The Fathers did not agree on everything.  Again, a week or so you quoted the Prophet Isaiah in defense of a worldwide Flood, and I (and others, especially) have quoted Matthew 16 in defense of the primacy of Peter and his successors.  What do you say to that?  That the Apostles did not get along is well established but that they had a head, perhaps a "first among equals" is also well established.  We accept the Primacy of Peter just as we accept the Eucharist.

True, the greek word of you when Jesus is talking to Peter at last Supper about strengthing the brethern is a plural first 2 times, then singular. Like== you all, you all and then, you meaning Peter personally.....

 :applause: :nunchaku:

Simple question:

In Corinthians, Paul warned about divisions in the Church, that they should all agree with one another. Why didn't Paul just say, "Ok guys, anyone who disagrees with Peter is automatically wrong."





ALL OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS READ THE PASSAGE IN MATTHEW EXACTLY AS THE ORTHODOX READ IT.

 it was Peter's CONFESSION that was the rock of the Church. EVERY BISHOP is a "See of Peter."  Every person who confesses Christ is a rock of faith. (This is what all of the Church fathers in the article I linked have CONSISTENTLY said and taught regarding this verse. If you would read the article, you would see. (If it is any interest, the article was emailed to me via a bishop who left the Catholic Church and became Orthodox).




Try explaining this:

St. Cyprian:

For no one [of us] has set himself up [to be] bishop [of bishops], or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone hath the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions [in that position].

Session XVI of the Acts of the Fourth Ecuмenical Council (Chalcedon, 451 AD)

The most glorious judges said: From what has been done and brought forward on each side, we perceive that the primacy of all (πρὸ πάντων τὰ πρωτεῖα) and the chief honour (τὴν ἐξαίρετον τιμὴν) according to the canons, is to be kept for the most God-beloved archbishop of Old Rome, but that the most reverend archbishop of the royal city Constantinople, which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy ...

The most reverend bishops cried out: This is a just sentence. So we all say. These things please us all. ...

Lucentius, the bishop, said: The Apostolic See gave orders that all things should be done in our presence; and therefore whatever yesterday was done to the prejudice of the canons during our absence, we beseech your highness to command to be rescinded. But if not, let our opposition be placed in the minutes, and pray let us know clearly what we are to report to that most apostolic bishop who is the ruler of the whole church, so that he may be able to take action with regard to the indignity done to his See and to the setting at naught of the canons.

The most glorious judges said: The whole synod has approved what we proposed.
--------------------------------------------------------
It appears that here we see already the Roman See claiming some form of supreme authority ("ruler of the whole church"), while the other Sees denied this, granting Rome only the "chief honor" and, while acknowledging the "primacy of all" for Rome, also recognized in Constantinople "the same primacy" (thus obviously not recognizing an exclusive primacy for Rome).

St. Ireneous:

"When the blessed Polycarp was visiting Rome in the time of Anicetus.. They were at once well inclined towards each other, not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon the matter (Paschal calculation). For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forgo the observance of his (Easter customs) inasmuch as these things had always been observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant."
We can see from Ireneous own writing that Polycarp did not have to agree with the Roman Tradition of celebrating Pascha on a Sunday even though the Pope tried to persuade him. Infact St. Ireneous even admonished Pope Victor for attempting to excommunicate the Asia Minor Churches for celebrating Pascha on Nisan 14. St Irenous did not believe the Asiatic churches had to "agree" with Rome on this point and sided with Polycrates bishop of Ephesus over the pope.

You don't all have to be condescending and belittle me.

The passage in Matthew is covered extensively by the ECFs.


ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE is there the myth of an infallible papacy.

Sure, they honored the historical succession of the bishop of Rome because Peter was the first, but they only assign it a primacy of honor, not of power.

Some of the ECFs even go as far as to explicitly condemn anyone who gives the bishop of Rome any more than a primacy of honor!
[/u]
The quotes are full and in their entirety right in the article of my OP.

While He walked on this Earth, Christ was infallible; He was the Living Word of God.  To deny Christ is to deny His Church, and vice-a-versa.  It was Christ who conferred His power and authority to His Apostles, of which Peter was the Head.  After His Accession, it was they, the Apostles, who preached the Gospel, the "Good News."  If you take what is written in Matthew literally (to the extent that you take what is written in Isaiah literally with respect to the Deluge), then you have no choice but to accept the dogma of Papal Infallibility, because it Christ who said, "whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18), which means that the Holy Spirit must protect at least the Pope from binding Catholics to believe in something that is false.  To say otherwise is to render Christ's words as being nothing more than meaningless metaphor, which means that you must consider all of his teaching as being such.

As I have said before, the ECFs were not infallible.  Saint John Chrysostom, a Doctor of the Church, taught that the Earth was flat.  He was wrong.  Only when the Fathers speak with "unanimous consent" are we bound by their teaching.