Peter...the rock continued

My premise of these last few emails is to simply show that there is not a universal consensus ( Rome is not a monolithic church ) among the ECFs as to the teaching that Peter was the first Pope. Not to mention ( which I already have, I think ) the exegetical problems of the Matthew 16 passage.

 

In what I sent previous, I think you glossed over some things or read it different. Augustine is speaking against the very thing that the RCC claims are the grounds for their institution of the Pope...Christ -> Peter (Pope) -> his successors. RCC says "On you, Peter, I will build my church" but Augustine is saying it's not on Peter, but on his confession. 

Augustine is not jiving with Rome. Neither was Ambrose or Jerome or Cyprian. Some of those ECFs in the big bloated page ( http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html ) were hard to 'interpret' but some were very straightforward. A doctrine like "Supreme Pontiff over the universal Church of God" is HUGE isn't it? But when teaching on Matthew 16, their focus is on Christ, Peter's confession (which was on Christ) and not on Peter and not on a Supreme Pontiff.

If the "reader can decide" ( as Augustine says here http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xiv.html?highlight=peter,confession,augustine#highlight ), is this a doctrine that we shouldn't put much weight on? Augustine felt one way before, he changed his mind. But you reader, decide for yourself. This is not an option in the RCC today. You must believe that the Pope has "primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God". And maybe you do, but Augustine did at one time, and changed his mind. A veritable 5th century "Meh". He would not make it through RCIA with an attitude like that.

Of Jerome it is said speaking of Peter that "He can therefore be cited as a witness, at most, for a primacy of honor, not for a supremacy of jurisdiction." This not is what Rome teaches today.

The RCC says the Bishop of Rome is not merely a Bishop, but supreme pontiff over all Christendom. Augustine says that at most a place of honor, amongst the other apostles I presume, as well as an example to us. And not supremacy of jurisdiction. This is the rub, but much too long to discuss here. If you read the history of the early church...say the first few hundred years or so, very enlightening, but hey, just believe what New Advent and Catholic.com teaches.

More from what I pasted in my previous email "like Cyprian and Jerome, he lays stress upon the essential unity of the episcopate, and insists that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed not to a single man, but to the whole church, which Peter was only set to represent." Not to a single man...only representative.

As well the other ECFs in the big long bloated page. The above is not inline with Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching has morphed, evolved, progressed to what it is today. Read Unam Sanctam and Vatican One. What you are *hearing* about who the Pope is may not be inline with official church teaching.

More from previous email "This father, therefore, can at all events be cited only as a witness to the limited authority of the Roman chair. And it should also, in justice, be observed, that in his numerous writings he very rarely speaks of that authority at all, and then for the most part incidentally; showing that he attached far less importance to this matter than the Roman divines."

I've emailed so many things which you have glossed over, or chosen to simply ignore. Purgatory ( which is HUGE ), Rome's universal salvation for those outside the church, as long as their heart is in the right place, progressivism. ECFs being put on equal footing with Scripture.

Re-reading the Chair of Peter post from CtoC, actually seeing some of the same stuff on the big bloated ECFs page I sent disputing the Papacy. But read in full and in their context I can see at most Peter having an important role in the lives of the Apostles. But I clicked through one of their footnotes, and it didn't jive at all with what they were claiming. In fact, it said this "Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power".

And this comment from that post echoes what I've discovered. It's like the saying "if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything is a nail". Certainly it's possible that every time chair, or peter, or seat are used by an ECF it doesn't always mean "supreme pontiff"?

+++comment from CtoC Chair of Peter post

"Cyprian seems to define the one chair metaphorically as “one” for the sake of explaining the unity of doctrine, based on Peter’s confession, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”(Matthew 16:16); that doctrine is the basis and rock and foundation of all else that is supposed to be in all the churches, and that all the bishops of all local areas hold the chair of Peter."

Also recollecting an anti-Luther book I read and Radio Replies...it's all opinion. Bursting statements of emotion and pride. But not much on substance. All philosophical, academic. Sounds good, feels good, I want it to be true sort of thing.