But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22:32)
and here St. Peter promises us that his office be handed down in perpetuity 13 But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. 14 Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. 15 And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. (2 Peter 1)
This is an example of the huge leap in exegesis of these texts that is demanded to support the notion that they have anything whatever to to do with either the Papacy or exclusively the Roman Church. There is absolutely nothing in these texts themselves, either in what is said to Peter or what he says, in context, or as interpreted by any of the early church, that connects in any meaningful way what is said as applying exclusively to the bishop of Rome alone as the sole, unique successor of Peter, or that in any way does not apply to the entire bishopric of the Church. There is not a shred of evidence that they were historically viewed as supportive of an office of a Papacy.
Now, the only model of perpetuating the office is by tying it to a geographical location and establishimg a method of succession. There is never a suggestion anywhere that Rome should have several bishops.
The exact opposite is true; there is never anywhere a suggestion in Scripture or the early church that Rome or any other church should have only one bishop.
It is also a strawman that the governance of the Church is "papal supremacy". The papal infallibility only works in union with the college of bishops.
Tell that to the enraged Pius IX who shouted at Cardinal Guidi, who had emphatically stated that the pope was not infallible in and of himself, independently of the Church, but only insofar as he reflected the views of the bishops and the tradition of the Church, "I am Tradition!"
Cordially,
Luke 22:32 and 2 Peter 1, in addition, of course, to the oft-quoted promise of the Keys and the authority to bind and loose given exclusively to Peter, and the charge to guide and feed the sheep, as well exclusive to Peter, show that the Church, while a collegial institution of the apostles, is to be lead by Peter alone; that Christ wil protect Peter from error and empower his mission; that Peter his himself as responsible to the Lord's tablernacle in a unique way; and that Peter intends (and therefore, given the support of Christ, succeeds) to personally perpetuate this institution.
It of course does not mention Rome or papacy literally. The scripture is generally silent on events following St. Paul's arrival in Rome; for the early history of the papacy we have to rely on patristic and historical sources, which I referred to in abundance in my post 175.
never anywhere a suggestion in Scripture or the early church that Rome or any other church should have only one bishop
Maybe not in the scripture, -- again, the practical arrangements of the early Church are largely outside of the scope of the canonical scripture, but surely the notion of a bishop being a bishop of a specific locale is there as soon as the office of bishop is spoken about. Ever read about a bishop at large or a "bishop of Topeka #2"? If the area becomes too large, naturaly the bishopric is split, but at all times for every point in geographical space there is only one bishop responsible for ordinations and other pastoral duties. If a Christian studying for consecrated life had a choice of several bishops to get ordained by, that would be an organizational schism contrary to the mentality of the early church, and of course, to the scripture that preached singleness of the church.
enraged Pius IX who shouted at Cardinal Guidi
No kidding. Italians shout? Tsk tsk.