“So, are you agreeing with Augustine’s words Elsie referenced which are contrary to your current catechism?”
That shows the problem with anti-Catholics. Why would Augustine’s OTHER interpretations - when at least 3 or 4 are possible - mean any exclusivity to any one interpretation over another on Augustine’s part? This shows no problem with Augustine - just anti-Catholics. We once again see that anti-Catholics do not know or understand what they are attacking. Do you even know what the Catholic Church has taught about the interpretation of Matthew 16? Apparently not if your posts are anything to go by.
Most likely an anti-Catholic will respond in one of two ways to what I posted above:
1) The anti-Catholic will not understand anything I just said so he will lash out with false charges of obfuscation to cover his own confusion at being caught up short.
2) The anti-Catholic will post official statements from authoritative Catholic sources that present only one interpretation in an attempt to answer my question (and which will show the anti-Catholic do not actually understand what I am asking) or in a failed attempt to make me look bad as if I don’t know EXACTLY what the Church teaches about Matthew 16.
In either case, we will probably see that anti-Catholics do not know anymore about how the Church views interpretation of Matthew 16 than the anti-Catholics know about the protection of the Holy Spirit in papal infallibility.