chukwudi44: More from st John chrysostom

He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep.' Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])

As if St. Chrysostom was prescient of some future critic who would wish to explain that any of the apostles might be said to preside over the brethren, and that what is said to Peter as head of the choir is meant for all, he adds further on:

"If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world."

[ Giles has: "And if anyone would say 'How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?", I would reply that he appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world..." (Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88, Migne PG 59:478, Giles page 164)

enigma i thought u said chysostom was against d primacy of peter, u have been smoked.

Ubenedictus: enigma i thought u said chysostom was against d primacy of peter, u have been smoked.

On this occasion I will assume you have misunderstood my point rather than accuse you of lying.

First of all the so-called "primacy of Peter" is not and does not mean primacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Above all, this thread is about the interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Therefore my point with Augustine, Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazanzius etc etc etc is that they interpreted Mathew 16:18 as conferring authority on Peter as well as on all bishops worldwide and wherever --- and to some extent even on all Christians.

In short, these early "church fathers" (and who were mostly NOT Roman Catholics) did not apply Matthew 16:18 to "papal primacy".

And with them, I conclude that Matthew 16:18 does not provide any doctrinal basis for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church of "papal supremacy".

The Roman Catholic claim of "papal supremacy" is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the apostles.

Go and read Chrysostom and the others on their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and learn, with honesty and humility, how they interprete the passage.

Enigma:

On this occasion I will assume you have misunderstood my point rather than accuse you of lying.

First of all the so-called "primacy of Peter" is not and does not mean primacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Above all, this thread is about the interpretation of Matthew 16: 18. Therefore my point with Augustine, Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazanzius etc etc etc is that they interpreted Mathew 16:18 as conferring authority on Peter as well as on all bishops worldwide and wherever --- and to some extent even on all Christians.

In short, these early "church fathers" (and who were mostly NOT Roman Catholics) did not apply Matthew 16:18 to "papal primacy".

And with them, I conclude that Matthew 16:18 does not provide any doctrinal basis for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church of "papal supremacy".

The Roman Catholic claim of "papal supremacy" is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the apostles.

Go and read Chrysostom and the others on their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and learn, with honesty and humility, how they interprete the passage.

Laugh won kili me hereoooo intellectual dishonesty and mischief @ its best.

Abeg go siddon joor before you loose the tiny iota of respect u still have.

You cannot even come upo with a single quote to back up ur lies haba na waooo

I wonder why this authority only applies to all christians 'to some extent'. Yet Bishops get the full extent.

Ubenedictus: i thought this was a discussion, was i wrong? U said "iwill build my church" is refering to d "body of...". I have to ask again, does d key also belong to d "body of...", or did Jesus give himself d keys or did he give it to peter? Many pipo skip dis part and i see them as dishonest. If d "rock" is a body of... I wonder wu was given d keys.

Ube. . . why you dey quiz me like this na? I didn't say anything is referring to any 'body of . . .'. I said that someone's reasoning/interpretation was interesting. Ingenious.


Now you want to hang me for that. Why you no go ask the pesin wey talk the thing originally? This is mightily unfair of you.

Ubenedictus: on the above both of you are ingenious engaging in mental gymnastics. U are d guy wu usually shout "if d literal sense makes sense seek no other sense" but today u guys are jumping

I don't recall ever saying that if d literal sense makes sense then seek no other sense.

chukwudi44:

Laugh won kili me hereoooo intellectual dishonesty and mischief @ its best.

Abeg go siddon joor before you loose the tiny iota of respect u still have.

You cannot even come upo with a single quote to back up ur lies haba na waooo

Is it my imagination or do I see a lot of quotations on the one hand from one party to buttress their point, while on the other hands I see no quotations (or the minimum, often lacking in pertinence) from the other party but rather lots of longassed argumentation?

Hmm, interesting.

Well, excerpts from 2 Timothy 3

6 . . . the kind . . . who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. 8 . . . these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because . . . their folly will be clear to everyone.

Nice.

Pastor AIO:

Is it my imagination or do I see a lot of quotations on the one hand from one party to buttress their point, while on the other hands I see no quotations (or the minimum, often lacking in pertinence) from the other party but rather lots of longassed argumentation?

The man is trying so desperately to force his words on this church fathers.He is trying so hard to make them say what they never said.This is the height of mischief.He has forgotten this men lefts lots of writings

Kai, Ubenedictus and Chukwudi, una no well!


See, as my guyz just finish Enigma.

Hmm, ok.

Per Origen

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

Is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?


Encore per Origen

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

Again, is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?


Encore per Origen

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock

Again, is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?

Here an interjection with the fraudulent claim of the Roman Catholic "Church" to "universal jurisdiction".

(From Vatican I)

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Oh and the other nonsensical claim of "papal infallibilty"

. . . we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility . . .

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Of course sensible and knowledgeable Christians know that all the above is rubbish.

Per Eusebius

. . . as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world

Is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?


Per Cyprian

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her

Again, is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?


Per Ambrose

Jesus said to them: Who do men say that I am? Simon Peter answering said, The Christ of God (Lk. ix.20). If it is enough for Paul ‘to know nothing but Christ Jesus and Him crucified,’ (1 Cor. ii.2), what more is to be desired by me than to know Christ? For in this one name is the expression of His Divinity and Incarnation, and faith in His Passion. And accordingly though the other apostles knew, yet Peter answers before the rest, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of God’...Believe, therefore, as Peter believed, that thou also mayest be blessed, and that thou also mayest deserve to hear, ‘Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven’...Peter therefore did not wait for the opinion of the people, but produced his own, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’: Who ever is, began not to be, nor ceases to be. Great is the grace of Christ, who has imparted almost all His own names to His disciples. ‘I am,’ said He, ‘the light of the world,’ and yet with that very name in which He glories, He favored His disciples, saying, ‘Ye are the light of the world.’ ‘I am the living bread’; and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)...Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him

Again, is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?

Of course, this "argumentation by quotation" should not really be necessary and I have only condescended to that level for the sake of those who do not understand the debate or the wider context.

Just to demonstrate why I never felt it necessary to quote beyond Augustine which I did earlier on in a specifically relevant context, let me take some of the "quotes" that the apologists of the Roman Catholic "Church" are relying upon.

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"? 

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51 

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298 

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ “
Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76 

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

“And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?”
In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223 

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.”
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251 

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.”
In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513 

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

Oh well, here once again is Augustine on Matthew 16 (repeated from an earlier post!)

So let us love him, let there be nothing dearer to us than he. So do you imagine that the Lord is not questioning us? Was Peter the only one who qualified to be questioned, and didn’t we? When that reading is read, every single Christian is being questioned in his heart. So when you hear the Lord saying ‘Peter, do you love me?’ think of it as a mirror, and observe yourself there. I mean, what else was Peter doing but standing for the Church? So when the Lord was questioning Peter, he was questioning us, he was questioning the Church. I mean, to show you that Peter stood for the Church, call to mind that place in the gospel, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her; to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:18-19). One man receives them; you see, he explained himself what the keys of the kingdom mean: ‘What you all bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what you all loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 18:18). If it was said to Peter alone, Peter alone did this; he passed away, and went away; so who binds, who looses? I make bold to say, we too have these keys. And what am I to say? That it is only we who bind, only we who loose? No, you also bind, you also loose. Anybody who’s bound, you see, is barred from your society; and when he’s barred from your society, he’s bound by you; and when he’s reconciled he’s loosed by you, because you too plead with God for him.

We all love Christ, you see, we are his members; and when he entrusts the sheep to the shepherds, the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the body of one shepherd. Just to show you that the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the one body of the one shepherd, certainly Peter’s a shepherd, undoubtedly a pastor; Paul’s a shepherd, yes, clearly a pastor; John’s a shepherd, James a shepherd, Andrew a shepherd, and the other apostles are shepherds. All holy bishops are shepherds, pastors, yes, clearly so. And how can this be true: And there will be one flock and one shepherd (Jn 10:16)? Then if there will be one flock and one shepherd is true, the innumerable number of shepherds or pastors must be reduced to the body of the one shepherd or pastor

Where does that support the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

Now you have arrived. At least we are begining to hear the church fathers speak.Unfortunately for you they left even more explicit writings on the primacy of the peter and the roman church.you really make me laugh even going ahead to quote cyprian who left behind what is arguably the most solid patristic proof of the petrine supremacy.I would begin quoting exceepts from their numerous writings begining from now.

Origen of alexandria writes;

Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? "Oh you of little faith," he says, "why do you doubt?" [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4).

Here he explicitly calls him the foundation of the church and greatest of rocks

^^^ I simply ignored you because you had resorted to idiocy (which you started on the other thread) perhaps out of desperation and the realisation of the hopelessness of your position since the Roman Catholic argument is simply based on fraud. In the same way, once your supporters resort to idiocy it is not worthwhile wasting much time on them.



PS I had tried very hard to be "politically correct" and respectful to the Roman Catholic "Church" but it is becoming necessary to hit you people with real home truths.

TERTULLIAN [A.D. 200]

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the Church would be built" [Matt. 16:18] with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth" [Matt. 16:19]" (_Demurrer Against the Heretics_ 22).

TERTULLIAN [A.D. 220]

I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" [Matt 16:18-19a] that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" (_On Modesty_ 21:9-10_).



ST. CYPRIAN [A.D. 251]

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]....On him he builds his Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17]; and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy was given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church ).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance." (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff.... On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

"There is one Baptism, and one Holy Spirit, and one Church founded by Christ our Lord upon Peter, as the source and principle of unity" (Ep. 60, Ad Januar).



The writings of st cyprian in my view is the most explicit evidence of patristic support for the petrine supremacy and to think this actually came from a bishop in the east.Take a look at the extracts below and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy was given to Peter

Is this extract not clear enough? Except you want to perish in your mischief.

By the way, here is another one I made earlier.

https://www.nairaland.com/1057120/german-catholics-face-excommunication-over/2#12320908

If only the Roman Catholics would listen and pay careful attention to the words of somebody whom they would quickly lay claim to as "one of them".

From the words of Gregory I or Gregory the Great/the Dialogist then as simply Bishop of Rome (or according to Roman Catholics, "Pope" Gregory I).

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.

More from st John chrysostom.Bishop of the biggest church in the east constantinopole.Listen to him explicitly knock off all your assertions

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387):

"Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, &c.' This very Peter; - and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples" - Homily 3, On Penance.

"And yet after so great an evil [St. Peter's denial of Our Lord], He again raised him to his former honour, and entrusted to his hand the primacy over the universal Church." - Homily 5, On Penance.

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ ...he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as entrusted by Christ with the flock ...he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)

He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ' 'Simon, Simon,' etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: 'Simon, Simon, etc.' (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

"For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which he entrusted to Peter and his successors." (De Sacerdotio, 53)

"Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and bone hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven'; this very Peter, - and when I name Peter, the great Apostles, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed." (Homily 3 de Poenit. 4)

Listen to a more explicit extract from the writings of St Augustine on the primacy of st peter.Let me see how you will twist this one

His Sermo states, "For Peter in many places in the Scriptures appears to represent the Church, especially in that place where it was said "I give to thee the keys… shall be loosed in heaven". What! did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive? Did Peter receive and John and James not receive, and the rest of the apostles? But since in a figure Peter represented the Church, what was given to him singly was given to the Church.". [23] His 395 C.E. Contra Epistolam Manichaei states, "There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church… The succession of the priests keeps me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate."

Posted previously by Enigma on page 1


Encore per Augustine of Hippo (who was NOT a Roman Catholic Bishop)

Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.

@enigma

Please what do you understand by the phrase "peter represents the church" in the united nations when president Jonathan sits there who does he represent? Do you think the keys and autourity were handed over to peter for his own use?

You might be a lawyer but you fail in simple logic.Yes of course the authourity was handed over to the church through peter.You are contradicting youself without realising it

Ah, are you now departing from the approach of idiocy?

Do you now wish to discuss in civil terms? Are you going to show me the respect that I had showed you?

Otherwise, you should know by now that I am very capable of ignoring you completely if you maintain the approach that you have so far adopted on this thread ---- even with your very first post directed to me (and which of course started on the other thread).

I have never being idiotic.You on the otherhand has been mischievious by ascribing to church fathers things they never said.That was why I demanded to ear directly from the church fathers themselves.you have so far failed to proove your false assertions. when sir abubakr tafawa balewa received the symbol of indepence from princess alexandria was he not symbolically representing nigeria? Why was the autourity handed over to him? I will leave that for you to ponder

I will even post more explicit writings of st Augustine which reflects is views on the roman and petrine supremacy.

Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.� Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

Here he makes it so explicit that even a blind man can see.when you say st Augustine was not roman catholic you really make me laugh.Have you read about the 'filoque clause controversy'? Do you know that was one of the major reasons for the east-west schism.can you guess what brought about that?

St Augustine's modification of the procession of the holy spirit in the nicene creed to originating from both the father and the son instead of only the father alone.His views was shared by the western church and rejected in the east.

Yep, Augustine called Rome an apostolic see; or in his words it had the supremacy of an apostolic chair.

However, of course Augustine like many others of the early "church fathers" also recognised the supremacy of an apostolic chair in other places. They never said that Rome was the only apostolic see; rather there were a number of known apostolic sees.

Per Augustine

"You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion..."

No one is saying rome is the only apostolic see.Antioch,Alexandria,Jerusalem and several others but none is reffered to having possessed supremacy.

Can you provide any link where st Augustine refers to any other church as having supremacy?

What do you understand by the terms 'supremacy' and supreme'?

Enigma:

On this occasion I will assume you have misunderstood my point rather than accuse you of lying.

First of all the so-called "primacy of Peter" is not and does not mean primacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Above all, this thread is about the interpretation of Matthew 16: 18. Therefore my point with Augustine, Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazanzius etc etc etc is that they interpreted Mathew 16:18 as conferring authority on Peter as well as on all bishops worldwide and wherever --- and to some extent even on all Christians.

In short, these early "church fathers" (and who were mostly NOT Roman Catholics) did not apply Matthew 16:18 to "papal primacy".

And with them, I conclude that Matthew 16:18 does not provide any doctrinal basis for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church of "papal supremacy".

The Roman Catholic claim of "papal supremacy" is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the apostles.

Go and read Chrysostom and the others on their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and learn, with honesty and humility, how they interprete the passage.

ur problem is that u have failed to realise dat d primacy of d roman see is derived from that of peter. enigma wants to play d new church fada, do u want me to provide d texts so u will show me wu has preeminent authority?

Pastor AIO: I wonder why this authority only applies to all christians 'to some extent'. Yet Bishops get the full extent.

read my responds above enigma, those bishops gat an office.

Pastor AIO:

Ube. . . why you dey quiz me like this na? I didn't say anything is referring to any 'body of . . .'. I said that someone's reasoning/interpretation was interesting. Ingenious.


Now you want to hang me for that. Why you no go ask the pesin wey talk the thing originally? This is mightily unfair of you.

im very sorry, i thought u were d one wu made d point that Jesus was refering to "a body of..." i probably made a mistake.

Pastor AIO:

I don't recall ever saying that if d literal sense makes sense then seek no other sense.

neither do i, it is a popular phase on nairaland and i wanted to generalise.

Logicboy03: Kai, Ubenedictus and Chukwudi, una no well!


See, as my guyz just finish Enigma.

logic boy u no serious,