What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[GodsGrace]

I have no opinion on this one way or another. I don't know by what authority Pope #2 came to office. Neither do you. What I do know is, the primacy of that guy over all other bishops worldwide DOES NOT FOLLOW from Peter's primacy over the other apostles.

There was no Pope number 2.
Do you know the history of the church or is this just a discussion on the primacy of Peter?
Can't read every single post on here....

 

[RedFan]

I am late to the party on this one, but I suspect that @BreadOfLife or @Jude Thaddeus has already brought up what happened at the Council of Jerusalem? When they voted to replace Judas. They used Psalm to guide them into their decision; when an office is vacated another shall take his place.

Since you agree on Peters primacy, would not the person who replaced him have primacy?

Mary

You mean, like, Euodius in Antioch? Why would we assume that?

 

[RedFan]

There was no Pope number 2.
Do you know the history of the church or is this just a discussion on the primacy of Peter?
Can't read every single post on here....

Yes, I know the history of the church, and no, this is not a discussion on the primacy of Peter - but rather on the primacy of Roman bishops coming after him. By "Pope #2" I was referring a bit sarcastically to the man who succeeded Peter as the Chief Grand Poobah in Rome. John Chrysostum’s Homily 10 on Second Timothy notes “This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter.” Happy to call him Linus if you like.

And my question is, by what authority did he take primacy over all other bishops worldwide? Same question for whoever came after Linus. Same question for the next guy. And so on.

 

[RedFan]

I already told you. You are being obtuse.

The answer to that is in your own statement. Peter's primacy over the other apostles is well established in Scripture. Universal jurisdiction logically follows that fact. Pounding you over the head with lists of successive popes from St. Irenaeus (and others) won't make any difference on your fixed preconceptions so why should I bother digging up the evidence you have already decided isn't valid?

Biblical Arguments & Evidences For Papal Succession

It makes sense that there would continue to be a leader of the Church (papal succession from Peter), just as there are a succession of American Presidents.

www.patheos.com

Authority of the First Pope and the Development of the Papacy​

A Study of Apostolic Succession and Early Church Fathers

Explore the evolution of apostolic succession in Church history, highlighting early Church Fathers and their role in preserving doctrine.

www.catholic365.com

Could it be the Hound of Heaven is barking at your heels but you keep running faster?

JT, I absolutely love this one: A Study of Apostolic Succession and Early Church Fathers

Thanks for sharing. I agree with every word!

Sorry that I am obtuse, but could you tell me one more time by what authority Linus (was it Linus? I think so) came to be not only the Bishop of Rome, but the primate over all other apostles (some of whom were still alive) and all other bishops worldwide?

 

[Marymog]

You mean, like, Euodius in Antioch? Why would we assume that?

No, not like Evodius of Antioch. Peter was probably the bishop (head of) the church in Antioch. Evodius was ordained by Peter and took over the duties of bishop in Antioch. Peter then moved on to evangelize in other places and ordain more men.

Jesus was head of The Church and of the Apostles. Scripture makes it clear that Jesus chose Peter to be head of The Church and have primacy over the Apostles when he died. You are assuming that when Peter died that practice, replacing the head of The Church, died with Peter. You are assuming they would violate Psalm and their prior practice at the Council of Jerusalem.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Yes, I know the history of the church, and no, this is not a discussion on the primacy of Peter - but rather on the primacy of Roman bishops coming after him. By "Pope #2" I was referring a bit sarcastically to the man who succeeded Peter as the Chief Grand Poobah in Rome. John Chrysostum’s Homily 10 on Second Timothy notes “This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter.” Happy to call him Linus if you like.

And my question is, by what authority did he take primacy over all other bishops worldwide? Same question for whoever came after Linus. Same question for the next guy. And so on.

Hey RedFan,

In your first sentence you say that you know the history of the church but by the end of your post you ask a question that indicates you don't know the history of the church. The short answer to your question is Peter was the bishop of Rome and he was the head of The Church after Jesus death. Peter's successor would then be head of The Church and bishop of Rome!

The long answer is here Primacy of Rome

 

[RedFan]

No, not like Evodius of Antioch. Peter was probably the bishop (head of) the church in Antioch. Evodius was ordained by Peter and took over the duties of bishop in Antioch. Peter then moved on to evangelize in other places and ordain more men.

Jesus was head of The Church and of the Apostles. Scripture makes it clear that Jesus chose Peter to be head of The Church and have primacy over the Apostles when he died. You are assuming that when Peter died that practice, replacing the head of The Church, died with Peter. You are assuming they would violate Psalm and their prior practice at the Council of Jerusalem.

Mary

I'm really not assuming that, Mary. The eleven remaining apostles' authority to replace Judas is something I don't quibble with (although I might quibble with Psalm 69 as a logical basis for it, and I definitely quibble with interpreting Psalm 69 as a directive to do it). As others of the original Twelve died, I don't known whether they were replaced by vote of the survivors in that Elite Dozen, but I sincerely doubt it given how spread out they all ended up. Some appointed bishops in particular cities before they died. Like Peter did in Antioch. Like Peter MAY have done in Rome (Jude Thaddeus thinks not).

Why assume that of all the men ordained by Peter in all the places he evangelized, the man he ordained (or if you go with Jude Thaddeus, the man who succeeded him in some other way) IN ROME inherited Peter's primacy over the other living Elite Dozen members and the other bishops around the world?

Surely not a single one of those Elite Dozen survivors cast a vote on Linus, so analogies to Matthias are pretty weak here.

Let me close by saying that I respect your view, and Jude Thaddeus's view (although he likes to be a bit abrasive towards me sometimes). I am just trying to understand the logic of papal authority the way I already understand the logic of apostolic succession generally.

 

[RedFan]

Hey RedFan,

In your first sentence you say that you know the history of the church but by the end of your post you ask a question that indicates you don't know the history of the church. The short answer to your question is Peter was the bishop of Rome and he was the head of The Church after Jesus death. Peter's successor would then be head of The Church and bishop of Rome!

The long answer is here Primacy of Rome

Thanks for sharing. Yes, I was already aware of all of these writings. I have traced how the Papacy gained ascendancy in the West, and not in the East.

Through Irenaeus’s Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) we can trace the succession of Roman bishops, but not any serious argument for Roman primacy over the Church at large, i.e., beyond the See of Rome. He calls it “a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this (Roman) Church, on account of its preeminent authority,” but offers no reason why this should be so. Absent any early mention of such a transfer of worldwide leadership authority to Rome, we might look for some written record showing that in the first several centuries of Christianity believers throughout the rest of the Mediterranean world recognized the Bishop of Rome as having primacy over other bishops. I actually find the opposite to be true:

First, the writing most pointed to on the subject is the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church at Corinth, toward the end of the First Century, urging the Corinthians not to depose their own leaders. I find this equivocal at best. Some have argued that because it responds to a matter on which the Corinthians had apparently consulted Rome, these Corinthians must have recognized Rome’s authority. But read its tenor, and one thing jumps out: this is not the writing of a man who thought he could impose his will in Greece. (Indeed, in chapter 56 he suggests to the dissenting Corinthians that “they should submit themselves, I do not say unto us, but unto the will of God.”)

Second, in the middle of the third century, Pope Stephen’s view regarding the efficacy of baptism by heretics was rejected by 87 bishops at a Council of Carthage, at which Cyprian stated: “For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, 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.”

Third, there is evidence of various sees (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria) having authority over neighboring provinces or otherwise associated bishoprics, but with complete autonomy in their own spheres, i.e., Alexandria and Antioch gave no deference to Rome. In 325 the Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of these three sees.

It is reasonable to conclude that in mid-Fourth century Rome had no jurisdiction over eastern bishoprics. Afterwards the notion gained traction, but never complete acceptance . The schism that eventually split Eastern Orthodoxy and the Western Church proves that it never gained complete support. But my point is that the primacy of the Bishops of Rome (beyond Peter) cannot be traced back to the traditions of the early Church. And I a a big fan of Irenaeus!

 

[GodsGrace]

You don't know what it has to do with anything? Well, it has to do with the inconsistency of what you said THEN compared to what you are saying now!


GG THEN: It became acceptable everywhere and common practice after Augustine......Infant baptism became common practice after Augustine.....even original sin came from him and thus, infant baptism.....It was a MISTAKE (another mistake) for the CC to follow the teachings of Augustine on infant baptism. His REASONS for baptizing a baby ARE WRONG.

All 4 of those posts suggest that you believe that infants were not baptized in The Church BEFORE Augustine.

But in your most recent posts you said, I NEVER said that infants were not baptized from the beginning.

Soooo which post of yours do you agree with? Where infants baptized BEFORE Augustine? Or did The Church start baptizing infants AFTER and because of Augustine?

Patient Mary

Mary,
I have come to realize that you don't understand posts very well,
So, for the benefit of those reading along:

INFANTS WERE ALWAYS BAPTIZED IN THE CC...OR, THAT IS, THE CHURCH IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE ASCNESION OF JESUS.
THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ATTEST TO THIS AND I TRUST THE ECFs.

AUGUSTINE CHANGE THE REASON FOR THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS.

AFTER AUGUSTINE, ACCORDING TO THE CC, IT BECAME NECESSARY AND VITAL THAT INFANTS BE BAPTIZED
DUE TO THE CHANGE HE TAUGHT AND THAT THE CHURCH, FOR REASONS I WON'T GET INTO, ACCEPTED HIS TEACHING.


Now, if that is not clear enough, then I can't help you.

Do either YOU or @BreadOfLife KNOW what that change was?

Are you EVER going to either:
1. Share with all of us what the change was.
2. Admit you don't know.

Since you and Bread know EVERYTHING, you should be able to TEACH ALL OF US the change that took place.

Yes. You two love to TEACH....
even what is not biblical within the CC.
So would you call that lying?

YOU stamp person's OPINIONS (based on their understanding of either the NT or history) as lying.
So, then, YOU two must be lying too everytime you don't agree with someone.

Easy.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm really not assuming that, Mary. The eleven remaining apostles' authority to replace Judas is something I don't quibble with (although I might quibble with Psalm 69 as a logical basis for it, and I definitely quibble with interpreting Psalm 69 as a directive to do it). As others of the original Twelve died, I don't known whether they were replaced by vote of the survivors in that Elite Dozen, but I sincerely doubt it given how spread out they all ended up. Some appointed bishops in particular cities before they died. Like Peter did in Antioch. Like Peter MAY have done in Rome (Jude Thaddeus thinks not).

Why assume that of all the men ordained by Peter in all the places he evangelized, the man he ordained (or if you go with Jude Thaddeus, the man who succeeded him in some other way) IN ROME inherited Peter's primacy over the other living Elite Dozen members and the other bishops around the world?

Surely not a single one of those Elite Dozen survivors cast a vote on Linus, so analogies to Matthias are pretty weak here.

Let me close by saying that I respect your view, and Jude Thaddeus's view (although he likes to be a bit abrasive towards me sometimes). I am just trying to understand the logic of papal authority the way I already understand the logic of apostolic succession generally.

Mary has a difficult time understanding what posters are saying....

I hope you reply to my 2 posts to you.
The papacy is plain and simple history....
You only need to know the history.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, I know the history of the church, and no, this is not a discussion on the primacy of Peter - but rather on the primacy of Roman bishops coming after him. By "Pope #2" I was referring a bit sarcastically to the man who succeeded Peter as the Chief Grand Poobah in Rome. John Chrysostum’s Homily 10 on Second Timothy notes “This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter.” Happy to call him Linus if you like.

And my question is, by what authority did he take primacy over all other bishops worldwide? Same question for whoever came after Linus. Same question for the next guy. And so on.

OK. Let's see if we agree on history - which we should.
I'd say that the reason Rome became the seat of the Pope....the one and only Pope which did not happen until hundreds of years after Peter, was seated in Rome because Rome had become the capital of Christiandom.
The 5 important regions of Christianity looked to Rome for solution of problems because those popes (5 in all) trusted that Peter would have answers to problems that arose because he was an Apostle chosen by Jesus.

Following is for those reading along that might be interested.

There were 5 "popes" at the time of Peter....He was the pope in Rome.
As I've said many times, it's not historically correct to call Peter the FIRST POPE....
He was ONE OF the first popes....but the CC wants to call him the first because of his Primacy
as an Apostle ---- I don't care to die on this hill....but it's not correct historically.


In the early Christian era, Rome and a few other cities had claims on the leadership of the worldwide church. During the 1st century of the church (c. 30–130), the Roman capital became recognized as a Christian center of exceptional importance. In the late 2nd century CE, there were more manifestations of Roman authority over other churches. In 189, assertion of the primacy of the Church of Rome may be indicated in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies: “With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree … and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.” In 195 CE, Pope Victor I, in what is seen as an exercise of Roman authority over other churches, excommunicated the Quartodecimans for observing Easter on the 14th of Nisan, the date of the Jewish Passover. Celebration of Easter on a Sunday, as insisted on by the pope, is the system that has prevailed.

When Constantine became emperor of the Western Roman Empire in 312, he attributed his victory to the Christian God. Many soldiers in his army were Christians, and his army was his base of power. With Licinius (Eastern Roman emperor), he issued the Edict of Milan, which mandated toleration of all religions in the empire. Decisions made at the Council of Nicea (325) about the divinity of Christ led to a schism; the new religion, Arianism, flourished outside the Roman Empire. Partially to distinguish themselves from Arians, Catholic devotion to Mary became more prominent. This led to further schisms.

In 380, the Edict of Thessalonica declared Nicene Christianity, as opposed to Arianism, to be the state religion of the empire, with the name “Catholic Christians” reserved for those who accepted that faith. While the civil power in the Eastern Roman Empire controlled the church, and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the capital, wielded much power, in the Western Roman Empire the Bishops of Rome were able to consolidate the influence and power they already possessed. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, barbarian tribes were converted to Arian Christianity or Catholicism; Clovis I, king of the Franks, was the first important barbarian ruler to convert to Catholicism rather than Arianism, allying himself with the papacy. Other tribes, such as the Visigoths, later abandoned Arianism in favor of Catholicism.

source: The Development of Papal Supremacy | Western Civilization

 

[GodsGrace]

You mean, like, Euodius in Antioch? Why would we assume that?

I have to say, RedFan, that the problem here is that there was NO primacy in Rome until it was decided that there should be
only ONE POPE to lead the church and this didn't happen until the 4th century, if I remember (which I may not).

PS
Each Bishop ruled over his own territory.
Here are the territories again:
ROME
JERUSALEM
ANTIOCH
CONSTANTINOPLE
ALEXANDRIA

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Thanks for sharing. Yes, I was already aware of all of these writings. I have traced how the Papacy gained ascendancy in the West, and not in the East.

The eastern churches were excommunicated 5 times, and each time they were reconciled by Rome. We've been over this before at least 3 times.

Third, there is evidence of various sees (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria) having authority over neighboring provinces or otherwise associated bishoprics, but with complete autonomy in their own spheres, i.e., Alexandria and Antioch gave no deference to Rome. In 325 the Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of these three sees.

So what. Bishops have equal standing when in communion with the Roman See. I don't think you understand this.

It is reasonable to conclude that in mid-Fourth century Rome had no jurisdiction over eastern bishoprics. Afterwards the notion gained traction, but never complete acceptance . The schism that eventually split Eastern Orthodoxy and the Western Church proves that it never gained complete support. But my point is that the primacy of the Bishops of Rome (beyond Peter) cannot be traced back to the traditions of the early Church. And I a a big fan of Irenaeus.

It is reasonable to conclude the canon of Scripture took 4 centuries to come into full bloom, it is unreasonable to conclude the doctrine of the papacy didn't develop either during that time.
Peter was busy hanging up-side-down on a cross to be appointing his successor. Linus took the Chair of Peter by the authority of the Church after Peter's death. Dead popes don't appoint successors.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Converted is what Jesus taught.

Matt 18
[3] And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mark.4
[12] That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

John.12
[40] He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Acts.3
[19] Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

If that doesn’t work for you…
You get the consequence.

Enjoy!

Wonderful promises for those who ENDURE IN FAITH.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh, I see, this is how you Catholics think… Peter said this, but what he really means is this…. Lol.

No - Peter meant, "In the name of Jesus Christ".
However - he understood what that means - unlike YOU . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have to say, RedFan, that the problem here is that there was NO primacy in Rome until it was decided that there should be
only ONE POPE to lead the church and this didn't happen until the 4th century, if I remember (which I may not).

PS
Each Bishop ruled over his own territory.
Here are the territories again:
ROME
JERUSALEM
ANTIOCH
CONSTANTINOPLE
ALEXANDRIA

WRONG.

Even if you reject Irenaeus's 2nd century work, Against Heresies, which includes a list of Popes from Peter to his own time - Pope Victor 1 decided the Quartodeciman controversy for the whole Church in the 2nd century.

In the 3rd century - Tertullian wrote, Di Pudicitia, in which he addresses Pope Callistus as, "Pontifex Maximus" and "Bishop of Bishops".

THREE examples of the Papacy before YOUR bogus timeline f the 4th century . . .

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Wonderful promises for those who ENDURE IN FAITH.

Yeah, the catholics endure in a false faith that is not of the Lord Jesus.

Former Roman Catholic Testimony

 

[Taken]

Wonderful promises for those who ENDURE IN FAITH.

Look at the number of people FORCED by circumstances to keep their jobs by taking the JAB in the trial run plandemic and the devastating outcome for individuals and their families…Things are going to get MUCH worse as the future plays out.

Those who HAVE (according to Gods ORDER and WAY) accepted the Lord Gods GIFT of Salvation…Are ALREADY soul saved, spirit quickened, assured their body to be risen in Perfection…Nothing…not God, not spirits, not men CAN CHANGE that outcome.

It is “UNSAVED” believers that are WARNED…manKind is at the bottom of POWER…below angels, below governing men….so YES, that man in Belief, but not. KEPT IN BELIEF by Gods Power…must by their own power, endure believing, keep a check on not being fooled (by influence of fallen angels or governing men)…

Aside from the plandemic…
Look how many people are influenced and promoted by Governing powers to Accept Homosexuality, Same gender marriages, Drugs, abortions, continual wars, corrupt food, media lies, attempts to obstruct individuals from defending their own lives and family, foreign criminal invasion….even down to governing teachers instigating drugs and surgeries for little children.

It’s going to get MUCH worse. Are you going to keep Hoping by YOUR POWER, you can endure the Increase of fallen angels and governing men tribulations against you?
Rather that to Accept the Lord’s Offering of Assured Salvation by, through, of HIS POWER?

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Those who HAVE (according to Gods ORDER and WAY) accepted the Lord Gods GIFT of Salvation…Are ALREADY soul saved, spirit quickened, assured their body to be risen in Perfection…Nothing…not God, not spirits, not men CAN CHANGE that outcome.

Actually one can cause themselves to not be saved because God in His sovereignty decided to create man in His own Image which means man has the right to decide to turn away from the Lord.

This is why the Lord put numerous warnings in the New Testament about this that would not be in God's Word if it were not possible to turn away from the Lord after having been born again and end up spending eternity separated from the Lord in hell.

All these passages are written as warnings to Christians!

2 Peter 2:20
For if after they have escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

James 5:19,20
Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Romans 2:7-11
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
For there is no respect of persons with God.

Romans 11:21,22
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

James 1:22
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Romans 8:13
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
(NOT in our own strength - see Philippians 4:13)

1 Peter 1:14-17
As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

John 15:2
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Matthew 7:16-21
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

John 8:35
And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

Only those led by the Spirit are the sons of God (Romans 8:14)

 

[GodsGrace]

WRONG.

Even if you reject Irenaeus's 2nd century work, Against Heresies, which includes a list of Popes from Peter to his own time - Pope Victor 1 decided the Quartodeciman controversy for the whole Church in the 2nd century.

In the 3rd century - Tertullian wrote, Di Pudicitia, in which he addresses Pope Callistus as, "Pontifex Maximus" and "Bishop of Bishops".

THREE examples of the Papacy before YOUR bogus timeline f the 4th century . . .

Could you please post the work of Irenaeus?

This is from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

Most important evidence is furnished by the document entitled the "Liberian Catalogue" — so called from the Pope whose name ends the list. The collection of tracts of which this forms a part was edited (apparently by one Furius Dionysius Philocalus) in 354. The catalogue consists of a list of the Roman bishops from Peter to Liberius, with the length of their respective episcopates, the consular dates, the name of the reigning emperor, and in many cases other details. There is the strongest ground for believing that the earlier part of the catalogue, as far as Pontian (230-35), is the work of Hippolytus of Portus. It is manifest that up to this point the fourth century compiler was making use of a different authority from that which he employs for the subsequent popes: and there is evidence rendering it almost certain that Hippolytus's work "Chronica" contained such a list. The reign of Pontian, moreover, would be the point at which that list would have stopped: for Hippolytus and he were condemned to servitude in the Sardinian mines — a fact which the chronographer makes mention when speaking of Pontian's episcopate.

source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Chronological Lists of Popes

There are lists of BISHOPS of Rome from the beginning.
The problem is that there were also 4 other Popes with the same authority throughout the middle east and Africa.

If the CC MUST call Peter the very first Pope ever.....I'm not going to debate ad infinitum....
But the historical truth is that Peter WAS NOT the ONLY first Pope....
there were 4 others.

You could look this up for yourself.
But you might be afraid to.