As I said earlier, I not going back into the Eucharistic discussion in detail. I have a long post on that before. I did not see this post until after. I read your post on the Westminster confession and thought that was your last post. Your first quote??? you went way over the top here, I will speak more on the context later.
You wrote
“I’m not sure what game you, in fact, are playing, as this has nothing to do with what I said. You suggested that the New Testament was somehow up in the air. If you concede that the early church were highly familiar with the books of the New Testament, then they knew what the scripture was, regardless of the status of the apocrypha.
By the way, why did you rob Ignatius of his relationship with John the Apostle? Is it because he said that the head of the Bishop is God?”
You are really making claims that I did not say. I never said the Early Fathers were not familiar with NT writings, I just said from the time of Saint Clement of Rome to the end of the 2nd Century, the time of Saint Irenaeus, not every Church Father cited every NT writing, best I can tell and based on the scriptural cross-references in Fr. Jurgens Volume 1 of The Faith of the Early Fathers, not all of the books were cited in the 2nd century. For example, Saint Hippoltyus of Rome seems to be the first to clearly site James in the early 3rd century and Saint Clement of Alexandria cites 22 of the 27 books, but not 2 and 3 John, Philemon and James, although it seems to be the first to site 2 Peter in the early 3rd [though some question that, maybe he alludes to it]. Even at the time of Saint Irenaeus [180AD], who cites maybe 20-22 of the 27 NT books, he also cites Clement of Rome and the Shepherd of the Hermas as authoritative. Now he is the 1st to clearly state that there are only 4 orthodox Gospels [again best I can tell].
The earliest list of NT books was put together by the Church of Rome [Muratorian Fragment] and it lists 22 of the 27 books in the NT canon.
Terullian in “Against Marcion” [written around 210AD] during his transition phase to the heretical Montanist sect. I only cite him because he also lists a Canon which would be normative for what the Catholic Churches in North Africa recognized at that time, although while this is his semi-Montanist phase, it is the best source on Marcion, who was excommunicated by the Church of Rome in 144AD.
Origen it seems is the 1st to cite all 27 NT books, although he does cast doubt on several books as to canonicity, in particular, 2 and 3 John and 2 Pater. He cites James pretty directly [the Faith and Works passage] but concedes that it is not universally accepted. Like Saint Ireneaus, he also cites 1 Clement, the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas as inspired [whereas as the Muratorian Fragment in Rome, 180AD rejects it as being inspired.
So all I am saying is that there is no universal acceptance of the NT in the 2nd century, and that is still the case in the 3rd century, and if you read Eusebius, he states there is still some questions about Hebrews and Revelation. In addition, there were some books cited as canonical scriptures by the Fathers, that would not be put into the Canon. So my cite statement, if you are going to do a cite analysis in the 2nd century has to recognize that the Deuterocanonicals were frequently cited along with NT books along with books like the Didache, The Letter of Clement of Rome and the Shepherd of the Hermas.
The biblical canon was in a development stage until the second half of the 4th century. That is the only point that made. As for Saint Ignatius of Antioch, not somebody I ignore, one of my favorites, Eucharistic theology is evident, the clear teaching on 1 Bishop leading City-Church, the Letter to the Church at Rome which presides in Charity. I just did not cite him in the context of quoting the Deuterocanonicals because he did not. In fact, best I can tell, he only quoted from about 8 NT books and only Isiah from the OT seems to be quoted.
As for Mt 16:18, the statement that it is a fatal blow to Catholicism!!!! Really. The primacy of the Church of Rome and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome are related. The Primacy of the Church of Rome also actually rests on the fact that Both Saint Peter and Paul were martyred there. I am not going to post the mountain of Patristic evidence that states this [I will post a good bit], but all of them talk about the Church of Rome in connection to both Peter and Paul. The Catholic Church has an important feast day in June called the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul [together]. There is some evidence that the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul goes back to around 260AD but there is not a doubt by the 4th century, the Church of Rome was celebrating the Marytrdom of Saints Peter and Paul on the same day.
For example,St. Augustine wrote in Sermon 295 “Both apostles share the same feast day, for these two were one; and even though they suffered on different days, they were as one. Peter went first, and Paul followed. And so we celebrate this day made holy for us by the apostles’ blood. Let us embrace what they believed, their life, their labors, their sufferings, their preaching, and their confession of faith.”
As early as 1 Clement, there is an appeal to both Peter and Paul [Clement likely new Saint Paul {Phil 4:3} and was ordained by Peter, as later Fathers cite]. Saint Ignatius of Antioch states “Not as Peter and Paul” Do I command you [105-107AD]
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter, Bishop of Rome around 166AD [most of this letter is extant in Eusebius work]
“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time”
A Roman Priest named Caius, around 198AD also recounts Peter and Pauls Martyrdom in Rome during Nero’s Time [the Letter or most of it is extant n Eusebius History] and in that letter he speaks of the “Trophies of the Apostles, i.e. where they are buried” and states you will find those who found/built this Church [Rome].
Saint Irenaeus writing around 180-189AD
“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (same cite as above).
Tertullian writes [citing him only for another witness from a different part of the Church [N. Africa] writes in Against Marcion [207-212AD]
“Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood”
Eusebius writes around 300-305AD:
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42).
Later in his Church History [325AD], he writes
“When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1)
Peter of Alexandria in his Canonical Letter writes:
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius, who wrote a good work, with shortcomings [per Fr. Jurgens in Faith of the Early Fathers] to develop a Latin Theology, writes:
“When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5) [Per Fr. Jurgens work, dated Inter A.D. 316-320]).
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem writes:
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
Interesting, while Saint Cyril does not cite Mt.16:18 directly, he clearly is alluding to it here. Still, the point is the connection of Peter and Paul in Rome. So the Primacy of the Church of Rome is in fact, via Liturgical Tradition [The Solemnity of Saint Peter and Paul is Liturgically celebrated as 1 Feast day in the Church of Rome] and has been way before the 16th century and subsequent debates about Matthew 16:18.
So independent of Sacred Scripture, there is Sacred Tradition as expressed by the Church Fathers that connect both Peter and Paul to the building of the Church of Rome and Liturgically, the Church in Rome had a feast of these 2 Apostles together. In addition, Saint Peter’s Basilica is one of the Papal Churches, yes, but Saint Paul’s Outside the Walls is another Papal Basilica and both of these Churches were built way, way, way, back
Saint Clement of Alexandria around 200AD speaks of Saint Peter as preeminent without using Mt 16:18 [He actually uses 3 other passages] now this only speaking of Saint Peter, and not directly his successors, but others, namely Saint Irenaeus, about 10 to 15 years earlier, talk about succession. Saint Clement of Rome clearly talks about it at the end of the 1st.
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5)
Saint Cyprian of Carthage writes in a Letter to Pope Cornelius something interesting:
“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” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).”
The letter above is written even after the famous passage a few years before where he actually wrote about Mt 16:18
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the 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 [cathedra], 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 [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] 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 [should] 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 4 [A.D. 251]).
Now He did write another version of that with respect to Mt 16:18 but he never denied Peter and Rome’s primacy. Notice though he also cited John 21:17 which is also a Petrine passage along with Luke 22:31-32. But his letter per se to the Pope was never recanted.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in another writing states
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).”
Saint Optatus, a Bishop from North Africa writes:
“In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
Saint Opatus is not someone cited much in protestant circles as I am not sure he was translated by the Anglican divines like Lightfoot or the Lutheran Harnack [I am not sure]. He is translated by Fr. Jurgens and New Advent has a detailed article about him [see link below]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11262b.htm
It is interesting that the earlier doctrine of Pope Stephen, which Saint Cyprian argued about, would in fact be the doctrine that the Catholic Church would define. So in the end the orthodoxy of the earlier Pope Stephen would be what would be the standard.
Saint Ambrose of Milan writes:
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [seems to be alluding to Matt. 16:18] (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
So the Primacy of the Church of Rome and Bishop of Rome are joint. They are not independent and they do not rely on Mt. 16:18. And this notion of win. Really? I am not trying to win anything nor I am loosing anything. Nothing you can say is going to impact my view of the Primacy of the Church of Rome and Pope similar to the discussion on the Eucharist. If you choose to characterize this as winning and loosing, well, that is you, not me. For the record, I used “game in an earlier post” in a strictly allegorical sense, not in the sense that this is a football game, etc. Just for the record.
Now as for what the previous 2 Popes believe, Pope John Paul II did issue and encyclical Ut Unam Sint which was a call to the Orthodox to enter into Dialogue about how the Ministry of the Bishop of Rome could be exercised in terms of Primacy. Pope Benedict has said the same thing.
Now Rome can’t do what it pleases on everything, even Popes are bound by Canon Law. So the Pope can’t say the Nicene and Apostles Creed are not valid, the Pope is bound by Doctrine, so he can’t do what he pleases in that regards. He has to say Mass the same way every other priest and Bishop does. He can’t make up his own Liturgy. So in that context, yes, he can’t do what he pleases. However, he can, if a question faith and morals is so urgent, he can excommunicate someone if that person does not recant. The Pope by himself can all a Council. No other Bishop can do so. For a Council of the Catholic Church to be valid, the Pope has to recognize it, etc. So try to understand Catholic Doctrine from Catholic Doctrine, not some internet theologian who thinks they know, but they don’t know.
Pope Victor and the issue of Easter was not a matter of Doctrine, it was a matter of Liturgical Tradition. So in this regards, the Pope, who was following the Roman Tradition that most likely had come from Peter and Paul, and the Eastern Bishops were following a tradition that came down from The Apostle John. There was no doctrine at state here, it was only which date should Easter be celebrated on. Nevertheless, the COuncil of Nicea would adopt the Roman Tradition and ensure that Easter would be celebrated always on Sunday. So, given the question, a Council was a better way to handle this than threatening to excommunicate orthodox Catholics for a different Liturgical tradition. So, this is not a form of Primacy rooted in Saint Ignatius of Antioch’s “Presides in Charity” or to use a later expression from Pope Gregory the Great, the Bishop of Rome should always be the Servant of the Servants of God when exercising his ministry as Pope. So no conflicts here at all.
As for the Eucharist, even without the term “Transubstantiation”, the Doctrine of the Eucharist would be unchanged and exactly the same in the Catholic Church. Transubstantiation is a word to convey that after the epicisles, it is theologically wrong to call Bread and Wine “bread and win” it is now the Body and Blood of Christ. So like I said, Not going to go into a long debate over that term again. Have already been through it in an earlier post and I stand by that post.
Nobody in the early Church had a view that it was only a mere symbol. And Saint Augustine did not write against what you are saying he wrote against. He defined a sacrament as a visible sign of an invisible reality. So if you understand the definition of a sacrament, the sign conveys what is being signified. When Augustine speaks of latent Mystery here, he is talking about something that is real not figurative. I have read those same Augustine passages and don’t read them the way you do. For the record, the Lutherans read them and they don’t come to the position that we Catholics have, or you Reformed or the Anglicans, yet all claim to be reading Saint Augustine’s statements on the Eucharist
This is straight out revisionism, and it isn't even supported by your church. Read your catechism. Rome places no special charism or a piece of a charism of primacy on Paul. The foundation of Primacy is on Rome's interpretation of Matt 16:18 and the supposed transmission of the keys to the Bishop of Rome alone:
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
This is important, for the obvious reason that many of the Church Fathers reject Rome's interpretation, or else regard all the Apostolic Sees as equal with many successors of Peter. A primacy founded on Peter and Paul being martyred in Rome destroys Romanism, and is exactly the argument made by the Eastern Orthodox when showing the differences between history and Rome's later claims. Your nonsense about those two being celebrated, as if Rome today is celebrating their Universal Headship based on those two Apostles, is horribly deceptive. If that were the case, the Eastern Orthodox would be in full communion with you, as Rome has abandoned its claims of alone possessing the keys of heaven. If Rome does indeed place Primacy on a combined Peter and Paul duo, please provide the reference from the catechism or other official church documents.
As mentioned before, Rome's primacy in later ages was based on "honor" built on Peter and Paul. This is exactly my and the EO's boast, not yours, as it destroys Rome's claims completely. Rome's version of Primacy is not of honor, nor on Peter and Paul, but on the keys and the absolute power they imagine from it.
From another source besides the catechism, mark the decree by the first Vatican Council:
"Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord. [PROMISED] It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42] , that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it... And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold... To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema." (Decrees of the First Vatican Council)
Compare the sections in bold to the Church Fathers:
"For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV
Note carefully in Augustine. Peter represents the church, and the foundation, the Rock, is Christ. This closely resembles the actual Greek of the text itself, which distinguishes "petra", the pebble, coming from the "rock", the boulder, that is Christ.
Another:
"He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance."(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine Book I. Chapter 18.17 The Keys Given to the Church.)
Cyprian -- The keys given to the Church
"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith" (Cyprian Epistle XXVI Cyprian to the Lapsed)
On the equality of the Bishops:
"And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole." (On the Unity of the Catholic Church - 5)
Chrysostom -- The Keys given to the Apostle John:
"For (John) the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now" (Homilies on the Gospel of John. Preface to Homily 1.1)
Ambrose -- Peter has the primacy of confession, not honor, a primacy of belief, not rank:
"He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).)
Christ the foundation of the church:
"The foundation of justice therefore is faith, for the hearts of the just dwell on faith, and the just man that accuses himself builds justice on faith, for his justice becomes plain when he confesses the truth. So the Lord saith through Isaiah: “Behold, I lay a stone for a foundation in Sion.” This means Christ as the foundation of the Church. For Christ is the object of faith to all; but the Church is as it were the outward form of justice, she is the common right of all. For all in common she prays, for all in common she works, in the temptations of all she is tried. So he who denies himself is indeed a just man, is indeed worthy of Christ. For this reason Paul has made Christ to be the foundation, so that we may build upon Him the works of justice, whilst faith is the foundation. In our works, then, if they are evil, there appears unrighteousness; if they are good, justice (Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy, Chapter 29.142).
Christ is the rock:
"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" (Ambrose, Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4).
Next, on a different approach, note the emphasis by Theodoret and the Council of Chalcedon on Rome's glory as the capital city, not on being the inheritors of Peter's keys. Thus Rome's primacy of honor was based on it being the capital city, and a site of martyrdom, and not on Peter's sole successor:
"But on your city the great Provider has bestowed an abundance of good gifts. She is the largest, the most splendid, the most illustrious of the world, and overflows with the multitude of her inhabitants. Besides all this, she has achieved her present sovereignty, and has given her name to her subjects. She is moreover specially adorned by her faith, in due testimony whereof the divine Apostle exclaims “your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. And if even after receiving the seeds of the message of salvation her boughs were straightway heavy with these admirable fruits, what words can fitly praise the piety now practised in her? In her keeping too are the tombs that give light to the souls of the faithful, those of our common fathers and teachers of the truth, Peter and Paul This thrice blessed and divine pair arose in the region of sunrise, and spread their rays in all directions. Now from the region of sunset, where they willingly welcomed the setting of this life, they illuminate the world. They have rendered your see most glorious; this is the crown and completionof your good things; but in these days their God has adorned their throne." TheodoretLetter CXIII. To Leo, Bishop of Rome
"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, - Canon XXVIII The Fourth Ecumenical Council. The Council of Chalcedon.
This emphasis on Peter and Paul and Rome's glory as the capital directly contradicts Rome's claims. Rome does not teach that it is the head over all the church because its hell-bound citizens murdered Peter and Paul once (and now murder them again in new and more wicked ways), and that it was once the capital of the empire. Rome argues it is the head of the church, more than just in a sense of honor, because of the Roman Bishop being the sole successor of Peter.
Next, on top of the examples already given from Gregory and Theodoret on there being many successors of Peter:
Gaudentius -- Against Rome's Supremacy
Gaudentius calls Ambrose, the Archbishop of Milan, a successor of Peter:
"I beseech our common father Ambrose, that, after the scanty dew of my discourse, he may pour abundantly into your hearts the mysteries of the divine writings. Let him speak from that Holy Spirit with which he is filled, and ‘from his belly shall flow rivers of living water;’ and, as a successor of Peter, he shall be the mouth of all the surrounding priests. For when the Lord Jesus asked of the apostles, ‘Whom do you say that I am?’ Peter alone replies, with the mouth of all believers, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ What reward did that confession at once receive? Blessedness indeed, and the most glorious power of the heavenly kingdom (Tract. 16, De Ordin. Ipsius. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 105-107).
So all I am saying is that there is no universal acceptance of the NT in the 2nd century,
This also is a misleading assertion. You imply that the entire NT had no universal acceptance, when, really, there were only a few books not cited universally by all the fathers, the same that Luther is often attacked for questioning. The Gospels were sorted as early as Papias before the end of the first century, and all of the epistles of Paul and the majority of the books were well established. And, recall, this is your response to sola scriptura. The aim can only be to imply that there was no scripture for anyone to settle with, despite their sayings.
.The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42).
Remember I'm the one who quoted this originally, so lets go back to my question: Why does Rome get the keys when Antioch was founded first? Did you think I would forget?
Saint Clement of Alexandria around 200AD speaks of Saint Peter as preeminent without using Mt 16:18 [He actually uses 3 other passages] now this only speaking of Saint Peter, and not directly his successors, but others, namely Saint Irenaeus, about 10 to 15 years earlier, talk about succession.
Peter may be called the "first", and Augustine even defines this in a literal temporal sense (he came first, Paul last) though certainly not superior to any:
"As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ investeth them with the same power." (Chrysostom, Homily LXXXVI On the Gospel of John John xx. 10, 11)
"One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples."(Third epistle to Nestorius, including the twelve anathemas Written by Cyril of Alexandria Approved by the Council of Ephesus, AD 431.)
The question isn't "Did some Fathers view Peter as Chief?" The question is: Does Rome really have a Primacy of Jurisdiction as Ruler of the whole flock? The answer is no. On top of the examples and evidence already given, yet another:
"During the controversies surrounding Pelagius' heresies a council in Mileve (in Numidia) found against Pelagianism. They then wrote to the pope seeking his help. They gave him much praise
"We write this from the council of Numidia, imitating our colleagues of the church and province of Carthage, who we understand have written on this matter to the apostolic see, which your blessedness adorns."[182]
Catholic apologists may make the most of such praise. However in the context of history one must also note that this praise was conditional. The next pope Zosimus did not out-rightly condemn the heresy Pelagianism and was himself condemned by the rest of the church for back-pedalling.[183]
Thus the same church (in Africa) could lavish praise upon the church in Rome but could equally condemn them, depending on the teachings Rome upheld.
Zosimus eventually reconfirmed the decision of Innocent, Pelagius went to the churches in Palestine where a synod was called to hear his case.[184] Augustine says that the churches in Palestine were deceived by Pelagius. What is important though is that even after two popes had condemned him Pelagius could still seek judgment by another region's synod. Evidentially the Palestinian churches did not see the condemnation of the church in Rome and the church in Africa as binding.
It would take an ecumenical council to bring the churches to agreement on this matter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy#cite_ref-143
This is the only view history can accept.
Saint Cyprian of Carthage writes in a Letter to Pope Cornelius something interesting:
This quote is tricky because it gives a misleading view of his writing when not taken in context of the entirety of his work, some of which was presented above. While he interpreted Peter as the rock in Matt 16:18, he regards every Bishop as his successor. Cyprian's argument is that men must be united with their local church. Cyprian himself believed he was in the Seat of Peter and the source of "sacerdotal unity" in Africa. Though he held that Rome had a primacy of "honor," he did not believe Rome was superior:
From Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno:
"Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are ‘glued together’ (Ep. 66.8).
Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian’s basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was ‘the root’ (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the ‘root.’ But in fact, in Cyprian’s teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted ‘...them to discern the womb and root...of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it’ (Ep. 48.3). It is clear that in Cyprian’s mind...one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60).
Saint Optatus, a Bishop from North Africa writes:
Optatus was likely a heretic of the Pelagian type, along with other problems:
"The only error that can be observed in the books of Optatus is, that he maintains that those, who had been baptized with John's baptism, before the institution of Christ's baptism, were not rebaptized. (Acts xix. 1 — 5.) We may add to this, what he says respecting the baptism of heretics, perhaps also what he proposes about the power of freewill, to which he seems to give the power of willing and beginning a good action, and also of advancing in the way of salvation without the help of the grace of Christ, but these errors are light and pardonable! One may also reprehend in his book the way in which he explains many passages of Holy Scripture, by giving them a sense very remote from that which they naturally have, and by applying them to those things with which they have no affinity. This fault, which would be tolerable in a preacher, seems not to be pardonable in an author, who writes a treatise on controversy, wherein all proofs should be solid and convincing... The text of Optatus is corrupted in many places." (Dupin's Eccles. History of the 4th Century of Christianity, Qtd. in A Sketch of the Romish Controversy by G. Finch)
Now Rome can’t do what it pleases on everything, even Popes are bound by Canon Law. So the Pope can’t say the Nicene and Apostles Creed are not valid, the Pope is bound by Doctrine, so he can’t do what he pleases in that regards.
A red herring. We are talking about whether Rome has autocratic power to excommunicate or establish doctrine, both of which are repudiated by the Church Fathers and Councils.
So the Primacy of the Church of Rome and Bishop of Rome are joint. They are not independent and they do not rely on Mt. 16:18.
A foolish statement: Without Matt 16:18, as already explained, Rome's version of primacy does not exist.
Pope Victor and the issue of Easter was not a matter of Doctrine, it was a matter of Liturgical Tradition. So in this regards, the Pope, who was following the Roman Tradition that most likely had come from Peter and Paul,
Polycarp and Eusebius presents it as the tradition of the Apostles, if you bother to read the quote, and therefore of Peter and Paul also, though Polycarp could have only known John. It is therefore false to claim that the Pope was merely presenting the differing tradition of Peter and Paul. The next Pope held it as a matter worthy of excommunication, and did so throwing off all the East. Obviously, it was a question of morals to him. Thus, a tradition of the Apostles was opposed by two Roman Bishops, the second of which broke communion with those who opposed him.
The Pope by himself can all a Council. No other Bishop can do so. For a Council of the Catholic Church to be valid, the Pope has to recognize it, etc.
Such a claim, in light of everything I have presented, is fatal. But your memory is very short.
As for the Eucharist, even without the term “Transubstantiation”, the Doctrine of the Eucharist would be unchanged and exactly the same in the Catholic Church... Nobody in the early Church had a view that it was only a mere symbol.
These are strawmen. Whether you use the name "transubstantiation," or any other term, the Romish view is ruled out. The statement that "nobody in the early Church had a view that.... a mere symbol" is simply foolish. I was not advocating Augustine having a Zwinglian view of the sacraments. I was demonstrating how Augustine held Calvin's view. Or, rather, Calvin stole Augustine's. (Calvin borrowed so much from Augustine that, often times, I hear Augustine's voice everywhere in the Institutes, and Calvin quotes him over 500 times.)