If the Rock is Peter's faith

[benhur]

benhur.

I read over almost all of the link from the website you referenced to allege no (or “co”) Hebrew authorship of St. Mathhew’s Gospel (here).

HI C,

Not sure you reference correct site. One site doubts any Hebrew Matthew. The other that you post here said: "The historical literary evidence demonstrates that Matthew’s original Hebrew Gospel was not widely used ".

So the site/author does say there was a Hebrew Matthew.

I also noticed a lot of discussion citing “scholars” and discussion ABOUT the Church Fathers, but NOT ONE citation FROM the Church Fathers!

“No reference is ever made to what a Hebrew text of the Gospel of Matthew actually said” .Is this accurate ? Does Origen or Jerome site/quote from the Hebrew Matthew, for example , “Thou art Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my church” ?

The little that has been shown me is fathers discussing the existence of the Hebrew Matthew, but not citing scripture from it.

Anyways, is the site we are talking about titled, “The Disappearance of Matthews Original Hebrew Gospel” (and on my part, any fragments, copies of it) ?

Blessings

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

HI C,

Not sure you reference correct site. One site doubts any Hebrew Matthew. The other that you post here said: "The historical literary evidence demonstrates that Matthew’s original Hebrew Gospel was not widely used ".

So the site/author does say there was a Hebrew Matthew.

“No reference is ever made to what a Hebrew text of the Gospel of Matthew actually said” .Is this accurate ? Does Origen or Jerome site/quote from the Hebrew Matthew, for example , “Thou art Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my church” ?

The little that has been shown me is fathers discussing the existence of the Hebrew Matthew, but not citing scripture from it.

Anyways, is the site we are talking about titled, “The Disappearance of Matthews Original Hebrew Gospel” (and on my part, any fragments, copies of it) ?

Blessings

Well, yeah it was Hebrew!

 

[benhur]

Well, yeah it was Hebrew!

Hi JB,

Took me awhile but I finally get the humor. Thanks

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

HI Abu .

Totally agree as it agrees with my post .

I was speaking of appointment/ succession of popes , which is a totally different context .

Blessings

So do you believe a different Steward exists, or no succession at all, or the person who the individual deals worthy of that place?

 

[benhur]

So do you believe a different Steward exists, or no succession at all, or the person who the individual deals worthy of that place?

Hi rc,

I believe in what the book of Acts and patristic writings show:“If you mean the apostles appointing presbyters yes. I was referring to the appointing of a head presbyter/bishop”.

So yes to appointing presbyters/bishops(succession)

But no to any reference of Peter or anyone appointing/ differentiating his appointments as being for head bishop.

Understand bishops were appointed in Rome by either Peter /Paul , but not evidence of them being told to be head over others, or in what order they were to fill the Chair. That is, Peter may have ordained many presbyters in his travels, even in Rome, but no writings describes any differentiating from other appointments.

So, really just saying agree to offices listed as by Paul (apostles, presbyters/bishops teachers , prophets etc.) but disagree with any interpretation of a specific office of pope, or the continuance of Peter’s role.

Do agree to role of "councils’ to resolve issues.

Do understand that “patriarchs” developed also, including Rome’s seat as one of them.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

I believe in what the book of Acts and patristic writings show:“If you mean the apostles appointing presbyters yes. I was referring to the appointing of a head presbyter/bishop”.

So yes to appointing presbyters/bishops(succession)

But no to any reference of Peter or anyone appointing/ differentiating his appointments as being for head bishop.

No one else was given charge to strengthen the brethren, or feed and care for the flock until Peter’s earthly ministry was near an end. I think you are right that the Petrine responsibilities were not widely disseminated in that sense. There is a line of Bishops from Antioch that is older than the one in Rome, but it is to his successor in Rome that Peter handed over his charge of the whole flock.

Understand bishops were appointed in Rome by either Peter /Paul , but not evidence of them being told to be head over others, or in what order they were to fill the Chair. That is, Peter may have ordained many presbyters in his travels, even in Rome, but no writings describes any differentiating from other appointments.

I think that Peter was a very humble man who took Jesus instruction seriously that leadership was not to be a contest of superiority, but rather, of service. There were duties of service charged to Peter that were handed to his successor in Rome. The successors have always understood how they were to “fill the Chair”.

disagree with any interpretation of a specific office of pope, or the continuance of Peter’s role.

What you are saying is that Jesus instituted something that had no purpose, really.

Window dressing for Peter?

 

[kdbueno]

The indestructibility of the church approves that the rock we are talking here exist.

 

[benhur]

No one else was given charge to strengthen the brethren, or feed and care for the flock until Peter’s earthly ministry was near an end.

Hi g,

Yes, but pretty sure the other apostles “fed” and cared for Jewish and gentile sheep also. Yes Peter strengthened the other apostles/ “brethren”, but not sure this would be needed after the twelve were gone,(and it seems they split after some time, as in traveling far apart). But certainly at the beginning it (strengthening) was crucial .

There is a line of Bishops from Antioch that is older than the one in Rome, but it is to his successor in Rome that Peter handed over his charge of the whole flock.

Yes ,thank you for that info about Antioch. As far as Rome, is it not by interpretive tradition that suggests Peter actually appointed just one bishop to be head “server” ? That is, it is not recorded in Acts, and patristic writings are open to interpretation ( and have been by both sides of this authority issue, since the beginning)

I think that Peter was a very humble man who took Jesus instruction seriously that leadership was not to be a contest of superiority, but rather, of service. There were duties of service charged to Peter that were handed to his successor in Rome. The successors have always understood how they were to “fill the Chair”.

Not sure the bishop(s) of Rome understood the "chair " , as developed later on. I thought it was understood that Rome was led by presbytery ( a group of bishops) for at least a hundred years of the church there.

What you are saying is that Jesus instituted something that had no purpose, really. :shrug:Window dressing for Peter?

Either /or, again. So if we do not believe in papacy , we do not believe in Peter’s historic role ?

We disagree in what Jesus did and did not institute.

What you are saying is that Jesus could not make 12 apostles be equal , with one being their “leader”, or head servant. You are also saying Jesus can not run His church via the patriarch system, or something similar to the orthodox , or thru councils, thereafter.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The indestructibility of the church approves that the rock we are talking here exist.

Hola kd,

Seguramente, for sure. The church is built upon the “rock”.

Bendiciones

 

[rcwitness]

Hi g,

Yes, but pretty sure the other apostles “fed” and cared for Jewish and gentile sheep also. Yes Peter strengthened the other apostles/ “brethren”, but not sure this would be needed after the twelve were gone,(and it seems they split after some time, as in traveling far apart). But certainly at the beginning it (strengthening) was crucial . Yes ,thank you for that info about Antioch. As far as Rome, is it not by interpretive tradition that suggests Peter actually appointed just one bishop to be head “server” ? That is, it is not recorded in Acts, and patristic writings are open to interpretation ( and have been by both sides of this authority issue, since the beginning)

Hey ben,

Sorry to not give a complete response to your response of my questions. Guano stepped in some for me, and I am keenly aware that you don’t have that privileged here many times!

I will mention that it is specifically mentioned, by early Church fathers, that Peter’s had a definite line of successors in Rome.

But I wanted to address the bolder in your post. It’s actually a reason that I found supporting the Catholic office of Prime Bishop in Rome. Why would the Apostles need “strengthening” after Jesus Himself strengthened them, and appeared to them after His resurrection!? I find it more crucial, if anything, for the later generations who were more removed from His personal witness to give a confirmation/strengthening/judgment.

In either case, the Church needed a final (or highest) authority to affirm decisions and move forward. The opposite of this is endless division and splintering. That is what I chose to accept from the office of Pope. That Jesus intended to settle matters in this manner.

 

[rcwitness]

There is a line of Bishops from Antioch that is older than the one in Rome, but it is to his successor in Rome that Peter handed over his charge of the whole flock.

This is what takes some trust in Jesus’ charge to Peter, early Church father references, and later growth on account of post persecution freedom. But it’s not so explicit in early history. I believe it is the most likely conclusion after all things are considered and harmonized

What you are saying is that Jesus instituted something that had no purpose, really.

Window dressing for Peter?

That’s actually a very reasonable question. If Jesus didn’t establish Peter as the first member in a distinct office, that continues through the life of the Church, then why single him out and use all the language He used? Then seeing Peter, who “stood up in 5hose days”, take such a particular role in the book of Acts.

 

[benhur]

*HI rc,

Understand. Quite a few cities know there linkage as recorded in History. Just that list does not specify explicitly that Rome is to “serve” all the others…

Why would the Apostles need “strengthening” after Jesus Himself strengthened them, and appeared to them after His resurrection!?

 

[guanophore]

Hi g,

Yes, but pretty sure the other apostles “fed” and cared for Jewish and gentile sheep also.

Indeed yes, and this is the first duty of every Bishop, but all of them functioned in unity with Peter.

Yes Peter strengthened the other apostles/ “brethren”, but not sure this would be needed after the twelve were gone,(and it seems they split after some time, as in traveling far apart). But certainly at the beginning it (strengthening) was crucial .

I don’t think that any reasonable case can be made that the Bishops still do not need strengthening. In fact, had the Popes attended to this Spiritual formation of the Bishops more assiduously, a Reformation may not have resulted at all.

Yes ,thank you for that info about Antioch. As far as Rome, is it not by interpretive tradition that suggests Peter actually appointed just one bishop to be head “server” ? That is, it is not recorded in Acts, and patristic writings are open to interpretation ( and have been by both sides of this authority issue, since the beginning)

I have never seen any evidence that there was more than one successor of Peter at the end of his earthly ministry. Certainly there were many priests, deacons, and Bishops ordained, but only one was charged as custodian of the Petrine responsibilities. All the early writings are consistent the primacy of Rome with regard to doctrine, chiefly because both Peter and Paul built up the Church there. The successor of Peter was considered “first among equals” up until the time of the great schism.

Not sure the bishop(s) of Rome understood the "chair " , as developed later on. I thought it was understood that Rome was led by presbytery ( a group of bishops) for at least a hundred years of the church there.

No, I am not sure about the “chair” either, as a Latin construct. The Aposltes understood that they had been given the “seat of Moses” in terms of the authority to teach and shepherd HIs flock.

The Church in Rome was one of the few that developed without any Apostolic planting originally, most likely from converts at Pentecost returning from pilgrimage. What we know is that the Emperors tried to snuff out the Church by “cutting off the head” so many of the first successors of Peter had short times of service.

Either /or, again. So if we do not believe in papacy , we do not believe in Peter’s historic role ?

I would extrapolate that from your posts. You are denying that Jesus intended to establish a visible sign of unity for the leadership of the Church through Peter. You deny that the Petrine gifts and responsibilities were meant to continue until the sojourn of the flock on earth is completed. I think these things must be denied in order to hold to the Lutheran doctrine that the Pope is the antichrist.

We disagree in what Jesus did and did not institute.

Yes, of course! Otherwise, we would not be separated.

If you believed what the Church did and taught up to the time of the Reformation, there would be no schism, no division.

What you are saying is that Jesus could not make 12 apostles be equal , with one being their “leader”, or head servant. You are also saying Jesus can not run His church via the patriarch system, or something similar to the orthodox , or thru councils, thereafter.

Blessings

Of course Jesus can do whatever He wants. He chose to give certain roles to certain people. For example, we see no other Apostle doing the work that Paul did. Maybe they were so prolific, but it never got documented? But God chose Paul to do certain things no other Apostle is said to have done.

In the same way, Peter had a certain role in the Church that was not given to any other.

As to the last part, of course Jesus runs His church according to the leadership of the Bishops, as it has always been done. The Councils are also considered sources of infallible teaching. We can see this modeled in the very first council of Jerusalem in Acts and in every council since.

When you reject the role of the Patriarch of Rome, you must also reject the role of the other Patriarchies, so I think you have undermined your own argument.

 

[guanophore]

Understand. Quite a few cities know there linkage as recorded in History. Just that list does not specify explicitly that Rome is to “serve” all the others…

Actually I think it does to an extent. It was important to preserve that record because it represented the primacy, and for all they knew, the only record. If the Church had been wiped out everywhere else, they would not have known about it for months or perhaps years. They did not have internet, you know!

I think they needed strengthening most , and especially before Pentecost. The first moments of any undertaking are the most crucial. When a jet takes off, or a rocket launches , or when your car first starts , it is the most crucial, dangerous. Remember , the apostles had all left Jesus (save john) and even denied Him. Not sure they did any “public” ministry prior to Pentecost. They were as it were untested since Calvary. When Jesus ascended they again were in need of obedience and cohesiveness.

I guess you are saying that what Jesus gave to Peter had no lasting value, and was no longer needed after Pentecost?

It seems to remind me of that “priesthood of all believers” thing, where some are unable to accept that anyone has a special or particular role that others do not.

I think as church grew and time went on , it was beyond a one man super servant.

I think this happened very quickly, which is why Paul appointed Bishops, and had them appoint presbyters. This is the structure through which Jesus intended the Church to grow and function.

I don’t know what a “super servant” is…Perhaps just one more way to take a jab at the role of Peter?

Splits happen either way. And I find councils were more appropriate for settling matters.

Blessings

There is is not a contradiction between the two, as we see the model in the book of Acts. Having one individual in a position of authority in now way negates the authority of the other Apostles, or in the present day, bishops.

 

[pablope]

Hi g,

Yes Peter strengthened the other apostles/ “brethren”, but not sure this would be needed after the twelve were gone,(and it seems they split after some time, as in traveling far apart).

 

[benhur]

Indeed yes, and this is the first duty of every Bishop, but all of them functioned in unity with Peter.

HI g,

Yes, in unity with Peter (and each other) but not “under”, or institutionally. It was 'representational" unity. …But to see it as more is the “debate”.

I don’t think that any reasonable case can be made that the Bishops still do not need strengthening. In fact, had the Popes attended to this Spiritual formation of the Bishops more assiduously, a Reformation may not have resulted at all.

Won’t argue against that. I suppose it goes vice versa, the Bishops caring for the pope’s spiritual well being , and for that matter the congregations for their presbyter, and parishes for their bishop, etc… Lastly a multi patriarchal system served the same purpose.

I have never seen any evidence that there was more than one successor of Peter at the end of his earthly ministry.

Just that some say it was Cletus and Linus and other say Clement was also ordained by Peter. So it seems Peter ordained all 3 ? . .

All the early writings are consistent the primacy of Rome with regard to doctrine, chiefly because both Peter and Paul built up the Church there

Not sure . iraneus had some “errors” as did Tertullian and Jerome(saying Peter ordained Clement, no mention of Linus). And most feel Peter and Paul did not "found’ the church at Rome . Certainly Paul in Writ say he did not.

The successor of Peter was considered “first among equals” up until the time of the great schism.

Do not follow. I thought most non-papists* * agree to that epitaph.

No, I am not sure about the “chair” either, as a Latin construct. The Aposltes understood that they had been given the “seat of Moses” in terms of the authority to teach and shepherd HIs flock.

Yes, all the apostles. I was speaking of early bishops of Rome not seeing themselves as Peter’s successors of “papal” office.

The Church in Rome was one of the few that developed without any Apostolic planting originally, most likely from converts at Pentecost returning from pilgrimage

Which is why most scholars, including Catholic , see Iraneus to be inaccurate saying Peter and Paul "founded’’ the church in Rome.

What we know is that the Emperors tried to snuff out the Church by “cutting off the head” so many of the first successors of Peter had short times of service.

This is a dubious statement , for many reasons. Bishops from all over the empire were executed. Rome thought themselves to be the head of the empire, and all example begins there. Certainly later in persecutions the Roman church may have been the largest.

I would extrapolate that from your posts

. I do not deny Peter’s role in early church. We have been discussing rock/faith primarily, so we have not really discussed all his actions as recorded in Acts.

I think these things must be denied in order to hold to the Lutheran doctrine that the Pope is the antichrist.

Ikes, you be way out there in left field, at least in this discussion.

If you believed what the Church did and taught up to the time of the Reformation, there would be no schism, no division.

The role and understanding of the papacy is not "monolithic " from 33 ad to reformation. The debate did not just pop up out of thin air in 1500. You also can not argue against something that was not understood at the beginning. I have stated that as Rome developed and asserted it’s authority over other churches, so to did opposing arguments/sentiments.

Of course Jesus can do whatever He wants. He chose to give certain roles to certain people. For example, we see no other Apostle doing the work that Paul did. Maybe they were so prolific, but it never got documented? But God chose Paul to do certain things no other Apostle is said to have done.

In the same way, Peter had a certain role in the Church that was not given to any other.

Agree…

As to the last part, of course Jesus runs His church according to the leadership of the Bishops, as it has always been done

Well, as presbytery or episcopate ?.

The Councils are also considered sources of infallible teaching. We can see this modeled in the very first council of Jerusalem in Acts and in every council since.

Well infallible is your word. Inerrant is mine ,and not in totality( do not think Nicea was inerrant in declaring use of civil authorities to enforce decrees).

When you reject the role of the Patriarch of Rome, you must also reject the role of the other Patriarchies, so I think you have undermined your own argument

No I mentioned the patriarch of Rome, as well as the others.

Post #145-“Do understand that “patriarchs” developed also, including Rome’s seat as one of them”.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Actually I think it does to an extent. It was important to preserve that record because it represented the primacy, and for all they knew, the only record.

Iraneus list three cities as an example ,and only hints at any primacy.It is not explicit.

I guess you are saying that what Jesus gave to Peter had no lasting value, and was no longer needed after Pentecost?

You are guessing wrong

It seems to remind me of that “priesthood of all believers” thing, where some are unable to accept that anyone has a special or particular role that others do not.

Again either /or. All or nothing. Your strawman, that I could easily beat also…

I think this happened very quickly, which is why Paul appointed Bishops, and had them appoint presbyters. This is the structure through which Jesus intended the Church to grow and function.

Patristic fathers agree that Paul used presbyter/bishop interchangeably.

There is is not a contradiction between the two, as we see the model in the book of Acts. Having one individual in a position of authority in now way negates the authority of the other Apostles, or in the present day, bishops

Nor does it contradict “first amongst equals”.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Well…you would only believe what you said here, after the 12 were gone…if the building of the Church was complete.

Do you believe the building of the Church was complete after John had passed away?

Hi p,

Nope, just the foundation. WE are now the current “living stones” being laid down , as they once were (As Peter’s Writ tell us).

And yes we all still need strengthening today. in all its facets (some with a pope, others without).

Aside from interpretive tradition…there is the written tradition…such as by Ireneus

Iraneus was slightly in error declaring Peter and Paul as founders of the Roman Church.,

and St. Optatus…here:calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments Like this the least of all. As if Pentecost did not change the bickering apostles.

So was Jerome and Tertullian wrong in asserting Clement to be first ?

Or…do you still deny that there was a line of bishops from Peter?

No. There was a line of Bishops from all the apostles. It is interpretive history that says that once Peter ordained presbyters , that he later further ordained a "pope/successor, and in what order they should follow (Peter may have known the first three succeeding “popes”).

The denial of Peter’s role and the bishop of Rome started not from the beginning…it started around the year 1000.

I think Cyprian proves otherwise, or at best both ways!

Okay…tell us then…what did Jesus institute? Why do you think, or what is your basis, to say that what you believe is correct and what the Catholic Church claims is wrong?

I think "first amongst equals’’ says it all.

Thereafter came the presbytery form of governance. After that a patriarchal system (Rome included). That would be a very general answer.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

Yes, in unity with Peter (and each other) but not “under”, or institutionally. It was 'representational" unity. …But to see it as more is the “debate”.

I think you are suggesting that Jesus constructed a Church that was “democratic” rather than a monarchy that is hierarchical. Certainly the Bishops do represent Christ. This does not mean the system is “democratic”.

16Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”Luke 10:16

How is this “representational” unity?

I suppose it goes vice versa, the Bishops caring for the pope’s spiritual well being , and for that matter the congregations for their presbyter, and parishes for their bishop, etc… Lastly a multi patriarchal system served the same purpose.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that unity exists in a “multi patriarchal system”? What does that look like?

Just that some say it was Cletus and Linus and other say Clement was also ordained by Peter. So it seems Peter ordained all 3 ? . . Not sure . iraneus had some “errors” as did Tertullian and Jerome(saying Peter ordained Clement, no mention of Linus).

Oh I see what you mean. Yes, certainly there were a number of bishops ordained. Even today, the Pope does not select his own successor, but the successor is chosen by the college of cardinals.

And most feel Peter and Paul did not "found' the church at Rome . Certainly Paul in Writ say he did not

Yes, clearly the Church in Rome existed as a body of believers before they had a visit from an Apostle. In the end, Peter and Paul labored together to build the foundation of the Church by grounding her in solid doctrine. This is why Rome became a compass for the faith.

.Do not follow. I thought most non-papists* * agree to that epitaph.

I don’t know about most non-papists, but you certainly seem to be one, yet you are asserting that Peters role died with him, so I don’t know how you can consider him first among equals.

Yes, all the apostles. I was speaking of early bishops of Rome not seeing themselves as Peter’s successors of “papal” office.

Not all of the ordained would, certanly, only those who were chosen for that role. Just as anyone in the college of cardinals could become a pope, but most of them don’t.

Which is why most scholars, including Catholic , see Iraneus to be inaccurate saying Peter and Paul "founded’’ the church in Rome. This is a dubious statement , for many reasons.

It is not a “dubious statement”. It does not mean “founded” in the sense that others were, planted by Apostles. It formed without an Apostle. The apostolic foundation came later, when Peter and Paul came there and formed the disciples in the faith.

The scholars don’t dispute that they were both there, teaching, and both died there.

Bishops from all over the empire were executed. Rome thought themselves to be the head of the empire, and all example begins there. Certainly later in persecutions the Roman church may have been the largest.

I am not sure how later persecutions nullify that the successors of Peter in Rome had a short tenure, especially in the beginning.

I do not deny Peter’s role in early church. We have been discussing rock/faith primarily, so we have not really discussed all his actions as recorded in Acts.

Actually, you have disputed it. But I understand you are primarily denying that his duties were to be passed on , to continue to benefit the Church.

Jesus established some temporal esteem for Peter, I guess, without intending his ministry to continue to benefit the Church.

Ikes, you be way out there in left field, at least in this discussion.

Luther coined this conception at the Reformation, and it has survived into the Evangelical communites to this day. One must deny that Jesus intended Peter’s role to continue to have support for this concept.

I have stated that as Rome developed and asserted it's authority over other churches, so to did opposing arguments/sentiments.

Yes. They became distinguished as heretics because of the foundation that Peter and Paul had founded in Rome.

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. who exist everywhere". Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3

What is an “unauthorized meeting”?

What “tradition derived from the Apostles” could this be?

What “organization” did Peter and Paul establish in Rome?

 

[guanophore]

Agree..

Well, as presbytery or episcopate ?

That would depend upon what kind of “organization” was established by Peter and Paul in Rome, would it not?

 Well infallible is your word. Inerrant is mine

In fallibilitiy applies to acts done by persons. Inerrant are the products of infallible acts.

No I mentioned the patriarch of Rome, as well as the others.

Post #145-“Do understand that “patriarchs” developed also, including Rome’s seat as one of them”.

Blessings

But if their roles were not to continue after the Apostles, what difference does it make that they exist?

Iraneus list three cities as an example ,and only hints at any primacy.It is not explicit.

I don’t see how such a statement can be justified in the light of what Irenaeus has written in Chapter 3, quoted above. It seems to me he is quite explicit about Rome.

You are guessing wrongAgain either /or. All or nothing. Your strawman, that I could easily beat also..

So when did the gifts Jesus gave to Peter fade into uselessness? You said he only needed them up until Pentecost?

Patristic fathers agree that Paul used presbyter/bishop interchangeably.

If this were true, then why did he appoint Timothy and Titus as bishops, then charge them to ordain presbyters?

Certainly presbyters serve to extend the presence of the Bishop, and are under his authority. That does not make the roles the same.

For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ Ignatius Epistle to the Trallians

Wherefore it is fitting that you should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also you do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Ignatius Epistl to the Ephesians

This image of strings attached to the harp is very descriptive and poetic. Most of all, in all the writings of the early fathers, unity with the Bishop was always the key.