The Berean Codex™Scripture Research Project
Research library · Reception history · Dependency analysis

Identifying the continuing Petrine office specifically with the bishops of Rome requires another premise

A reusable research record with provenance and relationships kept separate from the presentation layer.

INTERPRETIVE_CLAIMINT_MAT_16_ROMAN_SUCCESSION

Evidence state: tradition dependent

Statement layerBerean synthesis
ConfidenceModerate
Curation stateCurated Human Reviewed
Claim

Even if a continuing Petrine office is established, identifying its unique successor-line with the bishops of Rome requires historical and theological evidence connecting Peter, Roman episcopal succession, and the specific Petrine commission. Matthew 16 itself contains no reference to Rome.

Interpretive Evidence Audit

Tradition Dependent · Curated Pass With Limits

Inference depth: Multi Step · Original-meaning weight: Tradition Dependent

Publish with the stated classification and boundaries. Reception records remain separate from original-meaning evidence, and later doctrinal arrows remain visible rather than being folded into Matthew 16.

Open complete evidence audit

Quality-gate boundary: This audit measures evidentiary support and inferential distance. It does not make the Codex infallible or convert scholar/tradition authority into evidence.
Interpretation Dependency Profile

Context Model Dependent

Premises mapped: 2 · Development threads: 2

Curated chronology: v57 curated corpus · Historical Origin Unknown

This profile distinguishes the current Archive evidence chain from historical origin. The earliest loaded witness is not a claim that the idea originated there.

Open complete dependency profile

Chronology boundary: “Earliest in the curated Codex corpus” is not a claim of historical origin. Missing earlier records cannot be treated as evidence that a premise did not exist.

Supporting evidence

Id: INT_MAT_16_PETRINE_SUCCESSION

Role: prior dependency

Source Id: SRC_VATICAN_I_PASTOR_AETERNUS

Role: explicit later Roman claim

Counterevidence / challenges

Note: v57 has not yet completed the dedicated first-/second-century Roman succession evidence pass; absence from this release is not historical absence.

What this does not establish

That Peter was not in Rome.
That Roman succession has no early evidence.
That a Roman succession line, if established, automatically proves universal jurisdiction.
Release Introduced
v57
Passage Id
PASSAGE_MAT_16_13_20
Evidence Classification
tradition dependent
Status
CURATED_PUBLIC