>> It’s not simply a matter of “non-Catholics” interpreting scripture “differently”, but is also a matter that the entire church did so in earliest centuries. <<
So you (falsely) claim. Tertullian (208 AD): “For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him, if he has been questioned and made confession [of faith].”
Cyprian (248 AD): “He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?”
Irenaeus (178 AD): “By pointing out the apostolic tradition and faith announced to mankind, which has been brought down to our time by successions of bishops, in the greatest, most ancient, and well known church, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome, we can confound all who in any other way… gather more than they ought.”
Now, Ignatius (115 AD) appealed to the authority of bishops as apostolic successors: “void divisions, as the beginning of evil. Follow, all of you, the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the father; and follow the presbytery as the apostles. Let no man do aught pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church” What’s very surprising is that even though he is bishop at Antioch, he also looks to the chair of Peter to claim authority, when there are squabbles among bishops.
And of course, there is the biblical precedent that the apostles do not address questions directly to Jesus, but ask Peter to ask for them.
Many Protestants object saying Paul told Peter he was wrong. But that precisely proves the point! Paul saw Peter allowing people to violate to the doctrine that PETER established! Does Paul correct them? No, he gets PETER to correct PAUL’S own flock!
No sir, rather it is Romanists such as yourself who are "false" when quoting such snippets from ECF's as you have brought here, reading into those that Peter's successors be only single-file in order as "bishop of Rome" with all others needing be forever organized under that sole bishopric -- for as I made mention of, that sort or organizational hierarchy, --- was not evident from the beginning of the church, as history clearly enough shows, if one would but take the Romish-rose colored glasses off long enough to see it (when studying history of the church).
But do us a favor. When citing ECF's include showing what document you are quoting from, would you? Like -- with a "clickable" link also, as one of your own number has often times demanded that all Protestants do, so those may be examined in wider context from which they are derived... among other considerations.
As for anyone saying that the church of Rome was founded personally by Peter --- that's sort-of nonsense when one considers that Paul journeyed to Rome at least once, and possibly TWICE (and once--beyond?) before Peter himself ever set foot in that city.
In most all accounts (and as scripture also indicates) Peter is said to have founded the church at Antioch (or at least have been present there) long before his own going on to Rome, such as is accepted by most historians.
The insurmountable problem which Papists have, is that the facts of history as can be seen in the earliest writings taken in aggregate, along with scripture itself also --- shows there was a sense of order not reliant upon singular "succession" to "Petrine" office, but that those gifts and calling of God were rather instead shared liberally among the faithful (and thus bishops, wherever those may be found) --- with the original sense of Peter's own "primacy" as it in later centuries came to be regarded or referred to, be in the very earliest beginnings of the Church, much more as example for Christians to learn from, and each believer personally follow (as to faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah) rather than some bestowal of unchallengeable administrative power of authority which all must submit themselves towards --- to be seen later (after Peter's own death) as being singularly and only found in bishopric of Rome, for that sense did not come to the fore for many long centuries, regardless of the cherry-picking of a handful of citations (such as you bring here now) while ignoring all which can otherwise be found in history which would refute this singular inherited 'primacy' idea -- which according to the rest of present day RC theology (that theology itself having "developed over span of many centuries) equals also by default there being a "Supremacy" for the bishop of Rome.
History refutes that latter Supremacy nonsense, as does sense of scripture also (if not viewed through Romish pre-supposition).
As what you bring from Tertullian (a valuable witness in this regards, as to what the "sense" of the church was in his own very early-on time in the history of the church) unless there be interpretation of his use of the word "everyone" be not literally everyone, but instead only those "everyone's" which later on become bishop of Rome, is primary witness against the later developing idea of singular papacy be inherited only by those who do become bishop of Rome.
Other Apostles...not addressing questions to Christ directly you say?
Balderdash.
Shall I now need go fetch examples for the contrary? How about doubting Thomas? Or those who questioned Him as who would be greater in the Kingdom of Heaven.... The list of those sort of interactions can go on, while at the same time, many of the responses of Christ to Peter --- can be seen in the texts as being addressed to the many (as the early church most certainly did most often interpret the NT) and most usually not given to Peter alone, as in being meant for Peter alone, but more sensibly also, to be commentary/instruction/teaching and answer being provided for all as to issues and aspects of God, and His truth.
Otherwise...should all now be required to listen to such as the Sermon on the Mount only from a [Roman] Catholic priest? We don't see there, or pretty much anywhere else Christ saying to Peter, "hey Petros 'ol pal, now that I have spoken -- would you interpret and explain what I just said directly to the multitudes?".
What can be seen later of course, is Peter standing up and explaining things to the Jews of his time, after the Assumption of the Risen Christ.
Many are called to that same mission...as was Paul.
How about instead of myself going and digging out scriptures where other Apostles do directly interact with the Christ, you go play fetch and bring to us here multiple instances of the other Apostles shrinking back, and in actuality pushing Peter forward while saying at the same time to Peter "you ask for us", instead of there being instances of Peter's own boldness of stepping forward (on his own 'get-go', as it were) rather than being "asked".
Even the one quote in Matthew 16, wherein "keys" were first mentioned by Christ as being given over to Peter, was itself spoken of again in Matthew chapter 18 with Christ there addressing all those whom were there assembled -- which leaves it reasonable enough for us to assume was much the reason why this later so-called 'primacy' of Peter, was understood in the early church to be a thing accessible to all through faith, with Peter (god bless him) frequently serving as example to the rest, and even to us still, to this very day.