I blive i answer dis b4, 4 d sake of peace i will ansa it again

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.

the primacy of d roman see(i dont know anything called "primacy of the roman Catholic church) is derived from the petrine primacy.

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.

u are confusing the literal sense with d allegorical. Was christ talking to all d apostles wen he said "u are peter"?

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

really? Most of the church father clearly identified d roman see with authority, do u mean this?

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.

are u saying that matthew 16:18 doesnt provide proof of petrine primacy? That is the question, the apostle peter is d topic of d thread and if u claim that the church fathers didnt agree that that passage is about petrine primacy i have no problem with accusing u of intellectual dishonesty.

^^^ Well, now there is no question that the two views are now set out. Your views are there for all to read and mine are there for all to read.