Pope Explains What Will Be the Primacy of Rome in Universal Church

It’s silly to restrict yourself to second-hand accounts, when you can read the very words of the men who actually lived in that time.

Absurd, as it seems you mean that it’s silly to restrict yourself to first -hand wholly God-inspired accounts as the definitive source, when you can read the uninspired words of the men who actually lived past that time as the

But let’s stay on topic. If the Bishop of Rome was not widely regarded as having some kind of wider authority than just local, then explain 1st Clement. Explain the Quartodeciman controversy. Explain Irenaeus.

But let’s stay on topic. If the Bishop of Rome was widely regarded as having some kind of wider authority than just local then why do we not even see mention of a Bishop of Rome in the only wholly God-inspired record of the NT church? 34 persons named in Rm. 16, yet Peter is not to be mentioned because of fear of persecution, while exposing the rest is OK?

But as for some kind of wider authority than just local, why are you arguing against a position I nowhere stated, and despite what I linked to?

The Pauline Epistles and Acts were written while Peter was still alive. So why would they mention Peter’s successors?

After Peter died is when the Bishopric of Rome becomes relevant as a stand-alone institution. That is why we need to rely on the histories you dismissively characterize as “uninspired.”

The Pauline Epistles and Acts were written while Peter was still alive. So why would they mention Peter’s successors?

My argument was that there is neither any "mention or intimation of preparation to choose a successor for Peter by electing a elder as a apostolic successor, much less conveying total supreme papal." "Nowhere does it mention any apostolic successor for any apostle (even though the apostle James who was martyred: Acts 12:1,2) except for Matthias being chosen for the apostate Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (Acts 1:15-26; :cf. Rv. 21:14), which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33) which Rome has never used to select popes. What Scripture does teach is that of presbyterous (see #8) being ordained to oversee the flock of God. (Acts 20:28) authority."

Meaning that it remains that you simply have no evidence in Scripture of the NT church "looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes in Rome."

After Peter died is when the Bishopric of Rome becomes relevant as a stand-alone institution. That is why we need to rely on the histories you dismissively characterize as “uninspired.”

Absurd. What you are arguing is that since the only wholly God-inspired record of what the NT church believed simply does not example or teach the Bishopric of Rome being relevant as a stand-alone institution as per Rome then certain uninspired (they are) writings must selectively be interpreted as teaching what Scripture does not.

And which reliance also means contending against many Catholic scholars on such.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.