Greetings, Homer--
You wrote:
Could you provide info on where you find any statements by the "early church fathers" regarding Peter's successors?...You especially cited Irenaeus...
The specific quote from Irenaeus that I had in mind, concerning the successors of Peter as bishop of Rome, is from his "Against Heresies". The quote is the following:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric....To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance in the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chap. 3, paragraph 3; see the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pg. 416)
There are other Fathers who give at least partial listings of the succession of the bishops of Rome (eg., Augustine, a couple centuries after Irenaeus, gives a very similar, and updated, list of the succession of the bishops of Rome in his Letter to Generosus, 53:2; see the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. I, 298)
I think there are a couple things worth noting here.
First, of all the Christian churches, these Fathers think it significant to give a list of the bishops of
Rome. I think this is an indication that, in the mind of these Fathers, the church at Rome, and the bishop of Rome, had special significance for the entire Church throughout the world. Actually, Irenaeus explicitly states his belief in the pre-eminent authority of the church at Rome, referring to this church as "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; . . . it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority..." (
Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Ch. 3, par. 2; see
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pg. 415) Other Fathers give similar quotes concerning the importance of Rome, and its bishop.
Also, notice that, after he has given the list of the bishops of Rome, Irenaeus states that it is by the succession of
these bishops, i.e., the bishops of
Rome, that the "ecclesiastical tradition" and the "preaching of the truth" had been carried on in the Church. He points to
this succession of bishops (i.e., the succession of bishops in
Rome) as the "most abundant proof" that there is one
true Christian faith, preserved intact from the apostles. In other words, in this work of Irenaeus' (which is, again, entitle
Against Heresies), I think it is fair to interpret Irenaeus to be saying the following: it is by staying in union with the bishop of Rome that one avoids heresy; for, it is through the bishops of
Rome that the one,
true, and apostolic Christian faith is handed on.
You also stated:
I would be interested in any statements they made during the first two centuries where any of them claimed equality with the Apostles, for themselves or anyone else.
I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for here. Are you looking for statements from the Fathers claiming that the bishops of Rome were equal to the Apostles? Please clarify.....Thanks!
God bless....
In Christ,
BrotherAlan
"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)