Oh really? Do you mean, like someone's apologetics page (like I asked about)...or possibly from comments on some other forum elsewhere..."?
Someone who had already done the typing you said...well of course someone did. The question was who, and where did you copy it from.
I will ask you again;
Did you copy/past the items from that one book, from some other web page? If so, then it can be helpful for the sake of honesty to supply link to the source from which you yourself copied the information.
The (possible) wider contexts from which those same authors which were quoted (if they were much in the way of historians) may well have have written further as to how these things could have been viewed by the early Church -- which differs significantly from how 'Rome' alone came to view this sort of thing, using their own preferred chain of "if this, then that" sort of progression to then assert --- ultimate authority resided in the man Peter, and they alone were heirs to that same 'authority'.
Then again, since the promoters of "Papacy" who selectively quoted allegedly "protestant" commentators, likely as not would not include portions from those same writers they were quoting which would undermine their own overall argument, the "out of context" aspect would be most likely built-in and inherent to that book which you had somehow copy/pasted selected portions from. Webster demonstrated how the same writers of the book from which the quotes were extracted were themselves guilty of having edited quotations from ECF's, thus showing themselves to be a less-than intellectually honest & trustworthy source themselves, if but themselves aggregators of the writings and opinions of others.
The missing, wider contexts of where those quotes arose from, though listed in notation as for source, still leaves one needing to play a game of go fetch if one was hoping to see how those commentators may have been misrepresented, as in possibly implying that those persons supported the Papacy itself (as that came to be known), or else being used for the one item of word translation alone to support the concept of Papacy as having flowed from Peter alone, without any possibly otherwise existent caveats against that precise notion, coming from those some persons cited as being meaningful authority of some sort for the narrow issue of the translation work, itself.
Would not what the pastristic authors from the earliest centuries of the Church had to say, and the contexts in which those noteworthy individuals addressed the same issue be worth far more than a few isolated snippets of opinion from persons chiefly, otherwise obscure, and all but unknown to us? Metzger is widely known of, but is not without his own critics whom can make a case for having various disagreement that man.
In Websters' presentation, there was a small raft of Roman Catholic historians also, heavy hitters as it were, whom wrote towards what was the early Church's way of understanding what so-called primacy for the Apostle Peter was, and was not, with the "was not" being that it did not equate with there having been established a capital "P" Papacy, in Rome --- or even that that was the intent from the beginning.
Further, the patristic authors themselves quoted, enter into discussions of aspects of the Church faith and polity other than Matthew 16:18, which ranges toward this "totality of the truth passed on by the Church" which you mentioned, (as if no one other than those of Rome knows of those truths..?).
That's just so much vague had-waving which rather neglects you were just focusing upon the very same thing!
If there is any problem it was entirely predicated by the wide-spread and numerous usages of that one particular passage, and the cherry-picking of patristic writers commentary commonly engaged in by amateur RC apologists.
It was that sort of thing which brought on the effort to provide an extensive record of the wider contexts in which the patristic commentary can be found. It is those contexts themselves which is among the various evidences against the concept there was a "pope in Rome" carrying singular "Petrine authority" which other bishops were not also equally heirs of (if such a thing can be passed down to the extent some try to maintain it is).
In other words, the RCC and it's legions of apologists quite often are not telling the full story (even as they claim to, and claim to have "the fulness" of all which is desirable). Webster busted the writers of the book which you quoted from, showing how the cherry-picking blossoms into false representations.
Whatever this imagined Protestant lens is, it's not nearly as distorted as the Romanist lens which anachronistically (while relying in part on their own contemporary rhetoric) impose their own understanding of what "the totality of the Church" was, while including aspects which came about and became a part of religious thought, only in later centuries.
Unless you have seen what Webster brought previously and have carefully examined the entirety of that which is covered at those two links which I provided (an arduous task, I confess) from the time I posted that, to the time you replied passing verdict upon the same --- then you must be a speed reader. How much did you take time to carefully consider before dismissing all?
It is the details which flat blow away the claims of those whom write of the "keys" being given only to Peter -- and that passing down only through a line of bishops in Rome, or else all needing to derive their own authority as it were through that one locale and ecclesiastical community.
Webster described how that mention of "keys" was understood in the early Church, with the keys still belonging to Christ in the sense that it was the Gospel itself which the gates of hell would not stand against. THAT was what was given to the Church -- The Gospel (good news) of Christ's own sacrifice being payment in full for our sins, for otherwise there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood.
How could that be a valid 'view" if they (all) held it at all -- for many early witnesses relied upon Scripture, and the witness of those of the Church which had not strayed from that. There were those others arising from within the Church, following their own reasoning and imaginings whom can be seen to have strayed. We know they strayed, and portions of the Church were correct enough in having opposed them (on general principle) Bishop Arius being a prime example of one whom needed to be opposed, for his own "if Christ was this, then He could not be that" or "If He was this, then He was this other thing" type of approach which ended in making Christ into a created being, wherein (to speak of things somewhat humorously) one could honestly enough say that Jesus was Jewish -- only on his mother's side (of the family). :^1)
As for the Church itself being the pillar and foundation of the Church, allow one early church notable to outline how the order of operations flowed, after the original Apostles had passed on;
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html
Chapter I.-The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth. 1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
We see plainly enough, that according to Ireneaus, the ground and pillar of our faith was the Gospel which was preached, not the preachers of it themselves being the ground and pillars.
Vague recollection it might have been Dave Armstrong's site. But this goes back about 8-10 years ago; I really don't recall. I think I added or modified a few of the comments by going direct to Butler, Dahlgren & Hess.
The missing, wider contexts of where those quotes arose from, though listed in notation as for source, still leaves one needing to play a game of go fetch if one was hoping to see how those commentators may have been misrepresented[.]
Well, one commentator I listed was from an article in Encyclopedia Britannica:
Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter's faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 edition, "Peter," Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O'Connor, the author of the article, is himself Protestant and author of Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical and Archaeological Evidence [1969] )
It just now took me all of about 30 seconds to find this online. So was the quotation of that author done fairly?
Would not what the patristic authors from the earliest centuries of the Church had to say, and the contexts in which those noteworthy individuals addressed the same issue be worth far more than a few isolated snippets of opinion from persons chiefly, otherwise obscure, and all but unknown to us?
The article above speaks to the general consensus among scholars as it exists today.. On this point, the article doesn't even give contemporary examples; there is even less reason to go back and give historic ones. In any case, the statement can't be proven nor disproven by a few examples, so there's little point to providing any.
That's just so much vague had-waving which rather neglects you were just focusing upon the very same thing!
Since your post was pretty much all about the Patristic views, I added some comments on that topic. Necessarily they are general; I wasn't about to embark on a Patristic survey.
It is those contexts themselves which is among the various evidences against the concept there was a "pope in Rome" carrying singular "Petrine authority" which other bishops were not also equally heirs of . . .
There was accepted, even among many of the Greek writers, that the Bishop of Rome, on account of being the successor to Peter, held a type of "primacy." The Orthodox today speak of it as merely a primacy of honor, not one of jurisdiction. Popes and others Latins in roughly the 8th to 11th centuries read the writings of the earlier Greek Fathers and saw language which implied much more than that. East and West obviously couldn't come to agreement.
(if such a thing can be passed down to the extent some try to maintain it is).
This comment goes directly to my view that for a Protestant polemicist like Webster to try to make some point about Catholic ecclesiology by appealing to the Church Fathers is but so much disingenuous crap. There may not have agreement about Peter's role within the Apostolic college and how that translates in their day to a primacy in the Roman Patriarchy. But these same Patristic writers Webster cites to most certainly agreed on an ecclesiology that 1) recognized Apostolic Succession ("if such a thing can be passed down" was never in question), 2) recognized that the Bishops of the Church were heirs to the original authority of the office of the Apostles, 3) recognized a hierarchy of bishop, priest, and deacon, and 4) recognized that Scripture was to be understood in accordance with Tradition. I submit there was a wide consensus, if not near total agreement, on these points.
So it's just silly for the likes of Webster to make such a big deal out of a supposed lack of Patristic consensus on Matt 16:18 and other verses as relates to the Roman Bishop. If a lack of consensus supposedly weakens one's claim to Truth, then one has to accept a consensus on other claims to truth as evidence of that truth. Otherwise it's just specious argumentation. But Webster certainly isn't going to go there. I suspect neither are you.
Webster is just taking a page out of the Orthodox playbook. He's appealing to Patristic sources who would most assuredly reject Protestant views on ecclesiology more certainly and swiftly then they'd reject Roman claims.
I seriously fail to see what his point it.
There were those others arising from within the Church, following their own reasoning and imaginings whom can be seen to have strayed.
I'm glad you bring up Arius as he much prove my point. In the resulting controversy, both side appealed heavily to Scripture, but in the end what was persuasive was those holding to the view of equality of the Christ within the Godhead were those who could show the strongest succession back to the communities known to have been founded by the Apostles. (On this point, see Irenaeus below)
We see plainly enough, that according to Ireneaus, the ground and pillar of our faith was the Gospel which was preached, not the preachers of it themselves being the ground and pillars.
This from the person who is accusing other of selective sampling. Let's take Irenaeus in fuller context:
"Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith....But when, the heretics are accusing the Scriptures, as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of tradition...And when we challenge them in turn with that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. Against Heresies, III,5,1
"The tradition of the Apostles, manifested 'on the contrary' in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth...And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles" Against Heresies, III, 3, 1; III, 3, 2
The church, for Irenaeus, was the guardian of the Truth handed down from the Apostles through the succession of the elders. And he doesn't mean just that they preserved the Bible texts, but that they preserved the meaning of those texts.