Cathedra

The word Cathedra simply means throne or seat of power. Catholics see Rome as Peter's seat of power passed to them. Yet the word seat as used by Christ involved multiple rule, not singular.

Mat 23:1  Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Mat 23:2  Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

Mat 23:3  All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Thus, Peter's see if he had one, could be retained in the church itself through multiple people. A singular Bishop isn't necessarily fitting.

Notice that more than one person or group was part of Moses' seat. It is the same word "kathedra" used by Catholics. Notice the power was shared between two groups and multiple people. The Sanhedrin "elders" actually consisted of 120 men. They shared the responsibility of passing down the Law of Moses to the people.

The seat of Moses seams to exclude the priests. It was the scribes and Pharisees, not the priests who had the actual right of power. This is important since Catholics see all power arising from their priesthood, priests becoming Bishops and Cardinals and Popes.

This actually lines up with Roman rule where the Pontifex Maximus, came from the National priesthood.

Rome was actually like this before the rise of the Papacy.

Later, Rome developed into a system of multiple Bishops around and in the city. Rome had no central jurisdiction for a singular Bishop, but was made up of small groups of churches then known as titular churches. They met in homes or small venues, even in caves when necessary during times of persecution.

Cyprian, a Bishop of Carthage actually rejected Pope Steven's claim to superiority, saying the churches shared power.

This unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate [office of bishop] itself to be one and undivided. Let … no one corrupt the truth of the faith by treacherous deception. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. (On the Unity of the Church 5)

Cyprian saw the keys of the kingdom being given to Peter as a beginning, not as an end in Rome.

And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;”31093109    John xx. 21. yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.

We see that Catholic usage and Christ's usage of a seat of authority was different, Christ saw power shared among multiple elders where Catholics insist it is one man. Since Christ used the example of the scribes and Pharisees in Moses' seat we do not have to accept one man taking Peter's keys. The whole church shared in Acts 2 and the conversion of the Gentiles.

 I believe we see this beginning in Peter taking a lead in proclaiming salvation in Acts 2 and him being the first to convert Gentiles based upon the animal vision, I don't believe Cyprian believed Rome was superior however. Neither did Tertullian who believed distant congregations were the Lord's body as well if they possessed the same truth.

To this test, therefore, [the heretics] will be submitted for proof by those churches whose founder was not from the apostles or the apostolic men—since they are of a much later date, as churches are in fact being founded daily—but who, since they agree in the same faith, are considered no less apostolic because they are of the same family in doctrine. Therefore, let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests [i.e., founded by an apostle and similar in doctrine] by our apostolic church, offer their proof as to why they deem themselves to be apostolic. (Prescription Against Heretics 32)

Tertullian did not believe in strict apostolic succession, requiring all church leaders trace themselves back to an Apostle. "The same doctrine" in his mind did not teach infant baptism, for.

Tertullian only taught Peter was in Rome and appointed Clement, which disagrees with Papal lists but never mentions an apostolic  see being passed. There is no evidence he saw any Bishop appointment having greater authority than other Bishops throughout Christianity.

Tertullian denied the Bishop of Rome had power to Bind and Loose during the days of Callistus.

The orthodoxy of Callistus is challenged by both Hippolytus and Tertullian on the ground that in a famous edict he granted Communion after due penance to those who had committed adultery and fornication. It is clear that Callistus based his decree on the power of binding and loosing granted to Peter, to his successors, and to all in communion with them: "As to thy decision", cries the Montanist Tertullian, "I ask, whence dost thou usurp this right of the Church? If it is because the Lord said to Peter: Upon this rock I will build My Church, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven', or whatsoever though bindest or loosest on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven', that thou presumest that this power of binding and loosing has been handed down to thee also, that is to every Church in communion with Peter's (ad omnem ecclesiam Petri propinquam, i.e. Petri ecclesiae propinquam), who art thou that destroyest and alterest the manifest intention of the Lord, who conferred this on Peter personally and alone?" (On Pudicity 21)

Catholic Encyclopedia

Pope Calistus I

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03183d.htm

This is interesting,

1. The  Catholic writer said binding and loosing was a power to all churches associated with Peter.

2.Tertullian said binding and loosing in Matthew 16 was vested in Peter only.

Both responses disprove the Papacy, where the dogma is the Bishop of Rome alone has the power to Bind and loose being the succosser of Peter.

We can conclude all churches in Christ can forgive, but not change marriage law.

2Co 2:10  To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

The church of Corinth had power to forgive before Peter went to Rome. Well before any Papacy could exist. Well before Paul made it to Rome.

The Corinthians forgive based upon Paul's position with Christ, and Peter's position is never mentioned. Thus individual Churches can forgive for purposes of restoring individual's without Rome's consent. John teaches in I John 1 that fellowship isn't solely with Peter, but with us. Therefore those in union with the Apostles had union with Christ.

Thus, local churches right to receive the repentant was already established. Yet the right was if the person repented, there is nothing stating local congregations could dismiss Christ's teachings.

Rome basically created the precedent that all in communion with Rome could dismiss Christian commands as given by Christ.

Tertullian believed groups adhering to the same doctrine were apostolic, since in a round about way they were taught through apostles as men carried the Gospel of the apostles into their generations. Groups like the Churches of Christ who later became apostolic doctrinally would have been accepted by Tertullian.

Catholics taught a centralized authority on earth whereas the early church saw Christ as the head. All those associated with Christ were accepted. Bishops were independent to guide their own congregations.

1Co 1:2  Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

There was no necessity to accept Rome as head to be in communion. Paul saw anyone who called upon Christ for salvation as Christians.

Optatus when defending against the Donatist group actually named some of the Donatist Bishops in Rome who were part of these titular churches. At one time there were three groups in Rome who had Bishops. Catholic, Novationists, Donatists, all had Bishops at the same time. Since they managed their own congregations this wasn't irregular, it wasn't until one group moved in and tried to manage the other that friction started.

Each congregation can appoint its own Elders, especially if they are far enough apart that it is practical to have different congregations. Some split because they disagree with the authority of others. If right it just depends if they have valid reasons.The real reason Catholics went after them and not the other Titular congregations is the Donatists had openly expressed disagreement with them.

Thus Optatus defends Catholics.

This Victor of Garba was sent first, I will not say as a stone into a fountain (for he could not ruffle the pure waters of the Catholic people), but because some Africans who belonged to your party, having gone to Rome, and wishing to live there, begged that someone should be sent from Africa to preside over their public worship. So Victor was sent to them. He was there as a son without a father, as a beginner without a master, as a disciple without a teacher, as a follower without a predecessor, as a lodger without a home, as a guest without a guest-house, as a shepherd without a flock, as a Bishop without a people. For neither flock nor people can that handful be termed, who amongst the forty and more Basilicas in Rome, had not one place in which to assemble.

Accordingly they closed up a cave outside the City with trellis-work, where they might have a meeting-house at once, and on account of this were called Mountaineers.

Since then, Claudian has succeeded to Lucian, Lucian to Macrobius, Macrobius to Encolpius, Encolpius to Boniface, Boniface to Victor. Victor would not have been able, had he been asked where he sat, to show that anyone had been there before him, nor could he have pointed out that he possessed any Cathedra save the Cathedra of pestilence [Ps. 1:1]; for pestilence sends down its victims, destroyed by diseases, to the regions of Hell which are known to have their gates gates against which we read that Peter received the saving Keys Peter, that is to say, the first of our line, to whom it was said by Christ :

The Donatists were Apostolic doctrinally in most ways.

So there was a line of Donatus Bishops who met in a cave on the outskirts of Rome. Optatus also mentions 40 Basillicas then present in Rome. He says there were 40 basilicas but it seems he is referring to the time after the persecution of Diocletian. When the first Donatus Bishops were in Rome I think all churches kept a low profile meeting in small venues.

Originally the titular churches considered all Bishops equal until a shrine was erected making one Bishop seem more important. Also under Constantine a former basilica to another God was donated and a  Christian Basillica was founded, making it superior over the titular churches.

Optatus does not explain how Rome grew to have a singular Bishop over all ethnically aligned congregations. Many in Northern Africa would have spoken Greek dialects instead of Latin.

Roman Pagan religion seemed to venerate and elevate the place of the shrine. This seems to be what Optatus was referring.

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 … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25

Optatus calls it an endowment, no one can be sure whether Peter actually had such a chair. Likely not. It was a shrine built in his memory it seems. Also, which congregation in Rome actually had the Chair? Not only did Rome have to Prove there was a chair, but had to prove which congregation or Basillica housed it in order to exclude all others.

If there was an actual chair all Bishops recognized, they wouldn't need a shrine.

The Donatists didn't seem to argue they possessed the keys of Peter individually, but together with the other Bishops. It wasn't until one church was made superior as a shrine that the advent of the Papacy began. This took many years to grow.

Meeting in Basillicas was not actually practiced during the great persecution of Diocletian, all likely met underground. Once Constantine made Christianity legal and donated land the meeting in Basilicas flourished. Optatus arguing they could have met in 40 Basilicas was false, but it does show the Donatists were not completely happy with Roman doctrine several years before the Donatist issue in 311..