Well, here we go with another cut-and-paste frenzy.
Forgive me, for I might just be inclined to pitch in.
Let’s see what the venerable St. Augustine had to say about Matthew 16:18.
From St. Augustine’s sermon 76:
For on this very account the Lord said, “On this rock I will build my Church,” because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built.
Thou art therefore, saith He, Peter, and upon this Rock which thou has confessed, upon this rock, which thou has acknowledged saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” I will build my Church. Upon Me I will build thee, not Me upon thee.
From St. Augustine’s
Retractationes:
But I know that I have afterwards in very many places so expounded the Lord’s saying “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church” as to be understood of Him whom Peter confessed when he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” … For it was not said to him, "Thou art
Petra (the Rock) but Thou art
Petrus (Peter). But Christ was the Rock, whom Simon confessing, as the Whole Church confesses Him, was called Peter.
Let’s see if St. Augustine and St. Cyprian believed that Rome was above the conciliar nature of the Church.
From The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustine:
Well let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges [including the Bishop of Rome] themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of a mistake, their decisions might be reversed.
St. Cyprian to the Lapsed, Epistle XXVI:
Through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church.
Now, let’s see if the fathers who held the Ecumenical Councils were of the persuasion that the Pope was above the conciliar nature of the Church.
The Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus): The Council, ignoring Pope Celestine’s excommunication of Nestorius decided to try Nestorius themselves. The pope’s excommunication did not bind the entire church to excommunicate Nestorius; only the council’s excommunication did.
The Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon): In Canon 28, the fathers deny that Rome was given the privilege to rule by divine right but because of its status as the royal city and the historic center of the Roman Empire.
We also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.
For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome…
Furthermore, the ranking of the (at that time) four patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch shows little regard for Apostolic Succession. Rome and Antioch both claim Peter as their founder, yet Antioch was relegated to the fourth place of honor. As Alexandria and Constantinople were founded by Mark and Andrew respectively, Had the fathers believed in the supremacy of Petrine Succession, then Alexandria and Constantinople would have both ranked under Antioch. The rankings were simply based of the importance of the cities within the Empire. The ultimate implication of this Canon, of course, is that Rome’s primacy was given to her by the Council as a privilege, not as a right. Canon 28 was accepted by Rome at the Second Council of Lyons.
The Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II): Pope Vigilius, reluctant to condemn the three chapters wrote the
Constitutum defending them. The Council anathematized anybody who would defend the three chapters. Vigilius, under pressure, recanted his position, claiming that he had been misled by the devil.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III): The Council posthumously anathematized Pope Honorius and Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople for their support of monothelitism.
To sum this up, was there Papal Primacy in the early church? Yes. Was the nature of the Primacy in practice, the same as the Primacy as it is in the Roman Catholic Church today? The evidence says no: The pope’s authority today in relation to the council is far greater than it once was. Was the primacy based on Petrine succession? No. Many bishops in the ancient Church were successors of Peter. Rome alone did not hold this title. In addition, we see in Canon 28 that Rome was assigned her primacy due to her position as the seat of secular Government in the ancient Roman World. Lastly, is the often-quoted Matthew 16:18 evidence for divine right to rule? No. Most of the Church Fathers, St. Augustine included, did not interpret Matthew 16:18 to mean that Peter was the rock, but rather that either Christ or faith in Christ was the rock upon which the Church would be built.
