Peter's successors?

[Fredricks]

Did the early Christian church think that Peter had a successor who was in charge of the whole church? Did they think the Bishop of Rome specifically was that person?

In none of these quotes, will you see any of the Bishops of Rome referred to, or thought of, as head of the “Church”.
Early Christians traced Rome back to PAUL AND PETER.

Clement of Alexandria in Outlines Book VI(quote by Eusebius)

Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-emincence because the Saviour had specially honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.

Not too much to say about that

Eusebius
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus.

You will see the Peter and Paul theme quite a bit.

Eusebius
Clement had left us one recognized epistle, long and wonderful, which he composed in the name of the church in Rome and sent to the church at Corinth

Nothing about his role as leader of the universal church

Eusebius
At that time Clement was still head of the Roman community, occupying in the same way the third place among the bishops who followed Paul and Peter.

Peter and Paul again. No mention of Peter specifically having a successor to lead the universal church

Eusebius
Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter.

The one person who DO KNOW that succeeded only Peter

Eusebius
. Obvious instances are Ignatius, in the epistles already listed, and Clement in the one universally recognized, which he indited in the name of the church at Rome.

Clement was writing on behalf of Rome, not the universal church.

Eusebius
Alexander took up the bishopric as fifth successor to Peter and Paul

Peter and Paul again

Eusebius
Xystus, Bishop of Rome for a decade, was succeeded by the seventh from the apostles

Apostles, being once again, PETER AND PAUL

Dionysius writing to “Pope” Soter
Referring to the letter Clement wrote to Corinth

“Which we will read for its valuable advice”

Advice, not a directive.

Irenaues
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. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere

This is particularly important. Notice that Irenaues said that Rome has authority, undoubtedly a controversial view but he certainly felt that way as did others at that time, but look at the reason why. Not because Peter had a specific successor but their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible). Notice also Peter and Paul again.

 

[Fredricks]

Some commonly used proofs

1st Clement

Catholics will often use this letter as evidence of the papacy. This reasoning will follow something like this:

This proves Roman primacy because Corinth asked for advice.
First of all, no one is arguing that Clement or the church in Rome was not vitally important. Yet Catholics will see authority in this letter but not others.

The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness.
Inasmuch as I have not been able to write to all the Churches, because I must suddenly sail from Troas to Neapolis, as the will57 [of the emperor] enjoins, * thou, as being acquainted with the purpose58 of God, wilt write to the adjacent Churches, that they also may act in like manner, such as are able to do so sending messengers,59 and the others transmitting letters through those persons who are sent by thee, that thou60 mayest be glorified by a work61 which shall be remembered for ever, as indeed thou art worthy to be.

This proves Roman primacy because Corinth did not ask the Apostle John for help.

1. If a Catholic apologist wants to use this argument, they must first prove that anytime a church had serious difficulty after the death of the last Apostle prior to John, they consulted John and understood his role in that manner.
2. Next they must prove when Clement wrote this letter. I have seen dates from 80 CE to 110 CE.
3. Next they must look at what we know about John:

He was exiled to Patmos for an undetermined amount of time between 81-96.

“With Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle’s banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96).”

"He died sometime during the reign of Trajan.
Emperor of Rome (A.D. 98-117), b. at Italica Spain, 18 September, 53; d. 7 August, 117.’
Unless they can prove when the letter was written exactly and when John died, they cannot use this

This proves Roman primacy because of the “perceived” authoritative nature of the letter.

Clement does speak with force. There are plenty of letters with just as much force which are not from Bishops of Rome but are not used as examples of their primacy.
Clement never once asserts the primacy of his office. He has ample opportunity, but does not.

Pope Victor’s attempted ex-communication of some Eastern bishops

Eusebius
Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighbouring churches, on the grounds of hertrodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Chritians there. But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians from whom he was responsible in Gaul.

Polycrates to Victor
So I, my friends, after spending sixty-five years in the Lord’s service and conversing with Christians from all parts of the world, and going carefully through all Holy Scriptures(gotta love that), am not scared of threats, Better people than I have said: ‘We must obey God rather than man.’

I see on another thread, the rather common attempt to assign earlier dating to certain evidences. Shepherd of Hermes with an 80 CE date. Care to prove that one as well?

Sorry to rush this out but some people are using historical quotes out of context. NONE of those support the contention that Peter had a specific successor as head of the “ENTIRE CHURCH”. Only Rome, and by all accounts, is traceable to PETER AND PAUL.
Where is the proof from the first two years of Christianity that Peter’s had a successor as the head of the church?

Catholics must prove that the Bishop of Rome is his successor. The Bible does not mention a successor for Peter and early Christian history does not support the contentions of Catholicism.
Sorry to rush this out*

 

[Eden]

You want us to prove that Peter had successors?

Irenaeus

The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

The Little Labyrinth

Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it” [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [cf. John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, first edition [A.D. 251]).

Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church (Letters 55[52]: 8 [A.D. 253]).

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [cf. 2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the second epistle to Timothy [cf. 2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the Church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the Church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [cf. Phil. 4:3] (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504frs.asp

 

[RyanL]

What would you prefer, Biblical evidence or historical evidence, to support the Primacy of Peter?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Fredricks:

Some commonly used proofs

You should also read the passages between those you posted from Eusebius. Don’t skip around so much while reading and you will get a better picture.

 

[Eden]

"There are a few mentions of miters among early Church writers. Tertullian, writing about 220 in his De corona, refers to crowned apostles, evangelists, and bishops. The apostles James and John were said to have worn a headdress like that of the high priests of the Old Testament.

Eusebius, in his History of the Church (III, 31), speaks about the apostle John and says “Again there is John, who leant back on the Lord’s breast, and who became a priest wearing the miter.” James appears to have worn a priest’s miter, according to Epiphanius and Hegesippus."

Speaking of Eusebius, according to him an **apostle **wore a mitre!

Just an interesting fact while we wait for Fredericks to show us how Eusebius was Protestant.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203cust.asp

 

[jim1130]

RyanL:

What would you prefer, Biblical evidence or historical evidence, to support the Primacy of Peter?

God Bless,
RyanL

Peace.

I would suspect the Biblical evidence will be wanted because that is what the SS advocates: No tin Scripture? then does not exist.

this means the following will be dismissed:

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

Peace.

 

[jim1130]

RyanL:

What would you prefer, Biblical evidence or historical evidence, to support the Primacy of Peter?

God Bless,
RyanL

Peace.

If biblical proof is required, then compare and contrast Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16.

1. First of all it means that Jesus is the new “King”—the new Hessakiah.
2. Secondly it means that Peter, as holder of the keys, is the new “prime minister”—the new Eliakim.
3. Thirdly it demonstrates that Peter, as prime minister, may now exercise the executive power contained in the “keys of the kingdom”.
4. Fourthly we see that Peters’ position as prime minister is summarized by Eliakims’ role as “a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah”. Peter will be a father-figure to Christ’s Church—His earthly family.

Isaiah 22:17-25 was well known to the Jews of Jesus’ day. As explained by Steve Ray, this prophecy was famous precisely because it deals with the religious authority structure that presided over the Jewish nation:

“Not a Jew alive, at least no one who had been to the synagogue for the reading of the law and the Prophets, would have missed the implication of Jesus’ utterance. Jesus’ statement did not recall this passage in Isaiah without reason—Jesus always had profound reasons for saying what he said and for using the Old Testament passages he selected. He targeted this eight-hundred-year-old prophecy because of the governmental office that Isaiah was addressing and the parallel context Jesus was addressing. Both involved kingdoms; both involved delegated authority; both involved the appointment of royal stewards. Both situations had to do with royal appointments, and both would have decisive impacts on the respective kingdoms.” (Ray, Steve. Upon This Rock, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p.273).

Peace.

 

[Fredricks]

RyanL:

What would you prefer, Biblical evidence or historical evidence, to support the Primacy of Peter?

God Bless,
RyanL

This is not about the primacy of Peter, please reread my post.

 

[Fredricks]

Br. Rich SFO:

You should also read the passages between those you posted from Eusebius. Don’t skip around so much while reading and you will get a better picture.

Could you please direct me to some passages I have missed. The book is right here and I would love to discuss it.

 

[Fredricks]

jim1130:

Peace.

If biblical proof is required, then compare and contrast Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16.

1. First of all it means that Jesus is the new “King”—the new Hessakiah.
2. Secondly it means that Peter, as holder of the keys, is the new “prime minister”—the new Eliakim.
3. Thirdly it demonstrates that Peter, as prime minister, may now exercise the executive power contained in the “keys of the kingdom”.
4. Fourthly we see that Peters’ position as prime minister is summarized by Eliakims’ role as “a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah”. Peter will be a father-figure to Christ’s Church—His earthly family.

Isaiah 22:17-25 was well known to the Jews of Jesus’ day. As explained by Steve Ray, this prophecy was famous precisely because it deals with the religious authority structure that presided over the Jewish nation:

“Not a Jew alive, at least no one who had been to the synagogue for the reading of the law and the Prophets, would have missed the implication of Jesus’ utterance. Jesus’ statement did not recall this passage in Isaiah without reason—Jesus always had profound reasons for saying what he said and for using the Old Testament passages he selected. He targeted this eight-hundred-year-old prophecy because of the governmental office that Isaiah was addressing and the parallel context Jesus was addressing. Both involved kingdoms; both involved delegated authority; both involved the appointment of royal stewards. Both situations had to do with royal appointments, and both would have decisive impacts on the respective kingdoms.” (Ray, Steve. Upon This Rock, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p.273).

Peace.

So that is your case? What happened to the keys in Isaiah by the way?

 

[Fredricks]

jim1130:

Peace.

I would suspect the Biblical evidence will be wanted because that is what the SS advocates: No tin Scripture? then does not exist.

this means the following will be dismissed:

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

Peace.

This says that Peter and Paul handed the job of Bishop of Rome to Linus. No one is disputing that. Where does this say that Peter handed to someone control of the church. It says that PETER AND PAUL were in charge of Rome

 

[Fredricks]

Eden

Cyprian of Carthage

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it” [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [cf. John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, first edition [A.D. 251]).

Controversial to say the least:

newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm
The original passage, as found in most manuscripts and as printed in Hartel’s edition, runs thus:

If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. ‘The Lord saith to Peter: ‘I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.’ Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained’, yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?
The substituted passage is as follows:
. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, ‘feed My sheep’. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?

 

[Milliardo]

Fredricks:

Controversial to say the least:

newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm
The original passage, as found in most manuscripts and as printed in Hartel’s edition, runs thus:

If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. ‘The Lord saith to Peter: ‘I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.’ Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained’, yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?
The substituted passage is as follows:
. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, ‘feed My sheep’. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?

Both versions are printed in *A Treasury of Cathlic Wisdom * by Fr. Hardon, S.J. I compared both versions. Though the shorter one is more direct in addressing the bishop of Rome’s primacy, the longer one does not in any way refute it; indeed, if we go by the longer version, you will note thus: It is on one man that He builds the Church. And furher on Cyprian asserts: yet, in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, He established by His own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone. And even further on: No doubt the the other Apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him [Peter] alone, to show that the Church of Christ is unique. In your hurry to refute the Pope’s primacy, you neglected to highlight those words from Cyprian’s treatise.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Fredricks:

Controversial to say the least:

newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

From your link:

These alternative versions are given one after the other in the chief family of manuscripts which contains them, while in some other families the two have been partially or wholly combined into one. The combined version is the one which has been printed in man editions, and has played a large part in controversy with Protestants. It is of course spurious in this conflated form, but the alternative form given above is not only found in eighth- and ninth-century manuscripts, but it is quoted by Bede, by Gregory the Great (in a letter written for his predecessor Pelagius II), and by St. Gelasius; indeed, it was almost certainly known to St. Jerome and St. Optatus in the fourth century. The evidence of the manuscripts would indicate an equally early date. Every expression and thought in the passage can be paralleled from St. Cyprian’s habitual language, and it seems to be now generally admitted that this alternative passage is an alteration made by the author himself when forwarding his work to the Roman confessors. The “one chair” is always in Cyprian the episcopal chair, and Cyprian has been careful to emphasize this point, and to add a reference to the other great Petrine text, the Charge in John, xxi. The assertion of the equality of the Apostles as Apostles remains, and the omissions are only for the sake of brevity. The old contention that it is a Roman forgery is at all events quite out of the question. Another passage is also altered in all the same manuscripts which contain the “interpolation”; it is a paragraph in which the humble and pious conduct of the lapsed "on this hand (hic) is contrasted in a long succession of parallels with the pride and wickedness of the schismatics “on that hand” (illic), but in the delicate manner of the treatise the latter are only referred to in a general way. In the “interpolated” manuscripts we find that the lapsed, whose caused had now been settled by the council, are “on that hand” (illic), whereas the reference to the schismatics – meaning the Roman confessors who were supporting Novatian, and to whom the book was being sent – are made as pointed as possible, being brought into the foreground by the repeated hic, “on this hand”.

 

[Thal59]

Fredricks,

You keep saying Peter and Paul. But where was Paul when Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock? Where was Paul when Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter? Where was Paul when Jesus gave the traditional Judaic “Binding and loosing” authority to Peter? Where was Paul when the risen Lord comissioned Peter to “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs, feed my sheep.”(?)

Thal59

 

[Fredricks]

I do believe by 250 CE that people held this view in some corners. I sure do. Obviously at sometime, this view developed. I contend it is a later developing view and 200 to 250 CE would be about it.
I do not want to get too hung up on Cyprian, my understanding is that it was pretty controversial. If I have not grasped that situatin fully, I accept any correction. Anything from 50 CE to 200 CE that said that Peter had a spefic successor that was in charge of the whole church?

 

[Batjacboy]

Thal59:

Fredricks,

You keep saying Peter and Paul. But where was Paul when Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock? Where was Paul when Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter? Where was Paul when Jesus gave the traditional Judaic “Binding and loosing” authority to Peter? Where was Paul when the risen Lord comissioned Peter to “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs, feed my sheep.”(?)

Thal59

Thal is quite right.

And Eusebius places Peter in Rome in 42 AD, way before Paul ever went there.

 

[Fredricks]

Thal59:

Fredricks,

You keep saying Peter and Paul.

No, the early Christian writers keep saying this.

But where was Paul when Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock?

I do not know

Where was Paul when Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter?

I dont know

Where was Paul when Jesus gave the traditional Judaic “Binding and loosing” authority to Peter?

I dont know

Where was Paul when the risen Lord comissioned Peter to “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs, feed my sheep.”(?)

I dont know.
Peter did feed his sheep. Amen. Peter did have, and the other Apostles, binding and loosing. Peter did have the key. But you see, what we are looking at is what the early church said about this. How did they interpret this? I will get to the Bible itself. I was dealing with one thing at a time.

Where is the early Christian history which supports that Peter had a successor that was in charge of the Christian church?

 

[Milliardo]

Fredricks:

Where is the early Christian history which supports that Peter had a successor that was in charge of the Christian church?

I think you answered it yourself in your earlier post:

Obviously at sometime, this view developed. I contend it is a later developing view and 200 to 250 CE would be about it.

Now, we will grant for the sake of discussion that it was a development. But a development from what? It couldn’t have come out of thin air. There must be a basis for this, or else Cyprian is simply talking empty rhetoric. So there must be something to what Cyprian said regarding it, since he clearly spelled it out, and by that time as you contend it was believed that Peter had successors. Again, that would not be believed without basis before it.