Protestant Scholars agree - Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18

[Trento]

IFour out of Five of the Ancient Churches, that is, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople state plainly that Peter is NOT the Rock.


Forgive me....

The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem,and Constantinople disagree with your conclusion..

St. Cyril of Jerusalem Patriarch (363 A.D.):

"Our Lord Jesus Christ then become man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled His disciples, He asked, 'Who do you say that I the Son of man am?' ...And all being silent, for it was beyond man to know, Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using language of his own finding, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says unto Him, 'Thou art the Christ,' and not simply that, but, 'the Son of the living God.' And a blessing follows the speech. ....' ....and upon this Rock I will found my Church ...' " (Cyril, Catech, xi. n. 3).

St. Cyril of Alexandria Patriarch(c. 424): He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)



St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387):

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, &c.' This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed " (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

 

[SumTinWong]

So it is clear from the early church fathers that it was unclear then as well as now if others regarded Peter as pontiff (and is successors) over the entire church, or if he was considered the rock that Jesus was speaking of, instead of just his own flock in Rome. SO shall we continue the quotefest as little children or just accept the fact that either side can make a case for themselves using various sources (all of the we would suppose to be credible and in context) and that while many did believe the OP's stance that many also believed the opposite? Seems like a silly kids game to keep this silly word play up when many are convinced of their own positions and quotes and are not even noticing the obvious that there was confusion even then amongest some of the ECF. I could be wrong...

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

So it is clear from the early church fathers that it was unclear then as well as now if others regarded Peter as pontiff (and is successors) over the entire church, or if he was considered the rock that Jesus was speaking of, instead of just his own flock in Rome. SO shall we continue the quotefest as little children or just accept the fact that either side can make a case for themselves using various sources (all of the we would suppose to be credible and in context) and that while many did believe the OP's stance that many also believed the opposite? Seems like a silly kids game to keep this silly word play up when many are convinced of their own positions and quotes and are not even noticing the obvious that there was confusion even then amongest some of the ECF. I could be wrong...

No, actually, the ECFs are clear that Peter was not the Supreme Pontiff, nor were the popes of Rome in the seat of primacy.

That OUSA, as well as others show from the ECFs is what they mean when they call Peter, "the rock".

The Council of Nicea dealt with the issue of primacy in the 6th canon, which definitively dispels the notion of primacy for any metropolitan bishop.

Canon 6 of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

As the first ecumenical council Nicea is universally recognized as authoritaive, but it hasn't stopped Rome from continuing to attempt to undermine and act in a manner contrary to that decision.

 

[SumTinWong]

Ignoring the first and not attending to the second. The were many who DID see Peter and his sucessors as Pontiff, as soem posters have pointed out to us Can you deny the rest of the statement that was made that the ECF had conflicting responses about the passage in the Bible that this OP is referring to? Many ECF have conflicting opinions within their own writings in tis regard, tat seems clear. By the way I agree that the church itself in act and in action did not support the Roman theory but some o the writers sure eluded to it.

 

[Trento]

No, actually, the ECFs are clear that Peter was not the Supreme Pontiff, nor were the popes of Rome in the seat of primacy.

That OUSA, as well as others show from the ECFs is what they mean when they call Peter, "the rock".

The Council of Nicea dealt with the issue of primacy in the 6th canon, which definitively dispels the notion of primacy for any metropolitan bishop.

Canon 6 of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

.

Canon 6 accords to Alexandria a metropolitan authority over Egypt, Libya and Persepolis, and the reason given for this is that "this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome
This shows that in some way Roman custom was regarded as normative for the wider Church, including the East. Furthermore, the canon is concerned with the normal mode of Church government in the 'patriarchal' areas of Alexandria and Antioch, and if the right of Rome to act as arbiter in extraordinary cases (involving accusations of heresy and the like) was not disputed at the time, there is no reason why it should have been mentioned in this context.

After Nicea, Pope Julius I (337-352) decided that Athanasius, rather than Pistus, should be the bishop of Alexandria. So the 6th Canon of Nicaea did no t speak against papal authority.

In fact at the first Council of Ephesus along with St. Cyril of Alexandria and 248 other Bishops East and West signed this proclimation

.
"There is no doubt, and in fact has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.

 

[Trento]

By the way I agree that the church itself in act and in action did not support the Roman theory but some o the writers sure eluded to it.

The famous Protestant Christian historical Scholar Philip Schaff states with no elusion in History of the Christian Church, volume 2 (Eerdmans, 1910)

"Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Pope Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, page 157)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"There is no doubt, and in fact has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.

The date is 431.
Place whatever significance you want on that.

 

[Trento]

The date is 431.
Place whatever significance you want on that.

How About 180 St. Irenaeus of Lyons Irenaeus who was a student of Polycarp, who was tutored by the Apostle John.in Gaul wrote:

"By pointing out the apostolic tradition and creed which has been brought down to us by a succession of bishops in the greatest, most ancient and well-known church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul at Rome, we can confute all those who in any other way, either for self-pleasing or for vainglory or blindness or badness, hold unauthorized meetings. For with this church, because of its stronger origin, all churches must agree, that is to say, the faithful of all places, because in it the apostolic tradition has always been preserved." (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," III, 3.2, translated in Michael M. Winter's St. Peter and the Popes (1960), p. 126).​

 

[JimfromOhio]

Tradition like the Pharisees have no legitimate place of authority. That's why Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees because their faith in Rabbinical tradition was in and of itself a seriously out of the covenant and commandments of God (Matt. 15:3).

1 Samuel 15:22 But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

Matthew 15:9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.

Isaiah 29:13 The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.

The point is, the Word of God needs no support from traditions (or Pope), however, traditions do need support from the Word of God.

 

[Trento]

Tradition like the Pharisees have no legitimate place of authority. That's why Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees because their faith in Rabbinical tradition was in and of itself a seriously out of the covenant and commandments of God (Matt. 15:3).

"The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2-3).


Although Jesus strongly indicts his opponents of hypocrisy for not following their own teaching, he nevertheless insists that the scribes and Pharisees hold a position of legitimate authority, which he characterizes as sitting "on Moses' seat."
Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.
In addition, we see that the structure of the Catholic Church--with an authoritative teaching office comprised of bishops who are the direct successors of the apostles--follows the example of ancient Israel.

The point is, the Word of God needs no support from traditions (or Pope), however, traditions do need support from the Word of God.

Which is not Historical as verified here by Protestant historical scholar Philip Schoff who is used as a benchmark for most historians when it comes to the early Church.
Schaff -- HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)

.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples)

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-4

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

 

[SumTinWong]

The famous Protestant Christian historical Scholar Philip Schaff states with no elusion in History of the Christian Church, volume 2 (Eerdmans, 1910)

"Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Pope Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, page 157)

You say he was famous as if that holds any weight with me(Benny Hinn is famous too but he is a heathen just the same), and him being protestant carries no weight with me either. But Shaff is correct in all that he says but what he says in no ways validates the OP's point or contradicts mine. Yes Rome was the center of the world at one time, and what happend there held great weight with the rest of the world, and the ECF's that lived there and who died there have had a great influence on Christianity and the world, whoever would deny that is an idiot.

But you fail to see and hopefully my Orthodox friends can point this out better for you, that what these men held was not a "universal" truth, or a universal authority. If it had been then the East would closely resemble the West in practice and in orthodoxy. You do share some "truths" but are and have been widely seperated on some very key issues as I am sure you are aware.

 

[racer]

So it is clear from the early church fathers that it was unclear then as well as now if others regarded Peter as pontiff (and is successors) over the entire church, or if he was considered the rock that Jesus was speaking of, instead of just his own flock in Rome. SO shall we continue the quotefest as little children or just accept the fact that either side can make a case for themselves using various sources (all of the we would suppose to be credible and in context) and that while many did believe the OP's stance that many also believed the opposite? Seems like a silly kids game to keep this silly word play up when many are convinced of their own positions and quotes and are not even noticing the obvious that there was confusion even then amongest some of the ECF. I could be wrong...

The point is often missed here. Catholics can quote certain fathers all day long, but why? Nobody denies that certain fathers especially later ones, did believe, teach and promoted current Roman Catholic Doctrine.

However, when non-Catholics can quote a father who seemingly did not believe, teach or promote current Roman Catholic doctrine, a feat is accomplished because no Catholic will admit that some fathers did not teach what the RCC teaches. Why? It discredits the principle, doctrine or whatever of "Unanimous Consent of the Fathers."

 

[Trento]

The point is often missed here. Catholics can quote certain fathers all day long, but why? Nobody denies that certain fathers especially later ones, did believe, teach and promoted current Roman Catholic Doctrine.

However, when non-Catholics can quote a father who seemingly did not believe, teach or promote current Roman Catholic doctrine, a feat is accomplished because no Catholic will admit that some fathers did not teach what the RCC teaches. Why? It discredits the principle, doctrine or whatever of "Unanimous Consent of the Fathers."

Catholic Dictionary gives a good simple definition of what is the unanimous consent of the Fathers.


[SIZE=-1]When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.
The Church does not claim that all her authority rests on the consent of the Fathers. It rests on several things including Scripture; the Fathers are one element of this foundation.
A Father may refer to Jesus as the Rock, Peter as the Rock, or Peter's confession as the Rock. This in not unusual or unexpected and does not negate the literal intent of Matthew, nor does it invalidate the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
[/SIZE]

 

[racer]

Catholic Dictionary gives a good simple definition of what is the unanimous consent of the Fathers.


[SIZE=-1]When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.

Of course, if the RCC has the authority to define the Gospel to fit its mission, than one could easily believe that it has the authority to redefine words to further its claims.

Webster's Dictionary defines the word "unanimous" in pretty basic terms:

Unanimous:

1 : being of one mind : AGREEING
2 : formed with or indicating unanimity : having the agreement and consent of all
- unan·i·mous·ly adverb

The Church does not claim that all her authority rests on the consent of the Fathers. It rests on several things including Scripture; the Fathers are one element of this foundation.

Well, the Trentadine Creed says it pretty clear and briefly:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/unanimous-consent.htm

The Trentine / Tridentine Creed,
​

​

or The Creed Of Pius IV, from the Bulls
Injunctum Nobis, November 13, 1564
and In Sacrosancta, December 9, 1564:​

... "I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother the Church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."​

[This Profession of Faith must be sworn to by anyone holding an ecclesiastical office in the Roman Catholic Church, and also by all converts from Protestantism.]​

Source: Ibid, pg. 176 (boldfaced emphasis added).
​

A Father may refer to Jesus as the Rock, Peter as the Rock, or Peter's confession as the Rock. This in not unusual or unexpected and does not negate the literal intent of Matthew, nor does it invalidate the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
[/SIZE]

Notice that the creed above states that ". . . neither will I interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." That states that the interpretation must not only be in line with the RCC, but also in line with the unanimous consent of the fathers. So dress it up (or down) all you want, the meaning is clear.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Ignoring the first and not attending to the second. The were many who DID see Peter and his sucessors as Pontiff, as soem posters have pointed out to us Can you deny the rest of the statement that was made that the ECF had conflicting responses about the passage in the Bible that this OP is referring to? Many ECF have conflicting opinions within their own writings in tis regard, tat seems clear. By the way I agree that the church itself in act and in action did not support the Roman theory but some o the writers sure eluded to it.

What happens is that the Roman Catholics will present a snippet from a ECF that appears to be supporting Petrine Primacy, but they leave out the parts after in which the ECFs explain what they mean when calling Peter, "the rock", which was that Peter's confession of faith in Matthew was the "Rock" that the Church is built on, and that Peter was the frontrunner of sorts, as an example of the confessional faith of the Church in Christ.

For instance, Cyprian is pointed to by Roman Catholics as supporting Petrine primacy, often citing this passage from Cyprian giving an interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:

The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one [SIZE=-1](A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).[/SIZE]

Cyprian clearly says that Peter is the rock. If his comments were restricted to the above passage it would lend credence to the idea that he was a proponent of Petrine primacy. However, Cyprian’s comments continue on from the statements given above. His additional statements prove conclusively that although he states that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in a pro–papal sense. His view is that Peter is a symbol of unity, a figurative representative of the bishops of the Church. Cyprian viewed all the apostles as being equal with one another. He believed the words to Peter in Matthew 16 to be representative of the ordination of all Bishops so that the Church is founded, not upon one Bishop in one see, but upon all equally in collegiality. Peter, then, is a representative figure of the episcopate as a whole. His view is clearly stated in these words:

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) [SIZE=-1](A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).[/SIZE]
Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates [SIZE=-1](A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).[/SIZE]

Cyprian, like others, states that Peter is the rock. But such a statement must be qualified. He definitely does not mean this in the same way the Church of Rome does. In his treatise, On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian teaches that Peter alone is not the rock or foundation on which the Church is built, but rather, he is an example of the principle of unity. He is representative of the Church as a whole. The entire episcopate, according to Cyprian, is the foundation, though Christ is himself the true Rock. The bishops of Rome are not endowed with divine authority to rule the Church. All of the bishops together constitute the Church and rule over their individual areas of responsibility as co–equals.
​

 

[Trento]

[/size][/font]

Of course, if the RCC has the authority to define the Gospel to fit its mission, than one could easily believe that it has the authority to redefine words to further its claims.

​

Notice that the creed above states that ". . . neither will I interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." That states that the interpretation must not only be in line with the RCC, but also in line with the unanimous consent of the fathers. So dress it up (or down) all you want, the meaning is clear.

Since The Church collected together the writings produced before and during the Apostolic Age; and sorted through them, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the mechanism of the sacred Magesterium, determined which was inspired Scripture, and which was not it was also able to collected together the writings produced during the Patristic Era, and working through the mechanism of the sacred Magesterium, determined which ones were in agreement with Apostolic Tradition, and which ones were not.
In this way, the writings of Origen, and Tertullian, and other Church Fathers who drifted into heresy from time to time, were sorted and classified by the Church; any Catholic commentary on the writings produced by these men or any others will clearly tell you: "This is orthodox Catholic doctrine", or "This is heterodox, produced during the author's heretical period", even if the two documents were written by the same author.
The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, and He uses the Deposit of the Faith, interpreted by Himself through the sacred Magesterium, as the ultimate authority for that determination.
The Church can tell the faithful, for example Tertullian's Apology, written in 197 AD, is orthodox in opinion and is in accord with Sacred Tradition and It may safely be taken as solid theology. Tertullian's Against Praxeas, written in 213 AD, however, contains a great deal of Montanist heresy, and much of it should not be taken as being in accord with Sacred Tradition or with orthodox theology.
If the Church did not have the authority to define the Gospel how could there be finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity?
If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?
This is logical if a heritic misinterprets something in the Bible the Church falls back on tradition to those original oral teachings. You cannot go to scripture if they conflict because the Church was given the original deposit of faith and has the key to true interpretation as even Protestant historical scholars tell us.

Where there is diversity of doctrine there has to be corruption of both scriptures and their expositions as there is only one truth.

 

[Trento]

Cyprian clearly says that Peter is the rock. If his comments were restricted to the above passage it would lend credence to the idea that he was a proponent of Petrine primacy. However, Cyprian’s comments continue on from the statements given above. His additional statements prove conclusively that although he states that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in a pro–papal sense. His view is that Peter is a symbol of unity, a figurative representative of the bishops of the Church. Cyprian viewed all the apostles as being equal with one another. He believed the words to Peter in Matthew 16 to be representative of the ordination of all Bishops so that the Church is founded, not upon one Bishop in one see, but upon all equally in collegiality. Peter, then, is a representative figure of the episcopate as a whole. His view is clearly stated in these words:

Cyprian, like others, states that Peter is the rock. But such a statement must be qualified. He definitely does not mean this in the same way the Church of Rome does. In his treatise, On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian teaches that Peter alone is not the rock or foundation on which the Church is built, but rather, he is an example of the principle of unity. He is representative of the Church as a whole. The entire episcopate, according to Cyprian, is the foundation, though Christ is himself the true Rock. The bishops of Rome are not endowed with divine authority to rule the Church. All of the bishops together constitute the Church and rule over their individual areas of responsibility as co–equals.



​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)[/FONT]​

 

[racer]

Since The Church collected together the writings produced before and during the Apostolic Age; and sorted through them, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the mechanism of the sacred Magesterium, determined which was inspired Scripture, and which was not it was also able to collected together the writings produced during the Patristic Era, and working through the mechanism of the sacred Magesterium, determined which ones were in agreement with Apostolic Tradition, and which ones were not.

Ignoring the assertions to credibility and authority here, I would like to point out that your mere aknowledgement that there were some fathers who were not in agreement with the so-called Apostolic Tradition to which you refer, nullifies any claim or assertion that there is such a thing as Unanimous Consent of the Fathers regarding Roman Catholic Doctrine.

In this way, the writings of Origen, and Tertullian, and other Church Fathers who drifted into heresy from time to time, were sorted and classified by the Church; any Catholic commentary on the writings produced by these men or any others will clearly tell you: "This is orthodox Catholic doctrine", or "This is heterodox, produced during the author's heretical period", even if the two documents were written by the same author.

Yes, I’ve learned that the Catholic Church never runs short on explanations or wiggle room when it finds itself in self-contradiction and cornered by its own theology.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth,

The Holy Spirit guides all who acknowledge Him, this proves nothing. The point to be stressed is who follows.

and He uses the Deposit of the Faith, interpreted by Himself through the sacred Magesterium, as the ultimate authority for that determination.

Do people never tire of these convoluted explanations? Nowhere does Jesus, the Holy Spirit or the Apostles state or guarantee that as long as the Holy Spirit is leading to all Truth, the Church is following unerringly. If He ever meant that, He would not have warned against false teachers. If we are unable to discern whether or not what is being taught is true and orthodox, why would such a warning have been given?

The Church can tell the faithful, for example Tertullian's Apology, written in 197 AD, is orthodox in opinion and is in accord with Sacred Tradition and It may safely be taken as solid theology.
] Tertullian's Against Praxeas, written in 213 AD, however, contains a great deal of Montanist heresy, and much of it should not be taken as being in accord with Sacred Tradition or with orthodox theology

.

Your church can state that this particular writing by Tertullian is/was in agreement with orthodox RC teaching and that’s it. This is yet another example give by you which rules out any type of Unanimous Consent of the Fathers.

If the Church did not have the authority to define the Gospel how could there be finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity?

You just answered your own question. It can’t because it doesn’t have the authority to define the Gospel. This only presents a problem for RCs and maybe EOs, because they are the only churches that claim this authority. No "churhc" is infallible, and "history" isn’t.

If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?

It’s called Scripture—The Gospel preserved in written. How hard is that to understand?

This is logical if a heritic misinterprets something in the Bible the Church falls back on tradition to those original oral teachings.

Which are apparently just as open to interpretation as Scripture according to the RCs and Eos. Because, we’re continually told not only are we not properly discerning Scripture, but we can’t even discern what the ECFs wrote. Go figure . . . .

You cannot go to scripture if they conflict because the Church was given the original deposit of faith and has the key to true interpretation as even Protestant historical scholars tell us.

Yes you can. Scripture says it all.

Where there is diversity of doctrine there has to be corruption of both scriptures and their expositions as there is only one truth

No, Scripture is not corrupted. The interpretation of meaning of Scripture may be corrupted, but not Scripture itself.

 

[Yeznik]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)[/FONT]​

This statement is of Cyprian and not of the Universal Church. Please read the original Nicene Creed in which all the Historical Churches confess to which there is no mention of the " Chair of Peter" additionally please read Canons of the 318 Holy Fathers in which again there is no mention of this "Chair". The above quote can only be taken as Cyprians opinion and personal conviction which has absolutely nothing to do with the Church.

* the word catholic referred in the Nicene Creed means universal and not the RCC.

If this was such a binding statement that Cyprian was making then it would have be taken to council and may have been adopted into Canon. Again, please read the post I posted regarding Saint Gregory the Illumintor.

Again what Cyprian is stating about Saint Peter, can also be stated about Armenia.

 

[racer]

If this was such a binding statement that Cyprian was making then it would have be taken to council and may have been adopted into Canon. Again, please read the post I posted regarding Saint Gregory the Illumintor.

Again what Cyprian is stating about Saint Peter, can also be stated about Armenia.

Talk about self-contradiction, first he said this to me:
As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.

Then he went on to quote Cyprian as tho anyone considers him an authority.