I have, which is precisely why the early church fathers did not have any concept of petrine primacy in any pro-Roman papal sense at all.
, instead of our short-hand recaps, you would see that the Church finds that Augustine’s and Eusebius’s comments to be fully consistent with papal infallibility
Of course Rome misrepresents the writings of Eusebius and Augustine, taking them out of context to imply a pro-Roman papal primacy when none was ever implied. Rome reads later papal doctrines back into them where they do not exist.
: it is not the MAN, but the DOCTRINE asserted BY the man, which is what the papal element of the magisterium consists of.
Wrong!
The rock was faith, but Peter was called, “rock” because he embodied that faith, and to he who embodied that faith was given the authority.
Wrong again, Peter was not given any sole authority at all, and the early church fathers did not teach that. Rather, Peter was a figure of the Church and every single believer was given the "keys", as the Peter is simply representative of all true believers and what was promised to Peter is given to all believers who truly follow Christ. They all become what Peter is. This is the view expressed in the following comments from Origin:
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.
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?
‘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(emphasis mine) 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---(Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).
I wonder why the authors of Jesus, Peter and the Keys left that quote out?
In reality, the early church fathers had no concept of any petrine primacy being bestowed on the bishops of Rome as any supreme rulers of the Church as the successors of Peter, as Rome came to attempt to claim.
Augustine wasn’t questionning papal authority; in fact, he appealed to it frequently.
Funny, Augustine told the Innocent I to back off during his indictments of Pelagius, whom Innocent I found to be "orthodox" and commanded Augustine to withdraw his indictments. Augustine told Innocent I in no uncertain terms to take a hike.
He was seperating the sins of a previous pope from the truth of the Catholic church.
LOL, thanks for the laugh.
>> Peter was not given any sole authority at all, and the early church fathers did not teach that. Rather, Peter was a figure of the Church and every single believer was given the “keys”, <<
Right... Peter was a figure of THE ENTIRE CHURCH. Yes, Origen did say, “The Rock and the Church are the same.” Origen isn’t disputing the plain meaning of “Peter.” He is equating Peter with the entirety of the Church. He is appealing that the Catholic Church is one, and speaks with one voice. And that unity is embodied by Peter.
>> Pelagius <<
A quick check on Wikipedia:
“Because the synods did not have complete authority without papal approval, Augustine and four other bishops wrote a letter urging Pope Innocent I to condemn Pelagianism. He agreed without much persuading.”
IOW, Augustine appealed to Innocent PRECISELY because the authority lay with Innocent. Further, Innocent DID condemn “Pelagianism.” Pelagius, then, rephrased his argument so as not to contradict Innocent or the council. Pope Zosimus saw that Pelagius had accepted the papal teachings, and found Pelagius innocent of heresy. Augustine did not agree, and summoned a council which accused Pelagius of heresy, but there was no further ruling from Rome. Augustine then called a synod to condenm Pelagianism and disallow his follower from serving as a priest in Africa.
What do we get from this?
Augustine and Pelagius recognized Rome had the final say on doctrine. But Rome recognizes that bishops have their own apostolic authority to remove a priest from their jurisdiction. This is how things still stand. Innocent did not tell Augustine to withdraw his indictments; Pelagius accepted the ruling of Rome IN FAVOR of Augustine and CHANGED his writings. Augustine then said that even if Rome does not detect heresy, an African bishop can still remove someone from priesthood.