Dude! Watch the lights on that Volkswagen over there!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55e-uHQna0
“.....first sent their Divinely-inspired contributions to some Pope in Rome and then waited around to find out if they would be received or not? Where are you getting these strange ideas from?”
Pure idiocy. Words just don’t float in the air. There is something called the received oral tradition. This is why all Gospels are not identical. There are variations including the omissions of several scenes. Not all oral communications were written. John makes this abundantly clear in no uncertain terms that even superficial literalists- so called “Bible” Christians can understand:
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”(Douay-Rheims Bible)
Apparently even this clear as a bell language goes over the heads of Bible Christians.
Divine authority was needed to sort out which tracts to include and which to exclude and which oral traditions were best reflected in sacred liturgy and practice.
You cite fundamentalist links that even renowned Protestant and Evangelical theologians have since decamped from as being historically inaccurate. And these are individuals who have spent a lifetime researching, authoring books, and teaching. Not the simpletons like your corner street self-appointed pastors or simpletons like the Rev. Billy Grahams; Rev. Schullers, Rev. Jeremiah Wrights, and the Joel Osteens of this world.
The historical and scriptural basis for Petrine authority has been the subject of intense scrutiny by colleges and universities around the world for hundreds of years. Scores of scholarly articles and books have been written on the subject. Apparently for “Bible-only” Christians this all goes over their heads.
So without further ado let me refer you to just one impeccable source that both Catholics and other Christian denominations often cite as authority. You might try reading this carefully since the author was a close friend of some of the apostles of Christ. His name is Irenaeus. I trust you have at least heard of him.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” ( Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
And then there is Hermas and Ignatius of Antioch.
Hermas
“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
Once you come unhinged of Petrine authority, you have the foamy froth of interpretations from David Koresh to Jim Jones to all the vapid rot spawned by the curse of the Reformation.
Thankfully, leading Protestant scholars like the late Lutheran Rev. Richard Neuhaus and others have come to realize this. Or Ulf Ekman of the largest Evangelical Church in Sweden who announced the he and his wife, Birgitta, were converting to Roman Catholicism.
These folks have had enough of swimming in the shallow nonsense of Non-Catholic Christianity.
Speaking of pure idiocy --- the above sort of commentary fits THAT bill, for you keep aiming that at people here (and their beliefs) who are most certainly not the sort which Ireneus (whom you seem to rely upon) was writing against.
From http://orthodoxwiki.org/Against_Heresies
Do you see the above? Only fragments of the Greek text remain. The Latin translation comes from the better part of 200 years later (which is not exactly a "short time" later).
He was not a well documented or much repeated writer either (or else there would be far many more Greek text copies been made) not in comparison to many others -- until almost a couple of centuries later -- right about when a bishop of Rome began attempt to assert 'authority' of that bishopric alone -- over all other bishops.
Cherry-picking select quotes from that writer simply won't do. Things need be examined more in entirety.
From http://orthodoxwiki.org/Irenaeus_of_Lyons The Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the gospel, and by them we also have learned the truth, that is, the teaching of the Son of God—as the Lord said to them, 'He who hears you hears Me, and he who despises you despises Me, and Him Who sent Me' [Lk.10:16]. For we learned the plan of our salvation from no other than from those through whom the gospel came to us. The first preached it abroad, and then later by the will of God handed it down to us in Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. For it is not right to say that they preached before they had come to perfect knowledge, as some dare to say, boasting that they are the correctors of the apostles. For after our Lord had risen from the dead, and they were clothed with the power from on high when the Holy Spirit came upon them, they were filled with all things and had perfect knowledge. They went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the good things that come to us from God, and proclaiming peace from heaven to all men, all and each of them equally being in possession of the gospel of God. -- Against the Heresies, III
I enlarged the particular portions to make them more difficult to ignore. And those portions -- if we are to be relying upon Irenaeus, show much of your own past discourse on this thread to have been very much in error.
Irenaeus himself does not endorse anything near to the concept of singular papacy, and that being inheritable through only Peter, and that going only to the Church of Rome, even though he is often enough trotted out as if he did support that particular aspect.
Perhaps that goes right over the heads of Roman Catholics?
It certainly appear to go over the heads of many, anyway.
Singular papacy was an entirely foreign concept among the Church, yet that starkly rank heresy seems the very thing which you are straining to find support for, insulting each and every soul who raises opposition to that particular twisted version of "Church".
There is still yet much missing of your own coverage of Ireneus.
Allow a genuine scholar (Philip Schaff) to show you; from
[a.d. 120–202.] This history introduces us to the Church in her Western outposts. We reach the banks of the Rhone, where for nearly a century Christian missions have flourished. Between Marseilles and Smyrna there seems to have been a brisk trade, and Polycarp had sent Pothinus into Celtic Gaul at an early date as its evangelist. He had fixed his see at Lyons, when Irenæus joined him as a presbyter, having been his fellow-pupil under Polycarp. There, under the “good Aurelius,” as he is miscalled (a.d. 177), arose the terrible persecution which made “the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne” so memorable. It was during this persecution that Irenæus was sent to Rome with letters of remonstrance against the rising pestilence of heresy; and he was probably the author of the account of the sufferings of the martyrs which is appended to their testimony.[2649] But he had the mortification of finding the Montanist heresy patronized by Eleutherus the Bishop of Rome; and there he met an old friend from the school of Polycarp, who had embraced the Valentinian heresy. We cannot doubt that to this visit we owe the lifelong struggle of Irenæus against the heresies that now came in, like locusts, to devour the harvests of the Gospel. But let it be noted here, that, so far from being “the mother and mistress” of even the Western Churches, Rome herself is a mission of the Greeks; [2650] Southern Gaul is evangelized from Asia Minor, and Lyons checks the heretical tendencies of the Bishop at Rome. Ante-Nicene Christianity, and indeed the Church herself, appears in Greek costume which lasts through the synodical period; and Latin Christianity, when it begins to appear, is African, and not Roman. It is strange that those who have recorded this great historical fact have so little perceived its bearings upon Roman pretensions in the Middle Ages and modern times.[2649] Eusebius, book v. to the twenty-seventh chapter, should be read as an introduction to this author.
[2650] Milman, Hist. Latin Christianity, b. i. pp. 27, 28, and the notes.
Dis you notice that the bishopric of Rome was not beyond falling prey to "heresy" itself, even if but a temporary condition which Irenaeus himself had to combat? There is more too, for there were those in the early Church whom were forced to oppose "pope" Victor also, when that man (the first Roman bishop to do so) attempted to assert himself as having singularly authority over all other bishops. He was corrected in no uncertain terms-- for that. Most of the RCC seem to either not know of these things -- or else not understand them -- if you really want to talk about things going over people's heads.
But I've got to hand it to the apologists for Rome. They are a dedicated group. It's too bad that most everything they touch is tainted by some form of error, or outright falsehood.
Enough with the gratuitous insults.
If not for Schaff (a Protestant) those of Rome would not have had much in the way of English translation for what writings are attributed to Irenaeus --- other than small portions (such as you have quoted) which were "cherry-picked" by those of the Oxford Movement in the 19th century.
It was such slanted cherry-picking of quotes which Schaff and other Protestants went to great effort to correct --- by providing English language access to the fuller record, and hence the fuller truth of the matters...which fuller history often goes against the way those "of Rome" claim things to be -- showing 'Rome' to have long been misrepresenting itself.
It's not that it goes over everyone's head. The problem is the evidence from the earliest beginnings of the Church go 180 degrees opposite direction such concepts as there having been some sort of widely accepted "papacy" at Rome, including from even Irenaeus.
When Irenaeus wrote of "all must agree" with the Church of Rome, he was writing against Gnostic corruptions of Christianity, not of those whom in later centuries would be found opposing later corruptions of the Gospel introduced by the Church of Rome.
There is a small problem too -- with what comes down to us in this day attributed to Irenaeus.
In your previous citation from 3.2.2 he wrote of the Church at Rome being founded by both Peter and Paul...which most likely is not exactly true, as in directly, by their own hands, and by their own presence there been established...for it cannot be, other than them having done so rather remotely -- as in there were those of among the early Church having traveled to Rome, bringing the Gospel to the synagogues which were there in Rome, some years before Peter or Paul went to Rome.
Paul himself, according to what can be pieced together from Scripture and other evidences, having been there first, but not staying, then returning years later, with the last resulting in himself living out the rest of his days there.
Although both of those Apostles were most likely there later in their lives (and each martyred there at Rome) there are traces of the Gospel having been introduced to Rome before either of them arrived there personally in the flesh as it were, but the general understanding which Eusebius later writes about concerning each of them dying for their faith, at Rome, is likely how the concept of the Church at Rome having been founded by both of them made it's way into later description.
Stop right there.
Do you have any idea who's translation of the above you are utilizing?
I ask that, for I doubt that you know...and as far as I can tell, are yourself cribbing from, copy/pasting isolated quotations from RC apologetics pages -- which you do not supply links to.
The Roberts-Donaldson and J.B. Lightfoot & Harmer translations do not say "hold the presidency in love" but instead, "presides in love" which is a bit different, and doesn't carry the "singular papacy for Rome" note, which the cherry-pickers (since the Oxford Movement, at least) indulge themselves in -- at expense of the wider truth of the history of the Church.
And just where in Scripture is THAT phrase found?
Or is that another fabrication of the Catholic church, as if I have to ask?
Yes and there is wide spread disagreement between those writers you cling to.
By appealing to the ECFs the rcc has opened itself up to examination through their writings. These have been found to be contradictory on many topics near and dear to the rcc. Notably the papacy and Mary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55e-uHQna0
Can then Catholics then acknowledge this verse from the same John:
30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) Public Doman
All the latter day proclamations of Rome that require belief for salvation fall outside this admonition from John. PV/IC/Papal infallibility etc are all additions to the salvation message. As such they are another Gospel, just like Paul indicated.