Key vs keys

[Montalban]

Let’s try a recap.

As far as I’m aware the Church Fathers didn’t teach a connection between the key in Isaiah and the keys in Matthew.

Lots of irrelevant material has been put to me, including ‘evidence’ from people who aren’t Church Fathers. Frankly, I don’t particular care what one person says on the matter. That’s the whole thing of ‘tradition’; it’s not about a private interpretation.

We know that individual Fathers can make mistakes; for example Augustine at one point taught that creation was instantaneous, rather than over six days. That is a teaching that is not in step with the ‘mind of the church’.

Stephen K Ray, and other modern Catholic apologists push for a connection that is absent from the teachings of the church for 2,000 years.

If Catholics wish to accept that because the similarities are ‘fascinating’ so be it. As long as they acknowledge it’s novel teaching.

For my own point of view I suspected that there was no teaching on this, but it’s hard to prove a negative so I have been contacting many people to see if they know of any Church Fathers who teach on this matter. I contacted people on an Orthodox web-site. I contacted PhilVaz directly, and I returned to this site after an absence of many years.

From the lack of evidence it seems that it’s not church teaching.

I am happy to leave it with that. Good luck with your novel teachings!

On a personal note I find the engagement on issues I’ve already covered rather annoying and when couched in terms of ‘teaching’ me is very arrogant.

{{unsubscribing}}

 

[lyrikal]

If he’s not then he’s irrelevant in a thread asking for evidence from Church Fathers.

I was addressing your claim that this is a modern day invention by people like Steve Ray and Protestant commentaries.

And I noted

a) I had recognised him before you mentioned him
and
b) Catholics love to tell me that they have shown/taught me things I already know.

Nothing new here at all.

You completely missed the point but that’s okay.

 

[lyrikal]

You don’t have a point.

You say you agree with me, that there’s silence from the Church Fathers.

That’s what I noted. You keep ‘noting’ things I already have said.

Given that there’s silence from the Church Fathers then the modern Catholic apologists I have mentioned are coming up with a new/novel exegesis.

Except that the Church Fathers aren’t COMPLETELY silent about it as you have admitted before. So, you can’t say that the comparison was made up by modern Catholic apologists. Also, St. Francis de Sales isn’t a modern day Catholic apologist either. You should seriously consider dropping the notion that this was made up by modern day Catholic apologists.

Well, now you contradict yourself. You either believer that there’s silence or there isn’t.

There isn’t complete silence but there isn’t a consensus.

I take silence on the matter as ‘consensus’. If the Church Fathers didn’t teach it then I don’t just make stuff up. Perhaps you do?

Was there a consensus of the Fathers that Christ had two wills? You can continue to dodge this question because you know very well it disproves your belief that there MUST be a consensus from the Fathers in order for something to be true.

There’s no Church Fathers who teach that unicorns don’t exist therefore they might. I can see why that kind of logic is attractive. It certainly is a way of validating any novel belief.

I don’t apply that logic to my beliefs at all. You are completely missing every point I make.

Anyway, as per the OP we both agree the ECFs are slient.

There is no consensus but one Church Father makes the connection.

I thank you for agreeing with that.

You’re welcome.

That seems to be the case. The modern Catholic apologists have come up with new exegesis.

Note: At no point am I criticising this as your belief. If you want to have novel teachings, that’s entirely up to you.

I don’t see it as a new teaching at all. The papacy isn’t dependent on Isaiah 22, it is dependent on Matthew 16 and other Scripture verses. It is also dependent on the Church Fathers and early church history. You act like we made up a completely new doctrine using Isaiah 22 in the 20th Century. I don’t believe that we are allowed to make up new doctrines in the 20th century. But, our understanding of Scripture verses can develop overtime. Are you telling me that the Church Fathers interpreted every single verse of the Bible? And the way they interpreted it is EXACTLY how you interpret it as well?

 

[lyrikal]

I already covered that too. I must, for the second time now, strongly urge you to read the posts you’re replying to.

I was only replying to your point that stated that you don’t know why one would make that connection. My reply is…“Because they are strikingly similar.”

 

[lyrikal]

Let’s try a recap.

As far as I’m aware the Church Fathers didn’t teach a connection between the key in Isaiah and the keys in Matthew.

For the most part, I agree.

Lots of irrelevant material has been put to me, including ‘evidence’ from people who aren’t Church Fathers. Frankly, I don’t particular care what one person says on the matter. That’s the whole thing of ‘tradition’; it’s not about a private interpretation.

I agree with that as well.

We know that individual Fathers can make mistakes; for example Augustine at one point taught that creation was instantaneous, rather than over six days. That is a teaching that is not in step with the ‘mind of the church’.

Stephen K Ray, and other modern Catholic apologists push for a connection that is absent from the teachings of the church for 2,000 years.

If Catholics wish to accept that because the similarities are ‘fascinating’ so be it. As long as they acknowledge it’s novel teaching.

For my own point of view I suspected that there was no teaching on this, but it’s hard to prove a negative so I have been contacting many people to see if they know of any Church Fathers who teach on this matter. I contacted people on an Orthodox web-site. I contacted PhilVaz directly, and I returned to this site after an absence of many years.

From the lack of evidence it seems that it’s not church teaching.

I am happy to leave it with that. Good luck with your novel teachings!

On a personal note I find the engagement on issues I’ve already covered rather annoying and when couched in terms of ‘teaching’ me is very arrogant.

Let’s put it this way, maybe it’ll help you understand where I’m coming from.

Is there consensus from the Church Fathers that Christ had two wills?

 

[Zenas]

I can’t comment on the church fathers but the scriptural connection is obvious when you connect all the dots. The keys are the symbol of Peter’s pastoral authority, which was expressly given to him in John 21:15-17.

Jesus is the owner of the keys. They are His to retain for Himself or to hand off to whomever He chooses. Here He is handing them off to Peter. What kind of keys does Jesus have to hand over to Peter?

He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: Revelation 3:7.

This same key is described in Isaiah 22, the key of the house of David, where it is taken from Shebna and given to Eliakim in the days of King Hezekiah. In fact, 22:22 uses the same language as Revelation 3:7:

Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will open. Isaiah 22:22.

The parallel language in these two passage leaves no doubt that the keys were to be given to Peter as his symbol of pastoral authority.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

How do we gather evidence of a consensus between the ECF’s when no one was questioning the issue? Last time I checked the ECF’s didn’t make it a habit of writting against heresies that didn’t exist yet.

 

[Montalban]

{{re-subscribing}}

How do we gather evidence of a consensus between the ECF’s when no one was questioning the issue? Last time I checked the ECF’s didn’t make it a habit of writting against heresies that didn’t exist yet.

What heresies are you referring to here?

Let’s try this another way.

Vatican 1 says the Pope is infallible. They draw from evidence from the bible through to the church fathers to prove this.

Yet it’s not defined till the 1800s at Vatican 1

By your logic the evidence didn’t exist because no one could have written about it because no heresies existed then that question it - which they couldn’t because it wasn’t yet defined!

Anyway, if you can tell me what heresies you’re referring to, that would be great.

 

[Montalban]

I can’t comment on the church fathers but the scriptural connection is obvious when you connect all the dots.

So obvious that the church fathers missed it?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have been reading some of Stephen K Ray’s book on papal primacy.

He draws a link between the single key given to David (in Isaiah) and the many keys given to Peter (in Matthew).

Which Church Fathers commented on this also?

Peter and the Keys

---

**Tertullian **

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns 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?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 *[A.D. 251]).

John Chrysostom

I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. “For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35 How then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?

And these things I say, not dividing the works of Father and Son (“for all things are made by Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made”): but bridling the shameless tongue of them that dare so to speak.

But see, throughout all, His authority: “I say unto you, You are Peter; I will build the Church; I will give you the keys of Heaven.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have been reading some of Stephen K Ray’s book on papal primacy.

He draws a link between the single key given to David (in Isaiah) and the many keys given to Peter (in Matthew).

Which Church Fathers commented on this also?

While you wait for quotes from the ECF’s on the keys, perhaps this will provide some food for thought:

John Chrysostom on Peter, Shepherd of the Flock

Taken from: newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfillment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock – the sheep and the lambs alike – in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, “Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep” indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): “Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron”.

The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: “Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these”? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God’s flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.

The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom:

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria (“In Joan.” 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So obvious that the church fathers missed it?

Or so obvious that it didn’t need commentary!

But non-Catholic scholars have provided a boatload of commentary:

Protestant Scholars and Commentaries on Peter as Royal Steward

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

[The steward is] the king’s friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles 27:33, the king’s counsellor) . . .

Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of “David,” of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder] (Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 [orig. 1864; Fausset and Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian], 536 – on Isaiah 22:15,22).

New Bible Dictionary

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson’s words, is to be ‘God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205). (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is ‘over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: ‘epitropos’ (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and ‘oikonomos’ (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from ‘oikos’ (‘house’) and ‘nemo’ (‘to dispense’ or ‘to manage’). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility. (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)

Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary

In accordance with Matthew’s understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church. (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grabd Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)

New Bible Commentary

Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna . . . Godward he is called ‘my servant’ (v.20; cf. ‘this steward’, v.15); manward, he will be ‘a father’ to his community (v.21) . . .

The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king’s interests. The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as *The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)

The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. ‘And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.’ (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as *The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Adam Clarke

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1. “Master of the palace” {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2. “In charge of the palace” {New International Version}
3. “Master of the household” {New Revised Standard Version}
4. “In charge of the royal household” {New American Standard Bible}
5. “Comptroller of the household” {Revised English Bible}
6. “Governor of the palace” {Moffatt}

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet. (Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

R.T. France

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty. (R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)

Oscar Cullman

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people. (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried and John Reumann

The prime minister, more literally ‘major-domo,’ was the man called in Hebrew ‘the one who is over the house,’ a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister’s power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing. (Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter. (J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)

All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom. (William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

Isa 22:15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this saying . . . The keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah. (William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible: Matthew, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, 196)

And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Let’s try this another way.

Vatican 1 says the Pope is infallible. They draw from evidence from the bible through to the church fathers to prove this.

Yet it’s not defined till the 1800s at Vatican 1

By your logic the evidence didn’t exist because no one could have written about it because no heresies existed then that question it

There is a big difference between “couldn’t” and “wouldn’t”. I stated the ECF’s wouldn’t write against an opposition that was noneexistent at the time.

• which they couldn’t because it wasn’t yet defined!

How so? There were heresies against the Trinity doctrine before it was defined and obvioulsy the Truth of the Trinity doctrine was held and believed by the Early Church before the offical doctrine had been defined. When the doctrine was defined is not when the doctrine was conceived. The belief in the Trinity was held in the Church before the doctrine was defined.

Anyway, if you can tell me what heresies you’re referring to, that would be great.

Any heresies against the Church. What I’m asking you to show me is where in any part of the Church’s History did the ECF’s comment on core beliefs that were not being attacked? Also please show me were in Church history were doctrines defined except when they were being challenged by groups outside and within the Church?

Clearly the Church defines doctrines not when it conceives them but when a common belief is being attacked and the Church sees the need to put its foot down on the matter.

 

[Montalban]

While you wait for quotes from the ECF’s on the keys, perhaps this will provide some food for thought:

How’s that relevant?

 

[Montalban]

Adam Clarke

Which is missing the point of the OP

“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge…,”
Irenaeus - “Against Heresies” Book III.I.I

 

[Montalban]

There is a big difference between “couldn’t” and “wouldn’t”. I stated the ECF’s wouldn’t write against an opposition that was noneexistent at the time.

What heresies against papal infalibility existed before it was defined as dogma?

How so? There were heresies against the Trinity doctrine before it was defined and obvioulsy the Truth of the Trinity doctrine was held and believed by the Early Church before the offical doctrine had been defined. When the doctrine was defined is not when the doctrine was conceived. The belief in the Trinity was held in the Church before the doctrine was defined.

For convenience’s sake we talk about when dogma was defined, however that doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right teaching of the church from day one.

As I noted earlier, and people keep ignoring - when Vatican I came around they offered teachings for papal infalibility going back to the time of the Apostles.

The Catholic church argues that this is what was always taught (if not always understood).

Your example misses that point.

 

[Montalban]

Before a dogma is defined there may be very many different teachings, each equally valid.

For instance on the Immaculate Conception we find some writers from the past arguing against it. Some arguing for it.

However it then got defined as dogma.

Once it was defined it’s the only acceptable teaching.

HOWEVER this doesn’t negate that people taught it before it was properly defined.

The Immaculate Conception is something Catholics can find evidence for right from the time of the bible.

Only it wasn’t defined at that time.

Now when I talk about the key -v- the keys there is NO TEACHING on this matter for 1800 years, except one Church Father.

None at all. Not for it or against it.

It has no comparison with this to any ‘dogma’ that gets defined at a latter date, but had argument for and against it for centuries.

Note again I am not arguing that this invalidates the teaching

I happen to disagree but I’m not here to argue that.

I’m here to find out any other ECFs who may have discussed it.

Instead of answering that Catholics have gone into defensive mode and trying to justify a TOTALLY MODERN teaching.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How’s that relevant?

Couple of Eastern Fathers supporting the papacy…that’s how.

 

[Montalban]

Couple of Eastern Fathers supporting the papacy…that’s how.

Yes, I know about quote mines.

How’s that relevant to this thread?

Is it the case that Catholics who cannot answer the OP wish to argue everything but this?

I mention Catholics seek Protestant exegesis on this, and lo and behold the case is ‘proven’ by a Catholic providing even more Protestant evidence!