daniel212:
The testimony you cite are Catholic Historical critics, I am well aware of them all. The point of the question is when did it become clear of a single Bishop of Rome. The earliest evidence of it is 140AD. That does not mean there was no single Bishop in Rome prior, it just means the evidence is not there definitively. Again, the debate here does not negate the passage from Mt 16:16-18. In fact, the Keys is another significant part of the passage and is a fulfillment of Isiah 22:22. The fact that Christ is called Rock does not mean that Peter was also called Rock as in that sense, He is given a role among the Apostles that is unique as Apostleship is connected to the person of Christ as it means literally, one being sent from. Just as Abraham had his name changed, were both given Divine Missions, and like Peter, Abraham was also called a rock [Is 51:1-2]. The fact that Christ is indeed the Rock which the Apostles were connected to does not mean that Christ can also refer to Peter as rock as well. Saint Paul in Ephesians 2:20 gives what appears to be a tension or contradiction [in the protestant either/or world view] to a Catholic one that is comfortable with the both/and as he writes “members of the household of God built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which Christ Jesus as the capstone”. Christ is the Rock but his Apostles since they were sent by him, loved him, and faith in him, hoped in him, etc, were also used by Christ as “rocks” to build his Church on [in fact, all save Saint John, would give their blood, including Saint Peter] and among those Rocks, Peter has a chief place among the Apostles.
And as far as Mt 16:16-18, a much more comprehensive commentary on that passage is below.
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
Not in Scripture.
The earliest evidence of it is 140AD.
A debated Opinion.
Again, the debate here does not negate the passage from Mt 16:16-18. In fact, the Keys is another significant part of the passage and is a fulfillment of Isiah 22:22.
And where is Isiah 22:22 infallibly or "officially" interpreted as meaning that, since you want to avoid the interpretive problem. I can argue for that not teaching perpetuation and that Christ being the direct fulfillment is what best corresponds to the prophecy of Isaiah. For upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7)
However, Scripture is not your supreme authority, but it rendered a servant to support Rome.
. The fact that Christ is indeed the Rock which the Apostles were connected to does not mean that Christ can also refer to Peter as rock as well.
Nowhere does in the rest of the NT is Peter called the rock upon which the church is built. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
In any case, the Peter of Scripture stands in radical contrast to that of Rome with his supposed successors.
What were THEY 'interpreting'?
Houston; never mind, for we've FOUND the problem.