the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy
Not only absent from Scripture, but from history as well, especially if one looks at primary sources. See for example Peter Lampe's landmark work, "From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries:"
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-extended-review-of-peter-lampes-from.html
The interesting thing is that during the first two centuries, Christianity in Rome was largely held by the "riff raff," the social outcasts, who were largely imports from other lands, many slaves captured and brought in to supply Rome with an inexpensive and disposable workforce. It was exactly as Paul said, not many wise, not many noble.
And for those first two centuries, while Christianity remained largely a curious cult not popular with the upper class, the assemblies remained diverse, without any discernible central leadership, and little impacted by the pagan influences surrounding them. The later-developed lists purporting to show a continuity of popes during that early period have proved to be impossible to support from primary sources.
According to Lampe, the early congregations were diverse and decentralized, with no single "Bishop of Rome." What did happen is that toward the end of the Second Century, power began to concentrate in those individuals in Rome who gathered the ecumenical funding for charitable projects outside of Rome, and it is from these late roots that a more traceable papacy would ultimately emerge. Their claim to the "Throne of Peter" was retroactive, but not based on demonstrable history.
Then, when the tide finally began to turn at the beginning of the Third Century, Christianity, again according to primary sources dug up by Lampe and others, began to be more accepted in the upper classes of Rome, where full-on cultural Romans set themselves to reconcile this curious new cult with the pagan religious atmosphere that dominated Rome at the time. It is easy to see how the Christian stories could supply them with a rich supply of material that to them seemed an honest correspondence with the pagan deities, practices, and ecclesiastical structures in which they had been immersed for centuries. They were going to "adopt" Christianity and dress it up in Roman attire, because that was what they knew. In hindsight, it would be a hard error to avoid, as we all have a tendency to see divine truth through our own culturally tainted lenses.
But no, there is no verifiable history of the papacy for the first two centuries.
Peace,
SR
Very interesting, thanks for the accurate historical description of the first couple of hundred years after Christianity started. From reading the Gospels what you described is the natural progression.
It’s nice to see it put into words like that.