Thank you.
St. Paul is surely a great leader of the Church, the author of many epistles, first to formulate several important theological concepts; apart from the issue of papacy, it is natural that St. Paul, as well as St. John and St. James, are mentioned with highest honorifics any time St. Peter is mentioned. We need to see if the context refers to a specific authority of last instance reserved to St. Peter and the Pope, -- not to theological prowess or sanctity. In the first quote, clearly we do not deal with temporal authority on earth at all. In the second a concrete episode is described as two men, Peter and Paul arrive to set straight a controversy. It is their role in the specific controversy that is described as sharing in authority, not their role in the church worldwide; in fact, St. Peter's role as the keeper of the Keys is confirmed in the same quote. The third quote does not deal with Apostle Paul in relation to the rest fo the church, but rather to the propriety of his rank as an Apostle, given that he was not among the original Twelve and had to receive that status from John, Peter, and James, -- the "pillars". If anything, that quote would strengthen the case that Peter, James and John in collegium, if not Peter alone, executed something resembling a papal privilege.
Firmilian disputes a specific decision by a specific Pope, and he does so, interestingly, by disputing the validity of Pope Stephen's succession to the throne of Peter. He is not calling into question the institution of papacy at all. As you know, in the 14 century we had three men claiming to be popes. We have some claiming to be popes today, and some dispute that anyone after Vatican II has been pope. Firmilian's rhetoric is an early example of a sedevacantist argument. The very fact that the argument is made points to the reality of the institution of papacy, today, and in the 3rd century.
...Firmilian's rhetoric is an early example of a sedevacantist argument. The very fact that the argument is made points to the reality of the institution of papacy, today, and in the 3rd century.
It seems to me that this is to assume the very thing in question; namely, was there any such thing as a bishop of bishops in the early church? What else can explain an interpretation of what was (to my knowledge) the very first recorded instance of a heretofore unheard-of demand by a Roman bishop that bishops of other Sees submit to his decrees, a claim that is excoriated to the point of ridicule, repudiated by the Eastern church, 86 bishops of the African churches, and the churches in Asia Minor as sedevacantist evidence of a papacy?
...he does so, interestingly, by disputing the validity of Pope Stephen's succession to the throne of Peter. He is not calling into question the institution of papacy at all.
Again, this is to assume the very thing in question, that is, that one particular bishop holds a position of authority over other bishops as head of the universal Church. Firmillian does not dispute Stephen's "succession to the throne of Peter" at all, because as the bishop of Rome he had that jurisdiction. However, since all Sees were viewed as possessing the throne of Peter, it is clear that he was repudiating Stephen's demand of obedience from his fellow bishops.
Cyprian, in a clear reference to Stephen, says in his opening remarks at The Seventh Council of Carthage,
...It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, 3 nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. 4 But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm
Cordially,