Noted.
Lol! No you didn’t! Otherwise you would have seen this:
So that even though John, though James, though Paul, though any other whatsoever, appears to perform any great deed after this, yet Peter excels them all, he that was the first to make way for their boldness, and open the entrance, and to enable them to enter with great confidence, like a river carried in mighty flood…Was he such after the Cross? Before the Cross, also, was he not more fervent than all? Was he not the mouth of the apostles? Did he not speak when all were silent, etc.
hhhhmmmmm…lol…I would have seen it if it was there, the problem is that, the above is no where to be found in the link that you provided i.e. >>>
newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm which it lists the commentary of St. Chrysostom about the following verses from the book of John:
- John 21:15
2)John 21:17
3)John 21:18
4)John 21:19
5)John 21:20-21
6)John 21:22
7)John 21:23
8)John 21:24
9)John 21:25
The above quote does not exist in the link of yours that you provided earlier, for the link is about the commentary of St Chrysostom about the book of St John, and the quote above is from different commentary, silly. loool
You guys just walk into these things.
We know what we walk into but obviously you don’t.
I mean, is it really always this easy?
To you, obviously it is not.
Please admit that Chrysostom states that Peter excels James, John and Paul, and that he is the mouth of the apostles and also the prince of the apostles. Thank you for your participation.
Your problem is that you take anything said about St Peter as Dogma, SO LONG it provides for your assertion the desperately needed ground, and you refuse the distinguish it from the flowery words that the Greeks and the people of that region are well known for.
For instance, did Chrysostom only said the word “excels” to St Peter? here take a look:
" … “Paul was the servant not only of the coryphaeus of those saints, but absolutely of all the apostles, and this though
he excelled all by his labors, in spite of which he thought himself to be the last. For he says: ‘I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle,’ and, the least, not only of the apostles, but simply of all the saints : ‘To me,’ he says, 'the least of all the saints, was this grace given…”
Again here he(St Chrysostom) lifts up St Peter only to put St Paul on the same level he even goes on to call him the president:
“The whole world was looking to Paul, the care of the Churches throughout the world was hung upon his soul, every day he transacted a thousand matters, all surrounded was he with business, presidency, corrections, counsels, warnings, instructions, the management of a thousand things; and setting all this aside, he went to Jerusalem, and there was no other pretext for his journey but to see Peter, as he himself says: ‘I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter,’ so greatly did he honor him and set him before all. And then? When he had seen him, did he return at once? By no means; but he abode with him fifteen days. Tell me, then, if you should see some general, noble and famous, who when war was begun, when the armies were in array, when the fight was at its hottest, when a thousand matters called him, should leave the ranks to go off and find some friend – would you seek for a greater proof, tell me, of his goodwill to that man? I think not. Think the same, then, with regard to Paul and Peter.” (emphasis mine)
Again here we see Chrysostom saying that St Paul did not need for St Peter nor his voice neither his correction, and then again, but now, he lift St Paul up only to put St Peter at the same level of St Paul:
"‘Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter.’ What could be more humble than this soul? After such great deeds,* having no need of Peter, nor of his voice, and being equal in honor to him
[Greek] – for I will say no more at present – yet he goes up as to the greater and elder, and the only cause of his journey is to visit Peter. Do you see how he gives him the proper honor [Greek] and not only thinks himself not their superior, but not even their equal. Thus, as many of our brethren journey to holy men, so Paul went then to Peter; or, rather, with far greater humility. For they do it for the sake of advantage to themselves, but this saint went not to learn anything from him, nor to receive any correction,** but for this alone, that he might see him, and honor him by his presence."*
Now here we see St Chrysostom making St James greator and more honorable:
“And this is further evident from his actions. When he came to Jerusalem, after converting many of the Jews, and after doing greater works than any of the others, having brought Pamphylia, Lycaonia, Cilicia, and all that part of the world into the right path, and having converted them to Christ, he first goes up to James, as to a greater and more honorable, with much humility. Then he bears with him when he gives counsel, and counsel contrary to the doctrine of this epistle.” (Commentary on Galatians, I, 11, vol X, 631[677])
Again here he makes S.S. Peter and Paul equal:
*
“Christ [like a wise king who has one general for the cavalry and another for the infantry] divided His army, the Jews to Peter, the Gentiles to Paul.” *
I can Admit to all of them but NOT to only one, I challenge you if you can admit to all of them, thanks for your reply, maybe next time you will have better luck.
GOD Bless you all †††
I don’t mean extremophiles. Anyway this topic is wandering …