He who proceeds without prejudice, on the basis of exegesis and only on this basis, cannot seriously conclude that Jesus here had in mind successors of Peter...On exegetical grounds we must say that the passage does not contain a single word concerning successors of Peter...The intent of Jesus leaves us no possibility of understanding Matthew 16:17ff. in the sense of a succession determined by an episcopal see’.11 Emphasis added.
Do we not already see a problem here?!
I'll just leave it at that (as I continue to read anyway, out of fairness), but I should hope the problem is obvious, when the stated conclusion is "Catholicism is wrong in its claim that it alone possesses the Traditional and historical might to teach and preserve original Christianity."
Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.14
...from the OP's source, which then credits this source "14 John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.",
Compare that quote with this alleged quote from St. Augustine:
2. 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! Matthew 16:18 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.
From here, clearly a primary source if not transmitted electronically.
Compare them carefully especially noting the passages that I have highlighted. They are CLEARLY saying two different things! At least when taken at face value.
So we have a conundrum. Really a choice to make. Either New Advent is lying when it recounts what St. Augustine says re the primacy of Peter, or William Webster is, or New Advent is unintentionally wrong or the same for William Webster. (ie, no lie is told, just an "honest" error committed perhaps in zeal to defend one's position). Or perhaps they are indeed both quotes from St. Augustine, but do not say what Webster says they say, i.e., that St. Augustine rejects the notion of the "Primacy of Peter".
I choose to believe the latter, out of charity, and ascribe the error to Webster. Why? Because in my experience, every time I've dug this deep (and deeper) into Protestant claims about the "error of Church Tradition and or historical claims", such Protestanf claims are found wanting. And this is a perfect example.
Even if we read no further, clearly Webster (here) is using a different source than New Advent for his source of St. Augustine's writings.
So, to truly "solve" this mystery and prove either Webster or New Advent lacking, formally, one would have to go to Webster's source above, look up the relevant quote, and find to which sermon it refers, and then compare that sermon to one at New Advent. Also, the letter on New Advent would have to be shown false by either checking its source or some other.
Now I could do that, perhaps, with a few more mouse clicks or a trip to my local library, but I'm tired of doing things like that, when every time I have for the sake of the Protestant claim, I have been shown it was a giant waste of time. A waste of time to doubt the Church.
So at this point I'm done reading. If some Protestanf/anti Carholic Christian wants to show me conclusively that the New Advent source is wrong, and Webster's source is correct, then I'll continue reading his "critique" of Beckwith's reversion account.
Until then, I'm throwing Webster's work here, and his "25 years of experience with the early church fathers" in the same dust bin I've thrown every other Protestant challenger to the historical and Traditional claims of the Church.
When discussing Communion writer Flannery O’Connor put it right when she said ‘if it’s only a symbol, to hell with it’.
The Church is not one denomination...it is the body of born-again believers in Christ...period...full stop.
Wish more could see this.
Mr. Webster — you still are and always will be a Catholic, answerable to Christ at the moment of your death.