Asking Trent Horn if there is evidence for the Papacy in the early church.

[michaelliao]

It's kind of interesting because I know that from the Eastern Orthodox position, they would say that Peter not only planted churches in Rome (and of course he died there) but also planted other churches in different areas where they also have their successors, so should they not have just as much equal claim as that of Rome? Rome wasn't the only Patriarchal City - There was Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Jerusalem was a significant one because that was the initial headquarters of the Church where James was considered the Patriarch there who made the final decision at a council on the issue of circumcision. I would probably posit a "First Among Equals" view than Rome as having absolute universal jurisdiction over the entire church.

Origen actually makes a pretty powerful case that when one makes the confession of faith "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God", you also become a Peter:

"And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, ’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter, ’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

*But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, ’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, ’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?*

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

I think it's something to consider when we're looking to see if Peter's Primacy automatically leads to the Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore lead to infallible declarations (ex cathedra of course) on morals, doctrine, and faith. History will definitely show that there are contradictions in the magisterial authority over time as these have been documented. Though the Roman Catholic Church can claim unity as an institution, the minute the Pope says something or the councils and papal bulls are being disputed amongst themselves, in practice there doesn't seem to be unity (Sedevacantists, SSPX, etc.) for a church that claims fullness of the truth through Apostolic Succession. In other words, they end up sounding like Protestants and that's where the irony lies. Perhaps I hold the phrase "ecclesia semper reformanda" (The Church is always reforming) because I'm not only in protest to call for reformation in the Church at large, but I'm also in protest against myself because I need to be sanctified and reformed.

[PatristicArcana]

Except that there's evidence against both sola scriptura and the primacy of Rome in the first two centuries. If the fact that Clement, a personal student of the Apostle Paul, wrote to the Corinthians is one's best evidence of Rome having ecclesiastical authority over other bishops, then this just underscores how weak and eisegetical one's take on church history is.