Wherefore my sentence is the Apostles were brethren in unity and obedience to Messiah. He gave them the power of binding and loosing. To Simon Peter He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and He promised to build His prevailing church on Peter. He called Peter to feed his sheep as the Apostle who loved Him the most, by being the chief servant of the brethren. This is not at all like the model of the Gentiles, which could easily lead to a misunderstanding with respect to what occurred at the Council at Jerusalem.
BTW, there's actually better evidence that Claudia and Pudens, mentioned right alongside Linus, were a couple of early Brits who took the Gospel from Paul back to the British Isles. There's even a theory of Baptist successionism that says these two were the founders of British Christianity independent of Rome, leading some Baptist groups to claim they've never been part of Rome and therefore never were Protestants. Now, I'm not saying that's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. But if I did take such a position, how would you attack it? Wouldn't you challenge me to show proof, hard evidence, drawn from primary sources of the period, that my claims were true? Of course you would.
I would you were hot or cold, and if not, give Catholics the same benefit of the doubt.
Saying "He gave them the power of binding and loosing. To Simon Peter He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven" is a redundancy. The keys are defined as the power of binding and loosing, which is what keys do, so it make sense. But then it also means the keys are not unique to Peter, since, as you concede, all apostles were given that gift of binding and loosing.
As for who loved Him the most, the text does not say it was Peter. That is imagination, not fact. There is no need to imagine in Peter some exalted quality of person befitting the exalted role which Rome posthumously assigned him. When Peter was being restored by Jesus, he was asked to declare his love for Jesus three times, which corresponded to the three denials. Peter's love failed when tested against his instinct for survival, though John remained faithful. Jesus had to heal him of that very damaging experience. But that in no way demonstrates in Peter a love greater than that found in John or any other particular disciple. They all loved Jesus, and history would show they were all, including Peter, willing at the end to love Him unto death. But no. The Petrine office is a fiction, and well suited to justify Rome's coalescing around the monarchical episcopate centuries later. It has no basis, either in Scripture, or in the first few centuries of the life of the Ecclesia.
SR: BTW, there's actually better evidence that Claudia and Pudens, mentioned right alongside Linus, were a couple of early Brits who took the Gospel from Paul back to the British Isles. There's even a theory of Baptist successionism that says these two were the founders of British Christianity independent of Rome, leading some Baptist groups to claim they've never been part of Rome and therefore never were Protestants. Now, I'm not saying that's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. But if I did take such a position, how would you attack it? Wouldn't you challenge me to show proof, hard evidence, drawn from primary sources of the period, that my claims were true? Of course you would.
AF: I would you were hot or cold, and if not, give Catholics the same benefit of the doubt.
Well, in the post in question, I'm not trying to resolve whether Baptist successionism is any better than Catholic successionism. I think they both have severe problems. My point was only that if a Baptist sauntered in with a list of names claiming apostolic succession, no one, not even I, as a Baptist, would consider that much of an argument. It's right to demand hard, historical evidence of such a claim. That's why the Lampe study and others like it are so important. If succession happened the way Rome has proposed it to have happened, there should be a signature in real data. There isn't. That's a problem.
Peace,
SR
DOUBT that any FR Catholics have an answer as to WHY seven of their early churches were SO much in error?
The angel warned them through the revelation to John; but would they LISTEN???
Evidently not!
Todays Catholics are just as head headed.