. How does one jump from that to the idea that only the local Church has a visible principle of unity?

This is an example of Christ praying for the unity (which does not demand, of itself, a primate) of his Church, it is not example of Christ demanding a universal principle of unity in the manner of a primate, which is what I was addressing when I commented on this passage. (Yes, I know - the question now is why would Christ not will a universal principle of unity, if he did so at the local level as well?)

We are speaking here of St,. Cyprian’s understanding, right? According to him, unity demands a visible principle of unity. That’s the whole point of St. Cyprian’s De Unitate. Re-read the Treatise, and focus on the several instances wherein he insists that one cannot have unity in the Faith unless one has unity in the Church. St. Cyprian makes that distinction, so St. Cyprian never proposed some invisible unity merely based on Faith, but an explicit one.

The problem is that, from a Catholic perspective, the passage is about the universal primate (not the founding of the episcopacy), but Cyprian says it is about the episcopacy. It’s not like applying, for instance, the Apostolic canon to different levels, since that provides a general principle for any level of primacy. This passage from Matthew is specifically about Peter and his position.

And the giving of the keys to Peter explains how bishops also have the keys. Simple as that. The V1 decree merely explains another facet of the giving of the keys to Peter - namely, his primacy, a primacy that is maintained in his successors, the bishops of Rome. I think the issue here is that you are conceiving the V1 decree as RESTRICTING the meaning of the verse. Not at all. IIRC, there are only 5 or 6 Scriptural passages which the Catholic Church has made a definite ruling on. And in these rulings, the only thing being insisted upon is that these verses MUST mean this. The only interpretations that are rejected are those that contradict the Church’s understanding of it. So the question becomes - how does the use of the Matthean verses at issue to indicate how a bishop possesses the keys contradict the use of the Matthean verses to indicate the primacy of St. Peter? If you can answer that question, maybe I can see where you are coming from - otherwise…

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

The Apostles were not restricted to one particular local Church, yet they had a unique, visible principle of unity among them. How does one jump from that to the idea that only the local Church has a visible principle of unity?

That’s what I said in a response to a poster, i.e., the apostles themselves expressed catholicity/universality and unity:

In this respect it can be said that we find here a preliminary sketch of a Church that lives in manifold and multiform particular Churches but that precisely in this way is the one Church. At the same time, Luke expresses with this image the fact that at the moment of her birth, the Church was already catholic, already a world Church. Luke thus rules out a conception in which a local Church first arose in Jerusalem and then became the base for the gradual establishment of other local Churches that eventually grew into a federation. Luke tells us that the reverse is true: what first exists is the one Church, the Church that speaks in all tongues - the ecclesia universalis; she then generates Church in the most diverse locales, which nonetheless are all always embodiments of the one and only Church. The temporal and ontological priority lies with the universal Church; a Church that was not catholic would not even have ecclesial reality. . . . that the ancient Church never consisted in a static juxtaposition of local Churches. Catholicity, concretely realized in many forms, belongs to her essence from the very outset. In the apostolic period it is above all the figure of the apostle itself that stands outside the scope of the local principle. . . . He expresses in his person the universal Church; he is her representative, and no local Church can claim him for herself alone. . . . The Church cannot become a static juxtaposition of essentially self-sufficient local Churches. The Church must remain “apostolic”, that is to say, the dynamism of unity must also mold her structure. The epithet “successor of the apostles” removes the bishop beyond the purely local and make it his responsibility to ensure that the two dimensions of communio - the vertical and the horizontal remain undivided.

Taken from “Called to Communion” by Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger).

 

[GaryTaylor]

Eastern early church …

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.php

St. Athanasius (362 A.D.):

Rome is called “the Apostolic throne.” (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).

The Council of Sardica (342 A.D.)

…A Council presided over by St. Athanasius of Alexandria:

“If any bishop looses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew …let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province.” (Council of Sardica, Canon 3, 342 A.D.)

 

[MilesVitae]

I had to part with my computer for a few days to travel, and haven’t really had time to get back to this topic as much as I’d like, but if anyone else cares to continue, I’m attempting to revive this thread.

 

[MilesVitae]

Dear brother Miles,

That was what the parable of the wise and faithful servant is all about - that Christ would establish a head servant for His household, not different parts of His household. Those were Christ’s words, which was enshrined in the ancient and hallowed Apostolic Canon 34. Yes, there are certain Orthodox who claim that AC 34 only applies to the regional level, but the praxis and statements of many Fathers and the Ecum Councils contradict this claim (as well as Christ’s words, of course).

To be clear, AC 34 does not cite the parable of the wise and faithful servant. I don’t think that was what you meant to imply, but I found your words somewhat misleading (unintentionally, I’m sure).

In any case, I don’t think the parable is obviously about the structure of the Church. It does seem to be about leaders in the Church (after all, in Luke, he gives the parable in response to Peter’s question “are you saying these things for our benefit or everyone else’s?”, but I don’t think it is incoherent to see the head servant in the metaphor as anyone having a position of authority in Christ’s Church, without it implying anything about whether there would be a perpetual, universal office. I think you’re reading more into it than can be concluded from it

As for AC34 applying universally, I have no problem with that one way or another. The question is still whether a universal primacy was divinely established or an historical development like the regional primacies.

That’s the primary job of a primate, to maintain the unity of the Church. How can we claim otherwise given the various synods called and presided over by St. Cyprian?

Of course it is, but that doesn’t mean Cyprian was at all concerned in De Unitate with those primacies. As we both recognize, his concern was schism from the local bishop.

The Apostles were not restricted to one particular local Church, yet they had a unique, visible principle of unity among them. How does one jump from that to the idea that only the local Church has a visible principle of unity?

I wasn’t suggesting the one followed from the other alone, apart from any other considerations.

We are speaking here of St,. Cyprian’s understanding, right? According to him, unity demands a visible principle of unity. That’s the whole point of St. Cyprian’s De Unitate. Re-read the Treatise, and focus on the several instances wherein he insists that one cannot have unity in the Faith unless one has unity in the Church. St. Cyprian makes that distinction, so St. Cyprian never proposed some invisible unity merely based on Faith, but an explicit one.

Again, while I’m not convinced that the paradigm of EE is incoherent, I concede the difficulty of claiming that Christ saw the need for a principle of unity in the local Church, but not in the universal community. I have been discussing this a little with some Orthodox as well.

And the giving of the keys to Peter explains how bishops also have the keys.

No, I don’t think it does. It doesn’t preclude bishops having the keys, but it doesn’t follow that the other bishops must have the keys as well.

Simple as that. The V1 decree merely explains another facet of the giving of the keys to Peter - namely, his primacy, a primacy that is maintained in his successors, the bishops of Rome. I think the issue here is that you are conceiving the V1 decree as RESTRICTING the meaning of the verse. Not at all. IIRC, there are only 5 or 6 Scriptural passages which the Catholic Church has made a definite ruling on. And in these rulings, the only thing being insisted upon is that these verses MUST mean this. The only interpretations that are rejected are those that contradict the Church’s understanding of it. So the question becomes - how does the use of the Matthean verses at issue to indicate how a bishop possesses the keys contradict the use of the Matthean verses to indicate the primacy of St. Peter? If you can answer that question, maybe I can see where you are coming from - otherwise…

Blessings,
Marduk

It isn’t VI decrees which are my objection here. Was Jesus establishing Peter’s primacy in Matthew 16:18? Yes. Was this office of primacy the office of the Pope? Yes, according to Catholicism. How, then, can it also be about the establishment of the episcopacy?

 

[MilesVitae]

Eastern early church …

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.php

St. Athanasius (362 A.D.):

Rome is called “the Apostolic throne.” (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).

The Council of Sardica (342 A.D.)

…A Council presided over by St. Athanasius of Alexandria:

“If any bishop looses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew …let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province.” (Council of Sardica, Canon 3, 342 A.D.)

Neither of these has to do with divine institution, and the same goes for the vast majority of the quotations cited in the link - even among those which could be argued to make some connection to Christ’s divine words to Peter, it seems a little unclear if they were trying to lay out a theological explanation for the structure of the Church, or merely heaping praises on Rome. That being said, there are a few passages which seem to much more evidently present an RC view, I will grant.

 

[spina1953]

In reading Matthew 16, Jesus gives Peter the keys and will build His Church on Peter. I guess the real question is whether Jesus is or was divine or not. If Jesus is divine than giving the keys to Peter to which He is going to build His church on is a divine mandate and if Jesus is not divine than Giving the keys to Peter really does not matter at all. I do not see how it can be both ways either Jesus is divine and has the authority to give the keys to whom ever He wants, or Jesus is not and does not have the authority to give the keys to whom ever. It seems to me that since I believe Jesus to be divine that is the Son of God, then Jesus has the divine authority to give the Keys to Peter to be the leader of the Church he is going to build His Church on. Furthermore, I have not seen Jesus give the keys to all the Apostles but only to Peter who does share the keys with the other Apostles. I do see that Jesus breathed on the Apostles to forgive sins this after He rose from the dead but I did not see anywhere that He give keys to all of the Apostles.

 

[MilesVitae]

In reading Matthew 16, Jesus gives Peter the keys and will build His Church on Peter. I guess the real question is whether Jesus is or was divine or not. If Jesus is divine than giving the keys to Peter to which He is going to build His church on is a divine mandate and if Jesus is not divine than Giving the keys to Peter really does not matter at all. I do not see how it can be both ways either Jesus is divine and has the authority to give the keys to whom ever He wants, or Jesus is not and does not have the authority to give the keys to whom ever. It seems to me that since I believe Jesus to be divine that is the Son of God, then Jesus has the divine authority to give the Keys to Peter to be the leader of the Church he is going to build His Church on. Furthermore, I have not seen Jesus give the keys to all the Apostles but only to Peter who does share the keys with the other Apostles. I do see that Jesus breathed on the Apostles to forgive sins this after He rose from the dead but I did not see anywhere that He give keys to all of the Apostles.

We are discussing is the nature of Peter’s “rockship” and “reception of the keys” (which he does, in fact, share with the other Apostles, according to the Catholic Church, while holding them in a unique and primatial way), that is to say his primacy, as related to the perpetual structure of Christ’s Church, particularly as understood by the Church Fathers…

 

[spina1953]

We are discussing is the nature of Peter’s “rockship” and “reception of the keys” (which he does, in fact, share with the other Apostles, according to the Catholic Church, while holding them in a unique and primatial way), that is to say his primacy, as related to the perpetual structure of Christ’s Church, particularly as understood by the Church Fathers…

In your reply to Gary Taylor post #353 you said that neither of these has to do with divine institution. My thinking is based on Jesus giving a divine authority, thereby Peter has divine authority and Jesus’ Church then is a divine institution.

 

[MilesVitae]

In your reply to Gary Taylor post #353 you said that neither of these has to do with divine institution. My thinking is based on Jesus giving a divine authority, thereby Peter has divine authority and Jesus’ Church then is a divine institution.

Ah, okay.

Of the two quotations which Gary specifically quoted, one merely pointed out that Rome was an Apostolic see (as is, for instance, Antioch). The other merely said that Rome had an appellate authority in the universal church - it did not say Christ founded this authority. Many of the quotations which commonly are used to support the Catholic position either a) state that the Church at Rome had a primacy among all the churches (which virtually no one disputes, at least among the Orthodox), or b), that Peter was in some way called by Christ to be first among the Apostles (which, again, virtually no one disputes). The question is whether Christ, in making Peter first of the Apostles, intended to create a perpetual office which was to be passed on by Peter to a particular Bishop, and most of the Fathers never say that.

 

[KathleenGee]

Enjoy, Josie, your contributions here.

We cannot say that Peter was only part of the whole of the apostles; Christ appointed him to head His church.

The role of the bishop was decided on early in the church as the conciliar model was not workable…vulnerable to pick and choose which cleric to follow.

The Church of Rome in ancient times had the grace to settle disputes and provide support for emerging churches.

As the faith expanded into many different cultures, the emergence of Descartes and the Enlightment, nationalism in Christian countries, the role of the Bishop of Rome emerged into the papacy to be the sign of communion and unity and common faith.

So many times I see Orthodox and Latin Catholics essentially believe the same but express them differently, or the Latin Church take the extra step to intellectually definte doctrines, and then we have a tempest in a teapot.

If there is any justification for the papacy, it is the communion of one heart and one mind – which goes back to the first church, the Church of Jerusalem.

The more I grew in my faith, the more I see my Catholicism as in one motif – communion.

It is the same prayer of Our Lord – that we be as one so as to be a sign to the world that all may believe.

I believe when the Orthodox and Latin Churches finally unite, there will be a great grace of conversion for the world.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The question is whether Christ, in making Peter first of the Apostles, intended to create a perpetual office which was to be passed on by Peter to a particular Bishop, and most of the Fathers never say that.

St Irenaeus

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

So then for example if you say Many of the quotations which commonly are used to support the Catholic position either

a) state that the Church at Rome had a primacy among all the churches (which virtually no one disputes, at least among the Orthodox), or

b), that Peter was in some way called by Christ to be first among the Apostles (which, again, virtually no one disputes).

Does this answer the question “whether Christ, in making Peter first of the Apostles, intended to create a perpetual office which was to be passed on by Peter to a particular Bishop,”?

I’m not sure.

 

[spina1953]

Ah, okay.

Of the two quotations which Gary specifically quoted, one merely pointed out that Rome was an Apostolic see (as is, for instance, Antioch). The other merely said that Rome had an appellate authority in the universal church - it did not say Christ founded this authority. Many of the quotations which commonly are used to support the Catholic position either a) state that the Church at Rome had a primacy among all the churches (which virtually no one disputes, at least among the Orthodox), or b), that Peter was in some way called by Christ to be first among the Apostles (which, again, virtually no one disputes). The question is whether Christ, in making Peter first of the Apostles, intended to create a perpetual office which was to be passed on by Peter to a particular Bishop, and most of the Fathers never say that.

It seems to me that since Jesus Himself gave the keys to Peter Jesus was in fact creating a perpetual office which is to be passed on by Peter. One thing I would like to make clear and that is while peter was given the keys, Peter still holds the keys, Peter’s office or authority as the leaded is and was passed on Peter when he handpicked Linus to succeed him before he (Peter) died he did not give him the keys. What this means is the from Linus onward the successors to Peter when they speak for the Church it is Peter that is speaking. Of course Peter shares those keys with the Bishops in communion with him, as all of the Apostles shared the command to preach and teach the Good News Jesus brought forth. So Peter did not relinquish the keys.

I think the reason why the ECF did not say that is due to it was understood to be that way and no explanation was needed It was understood by all at that time.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The more I grew in my faith, the more I see my Catholicism as in one motif – communion.

It is the same prayer of Our Lord – that we be as one so as to be a sign to the world that all may believe.

I believe when the Orthodox and Latin Churches finally unite, there will be a great grace of conversion for the world.

Me too. And my prayers are with them.

 

[MilesVitae]

St Irenaeus

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

I don’t find this passage all that convincing. In context, we see Irenaeus is saying that one can look to the tradition passed on by the Apostles through the succession of bishops but, since it would be tedious to list all the episcopal lineages, he will list that of the greatest Church (namely Rome) which was founded by Peter and Paul. From there he goes on to explain how these two Apostles gave the episcopate of Rome to Linus, after whom followed others such as Clement, etc.
This seems to be more about the reliability of the tradition of Rome as an apostolic see, then it is about any Petrine authority. Note that Irenaeus speaks of Rome being organized by Peter and Paul and the episcopate being handed on by both of them, but never cites any kind of papal authority.

So then for example if you say Many of the quotations which commonly are used to support the Catholic position either

a) state that the Church at Rome had a primacy among all the churches (which virtually no one disputes, at least among the Orthodox), or

b), that Peter was in some way called by Christ to be first among the Apostles (which, again, virtually no one disputes).

Does this answer the question “whether Christ, in making Peter first of the Apostles, intended to create a perpetual office which was to be passed on by Peter to a particular Bishop,”?

I’m not sure.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t find this passage all that convincing. ]

This is what you stated through your recent posts which you concede.

a] one can look to the tradition passed on by the Apostles through the succession of bishops in Rome.

b] he will list that of the greatest Church (namely Rome) which was founded by Peter and Paul.

c] state that the Church at Rome had a primacy among all the churches (which virtually no one disputes, at least among the Orthodox), or

d] that Peter was in some way called by Christ to be first among the Apostles (which, again, virtually no one disputes).

For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition"

Earlier references tend to be less precise and less explicit than those of the Middle Ages and the modern era when the doctrine of papal primacy was more often questioned. This should not be surprising since Christology itself did not become highly developed until the controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.

Nevertheless through your own dialogue I don’t see what you are saying. You implicitly agree through your conversation.

Divine providence St Cyril believed that St Peter was the chosen one of the Apostles, and that the Church was founded and securely fixed upon St Peter’s immovable faith is beyond dispute.

“The divine Word pronounced Peter, the chosen one of the holy apostles, to be blessed. For when in parts of Caesarea called Philippi, the Saviour asked “Who do men say that the Son of man is”, he cried out saying “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, and speedily received the reward of his true conception about him, Christ saying “Blessed art thou Peter”, calling, I imagine, nothing else the rock, in allusion to his name, but the immovable and stable faith of the disciple on which the Church of Christ is founded and fixed without danger of falling.” [Gore, op. cit., p. 96.]

These are your concerns on this page…

The question is whether Christ, in making Peter first of the Apostles, intended to create a perpetual office which was to be passed on by Peter to a particular Bishop, and most of the Fathers never say that.

Seems this is answered? So is apostolic succession, and also in the Apostolic Constitution

has to do with divine institution,

Seems this is answered?

 

[mardukm]

I don’t find this passage all that convincing. In context, we see Irenaeus is saying that one can look to the tradition passed on by the Apostles through the succession of bishops but, since it would be tedious to list all the episcopal lineages, he will list that of the greatest Church (namely Rome) which was founded by Peter and Paul.

The passage was debated among the V1 Fathers, and earlier drafts of Pastor Aeternus explicitly contained this passage from St. Irenaeus. However, it was eventually deliberately removed since it was agreed that the passage did not directly address the definition of the primacy or the infallibility.

From there he goes on to explain how these two Apostles gave the episcopate of Rome to Linus, after whom followed others such as Clement, etc.

Not exactly. The Church was established by the preaching of both Apostles, but the apostolic succession comes from St. Peter, not St. Paul. Interestingly, no Apostolic Church claims apostolic succession from St. Paul. It is not clear from Scripture if St. Paul ever did any ordaining, and even admitted he only baptized a few. His main claim was to be a preacher of the Gospel. That he states several were his “sons” is more an indication that they were followers of the Gospel he preached, not that he actually ordained them.

Note that Irenaeus speaks of Rome being organized by Peter and Paul and the episcopate being handed on by both of them, but never cites any kind of papal authority.

Agreed. The purpose of the passage, according to the deliberations of the V1 Fathers, was to highlight the reliability of the Tradition of the Church of Rome - a Tradition which is also common among all the Churches - not particularly the authority of her bishop. It does not directly testify to papal primacy nor papal infallibility.

The usual Catholic apologetic is to use the passage from St. Irenaeus to support papal primacy or “papal” infallibility. I don’t believe the passage from St. Irenaeus is a direct testimony to those dogmas. However, I do believe there is a much greater inference of those dogmas from those passages, rather than the opposite idea that it was absent.

I will respond to your other post later.

Blessings,
Marduk