I have yet to see, other then the current RCC, made that claim. None of the Apostles writings and none of the very early church fathers show that.
>> Peter was given the authority that he held over the Church (as you see he is listed first), by Jesus Christ. This authority extends everywhere, not just Rome.<<
That’s nonsense. Jesus was talking about God the Father as the Rock.
>> Why would Hippolytus advance the lesser claim, but still proclaim that Peter was the first among the apostles, (and of the Church as a whole), by listing him first? Why did you fail to mention him at all in your citation?<<
How does listing someone first make them the head? It doesn’t. Besides, all the Apostles are listed in the 12, then in his list of Bishops the Apostles who were Bishops are mentioned again but no mention of Peter.
>> He was Bishop of Rome, secondly.<<
So you claim that Peter was Bishop of Rome when Paul wrote to the Romans?
>> If you want to prove that Paul was not first, then you have to cite a list of the Bishops of Rome that does not list him first.<<
I think you meant Peter.
I haven’t found a list the puts him as Bishop of Rome. I find some that claim he preached in Italy but none that even claim he preached in Rome. Paul would surely have mentioned him when writing to Rome and didn’t.
“I have yet to see, other then the current RCC, made that claim. None of the Apostles writings and none of the very early church fathers show that.”
Show me a list with the bishop of Rome with Linus first. Have at it.
“That’s nonsense. Jesus was talking about God the Father as the Rock.”
Then you can explain to me why Hippolytus put Apostle Peter first among the Apostles. Good luck.
“How does listing someone first make them the head?”
It’s an argument for primacy. Right there in the list. Peter comes first.
“Besides, all the Apostles are listed in the 12, then in his list of Bishops the Apostles who were Bishops are mentioned again but no mention of Peter.”
That’s because he’s listing Apostles first, and bishops second. From your dishonest citation, we would never have figured this out. Going back to the source shows us that he’s giving Peter primacy as the first among the Apostles. Which explains why he’s not on the bishop list, because he’s already listed as an apostle.
“So you claim that Peter was Bishop of Rome when Paul wrote to the Romans?”
I claim that Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Show me a list with Linus as first.
“Paul would surely have mentioned him when writing to Rome and didn’t.”
Zzz, argument from silence.
You haven’t looked too hard. Even the Orthodox regard the Pope as first and as the Successor of St. Peter, even though they don’t believe St. Peter’s prerogatives transferred to the Bishop of Rome.