Replies

No, by catholic, I believe he meant the community of saints who truly believe and trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

This is true but there is much more ,dear friend. Through valid Sacraments of Eucharist,Baptism,Reconciliation, anointing of the sick, etc...We are of one faith as the church fathers believed.... and their is only one Church that can be traced back to Christ and it's the Catholic/Orthodox church, not some non denomination community of believers that willfully separated themselves and reject Sacraments.

So yes, Peter was truly an important man, just as Paul was. In all groups some people are more outspoken than others, and this was surely Peter’s case. But none of these passages say or imply he was Pope or head of the church. The fact a man is able to speak well DOES NOT PROVE he has authority over others.

Since you're trying to use Church Fathers to make a case ask yourself why NONE of them speak of Paul or any other Apostle regarding Primacy?It's always succession from Saint Saint Peter as I posted in Augustine's writing a few posts ago.

I stand with St. Ambrose in his interpretation of the rock passage Ambrose makes this quite clear...However, like Ambrose and Augustine, I believe that Peter’s primacy was simply a matter of personal privilege, personal honor and not an office.

And here is Blessed Ambrose and Blessed Augustine making it even CLEARER...

"Christ is the Rock, St. Peter is the Rock, faith is the Rock. It is all-encompassing. However, these excerpts do not diminish the understanding of the chair and primacy of St. Peter and the Roman Catholic Church at all. The universal primacy of St. Peter and the Roman Church is explained by the very Fathers that you have provided"-St. Ambrose ("On the Incarnation")

"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" Saint Augustine(Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build my church . . . " [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " Saint Augustine(Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Dear Friend, I realize you're copy and pasting from protestant websites.

I really am happy you're taking an interest in the Early Church Fathers and would encourage you to read them on your own so you would hopefully realize that they led Eucharistic lives

I will pray for you to be led towards truth.

I wish you a Blessed evening.Good night.

RE: This is true but there is much more ,dear friend. Through valid Sacraments of Eucharist,Baptism,Reconciliation, anointing of the sick, etc...We are of one faith as the church fathers believed.... and their is only one Church that can be traced back to Christ and it’s the Catholic/Orthodox church, not some non denomination community of believers that willfully separated themselves and reject Sacraments.

______________________________________

Yes there is only one church that can be traced back to the apostles but I disagree that it is ONLY the one headquartered in Rome. It is composed of ALL who by grace through faith accept Christ as their Lord and Savior and who truly believe and obey His word.

You cannot limit the church to an institution based in one location which historically was not recognized as having jurisdiction over all other churches.

The church of Rome had its bishops, but so did the Church of Ephesus, Carthage, Hippo and other places. They were all catholic in the sense that THEY SHARED THE SAME FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST.

Hence, all churches that share this faith similarly are part of Christ’s church.

RE: Since you’re trying to use Church Fathers to make a case ask yourself why NONE of them speak of Paul or any other Apostle regarding Primacy?It’s always succession from Saint Saint Peter as I posted in Augustine’s writing a few posts ago.

Because Paul was the LAST of the apostles to believe. Peter was among the first. The difference is not in terms of who is superior in terms of hierarchy but in terms of TIME OF BELIEF.

Paul affirmed he was equal with other apostles in every way SEE: 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11.

Paul, by virtue of the authority of the word of God ( the gospel ) even REBUKED Peter for his hypocrisy PUBLICLY and even wrote about it ( see the epistle to the Galatians ).

All apostles were ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). If Peter had authority over all apostles, Paul would have been behind him, but Paul denies this.

Here is how Augustine defines what he means when he says that Peter is the first of the Apostles:

As you know, all of you who know the holy scriptures, among the disciples whom the Lord chose while present in the flesh, Peter was the first to be chosen. Paul on the other hand was not chosen among them, nor with them, but a long time afterward, though not for all that unequal to them. So Peter is the first of the apostles, Paul the last; while God, whose servants these two are, whose heralds, whose preachers these two are, is the first and the last (Rv 22:13). Peter first among the apostles, Paul last among the apostles; God both first and last, before whom nothing and after whom nothing. So God who has presented himself as eternally the first and the last, himself joined together the first and the last apostles in martyrdom (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Sermons III/8 (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermon 299.2, p. 229).

The blessed apostles Peter and Paul were called at different times, and crowned on the same day. The Lord called Peter before all the others, Paul after all the others; Peter the first of the apostles, Paul the last; they were led to martydom on one and the same day by the First and the Last (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Sermons III/8 (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermon 299C.1, p. 250).

Note here that Augustine states that Peter is the first and Paul is the last. This has to do with the priority of time, NOT WITH OFFICIAL POSITION IN A HIERARCHY. Augustine also states that Paul and Peter are EQUALS.

There is no indication or mention of a papacy in Rome with jurisdiction over all other churches in the world, anywhere in his writings.

RE: Dear Friend, I realize you’re copy and pasting from protestant websites.

I’ll tell you where I am copying and pasting my sources from and here it is :

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

It is a compendium of the early church fathers.

It has little to do with what protestants say but what the fathers wrote.

If I think the fathers are right, I’ll agree with them, if not, then I don’t.

The fathers don;t all agree with each other and even Augustine himself acknowledged that.

RE: I really am happy you’re taking an interest in RE: the Early Church Fathers and would encourage you to read them on your own so you would hopefully realize that they led Eucharistic lives.

I ALWAYS have an interest in the early church fathers, however, more than that, I have an interest in SCRIPTURE.

What scripture says and teaches is what I hold as SUPREME over all the church fathers.

I do read the fathers, but I realize that the fathers DO NOT HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT and there is no indication of any early writings that they accepted Rome as having universal jurisdiction over all other churches in the world.

And as usual, even as one respects the opinion of the church father, one does not read them blindly without discerning and comparing them with reasonable exegesis of scripture.