This was a conversation on the issue of the papacy in the early Church:

Ultimate Bayleef:

I would like to talk about the claim which the early Christians make that Rome is the Petrine see in which the unity of the believers is preserved.

To begin, I would like to discuss the work of the early Christian bishop Optatus, who states in his work against the Donatists (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm), that

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim, each for himself, separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedrs would already be a schismatic and a sinner.

Now it is important to note the claims that this ancient bishop made, and these claims are prevalent throughout the work.

His first claim that Peter was in Rome. As you know, this was what the Early Christians claimed. This is what Optatus demonstrates in Chapter III of Book 2 of this work, and it is something with other Early Christians claim.

His second claim is that Peter is the Head of all of the Apostles. Once again, this is also something demonstrated throughout the work. In Chapter 4 of Book 2, Optatus continues to say that “Peter received the saving Keys [to heaven]”, condemning those who, in their “audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter”.

Optatus’ third claim logically follows from the first and second claims, that “unity should be preserved by all” in the See of Rome. Once again, Optatus seems to take it for granted that others understand that Rome is the see of unity, and uses it as an argument agains the Donatists. Once again citing from Chapter 4,

It is a branch of your error growing out of a lie, not from the root of truth. In a word, were Macrobius 49 to be asked where he sits in the City, will he be able to say on Peter’s Cathedra? I doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it, and schismatic that he is, he has not drawn nigh to Peter’s ‘Shrine,’

It is clear that from this statement Optatus is using the fact that he is in communion with the Cathedra of Peter as something to beat the Donatists with. This is something that remains consistent, that given that Peter’s chair is with him, Optatus’ church is the true Church.

For it has been proved that we are in the Holy Catholic Church, who have too the Creed of the Trinity 111; and it has been shown that, through the Chair of Peter which is ours—-through it 112 —-the other Endowments also belong to us.

Says Optatus in Book 2 Chapter 9.

The last claim from this text which I will talk about is that any apostle who claims for himself a Cathedra, to set itself up against Rome, is a sinner. Given that the Early Christians, as seen from Optatus’ example, seem to have believed that the See of Peter is the See of Unity, it only makes sense that those who try to stray from this See are sinners, for they attempted to break the Unity of Christ’s Bride. As Optatus charges in the opening excerpt, these people are “schismatics and sinners”, and as he later charges in Chapter 20 of Book 2, they are “burdened with the heavy sins of Betrayal and Schism”.

This is just one ancient Christian, a non-Roman at that, who stood for the supremacy of the successor of Peter, a position opposed by the Donatists, who wished to impose their own sinfulness as above God’s Grace.

TheSire:

My understanding is that Optatus was a lover of Papal legends that had no bearing on the actual history of events. As one historian put it, “pious romance, not history”.

He made wild-eyed claims such as that Peter was the first Bishop and established the Church in Rome:

We must note who first established a see and where. If you do not know, admit it. If you do know, feel your shame. I cannot charge you with ignorance, for you plainly know. It is a sin to err knowingly, although an ignorant person may be blind to his error. But you cannot deny that you know that the episcopal seat [“cathedra”] was established first in the city of Rome by Peter and that in it sat Peter, the head of all the apostles, wherefore he is called Cephas. So in this one seat unity is maintained by everyone, that the other apostles might not claim separate seats, each for himself.…

There were Christian churches there before Peter or Paul set foot in Rome. Mind you that he wrote this work dedicated to a Pope that murdered his way to the Papacy.

In fact, even if the early church believed in such that would persuade me that the Apostles taught it. It seems to me that the possibility that the early church could go astray undermines the need to prove it from the early church.

The issue I think also remains that it didn’t exist in the early church. I think most Catholic scholars recognize that it must have developed. For example, I recently wrote an article in response to another Roman Catholic regarding Cyprian of Carthage. He clearly didn’t believe in a papacy:

http://spirited-tech.com/2021/02/16/sola-scriptura-vs-catholic-tradition/

Notice also that the Donatist controversy occurred when Cyprian was a bishop in Carthage and he didn’t bow to the bishop of Rome when challenged by him.