Valiant - your knowledge of history and the early church is pathetic. Stop pronouncing on what you know nothing about.
possibly you should have told London University that when they awarded me an advanced degree in the subject
?
The apostolic succession is everywhere in the church fathers. That is why reformationists preach the impossible and biblically, historically and logically false doctrine of sola scriptura, because the clear form of the early church disagrees with their empty rhetoric and empty rituals.
there was no doctrine of 'the apostolic succession of the church of Rome'. All there was in the first three centuries was people using the fact that teachers in churches founded by the Apostles should be seen as continuing the Apostles' doctrine on order to defeat heretics. There was NO SUGGESTION that they could add to it. It is ridiculous to say that it is everywhere in the church fathers when for the first three centuries other churches refused to acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. If it is everywhere SHOW ME IT. As Ignatius said the Roman church 'presided in the region of the Romans'. THAT was the limit of their authority. You are big on words, short on evidence.
It is not just clement clearly settling disputes far away from Rome, discussing excommunication, notice the apostle john was actually closer in Ephesus, so why consult clement?
Because Corinth had been settled by Caesar with large numbers of Roman retired soldiers, the Christians of whom naturally kept contact with their own church and the teachers that they knew. But you should notice that Clement did not claim for himself any special authority. In his letter he appealed to the Scriptures, not to any authority. HE believed in sola scriptura..
But all the rest and the elaborate web of cross references to each other.
-Take Ignatius speaking of the presidency in respect of the bishop of Rome,
He said that the Roman church 'presided IN THE REGION OF THE ROMANS'. He never mentioned any bishop of Rome (of whom there were a number). Anyone can see this by reading the letter. It is of course important to read the shorter version which was genuine and not the longer version doctored by the Roman Catholic church
-Iraneus who even met first generation successor of apostle, polycarp, pronouncing the line of authority through bishops of Rome to his time,
Irenaeus did not 'pronounce the line of authority through the bishops of Rome'. He argued that in ALL the churches founded by the Apostles a line of bishops could be traced and gave Rome as one example. He gave Rome no special place. Furthermore his list was wishful thinking. Living 100 years afterwards (just imagine anyone talking about a church 100 years ago) he selected names that he knew, the earliest he obtained from the Scriptures, in order to make his list. But in fact we know that there was no monarchical bishop of Rome before 150 AD.
yes Polycarp went to Lyons when he was a little boy. Do you really think that they had deep discussions? LOL Is your doctrine based on vague memories of a little boy ? LOL
-elsewhere we have early references to popes settling disputes on such as the date of Easter,
Ok lets introduce Polycarp, the disciple of John again. He was in discussions with the bishop of Rome and refused to agree to his position in spite of threats. He continued to observe Passover day, along with his fellow bishops. They clearly did not see the bishop of Rome in the middle of the second century as in any position to dictate to them.
Show me one reference that says the bishop of Rome (not the Pope, that is an anachronism) settled the date of Easter. When it was settled centuries later it was by a general council.
-even the eastern councils acknowledging the primacy , they prefer to pretend never happened,
they certainly did not at the council of Nicea when Constantine tried to bring pressure on them to do so. They reminded the bishop of Rome that the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch had longer pedigrees than he.
Nor did they ever 'acknowledge the primacy' if you mean by that acknowledging his authority over them. Even Gregory the Great in 6th century AD had to be satisfied with being called 'the first among EQUALS because Rome was so large.
The Eastern church never willingly accepted the authority of Rome
-and references to the obvious Old Testament references to the power of keys in respect of the office.
that is simply untrue. It was Rome which manufactured these unbiblical claims. some believed them, some didn't. The reference to the keys in Matt 16 CONNECTED WITH BINDING AND LOOSING was a reference to the keys given to Scribes on graduation when they received a key authorising them to bind and loose. Any intelligent person can see that. LOL if you have to make your claims on this basis it shows how WEAK your case is.
so much so that you cannot produce ONE clear example in the first 300 years of church history.
That is why Protestants prefer amnesia and ignoring church fathers
well I have demonstrated my amnesia by telling you what was actually said by the men you referred to. I have not ignored them. I have pointed out what they said.
