Бискуп Владо Кошић: Усташтво није био фашизам него организовано војно деловање у одбрани Хрватске као државе

[Volim_Sina_Bozjeg]

Управо сада, Ведран* рече

Ко ће кога ако не свој свога. 

п. с. Ја не смем више. Модераторка Милошевић ме казнила и то вечном казном, пише никад не истиче 

Pa ti kao da si ušao u Carstvo

[kopitar]

пре 1 минут, Volim_Sina_Bozjeg рече

Pa ti kao da si ušao u Carstvo

Ne brini Košić je već počeo sa blagoslovom

[Volim_Sina_Bozjeg]

пре 2 минута, kopitar рече

Ne brini Košić je već počeo sa blagoslovom

Viš kako je ekumenizam preko potreban, nije važno što imate Košića važnije je što imate i nas da ga pravilno usmerimo

[Zayron]

пре 12 часа, Bokisd рече

Imamo jedan, pa, mozda neresiv problem. Mnoge izreke otaca koje su bile falsifikovane u Pseudo Isidora dekretalijama se koriste i dalje na Zapadu da bi se dokazao primat Petrov. Ne znam kako prevazici ovo, ali, dobro, ako postoje tacno navedene odrednice iz kojih knjiga je uzet neki ( citat ), moze da se proveri.

U vezi Avgustina. Ovaj citat, moze da se razume u raznim kontekstima. Ovde vec imamo problem, nije data tacna odrednica iz kojeg dela knjige je uzeta. Da se procitaju jos neki delovi poglavlja i da se stekne komletna slika moguceg tumacenja ovih Avgustinovih reci. Slicno, kao i kod onog citata od  Atanasija, koji je bio potpuno drugog konteksta od tumacenja kao da govori u prilog Petrovog primata.

Jer, ovde, Avgustin pominje i ( apostolsku ) sukcesiju svestenstva, koja i jeste sustinski od apostola Petra, po pravu koje svi episkopi dele na njegovo ispovedanje vere. Sigurno je Avgustin, na terenu, konkretno od crkve Afrike primio svestenstvo i episkopstvo, sigurno nije od Rima i pape bio rukopolozen, sigurno ( papa) nije nadgledao i pasao ovce u Africkoj crkvi. O tome svedoce i pomesni Kartagenski sabori koji su pisali papama u Rim, da se ne mesaju u poslove njihove crkve. U to vreme je i ziveo Avgustin i sigurno je bio upoznat sa svim tim dogadjajima i stvarima.

Jer, ovako je rekao Avgustin u vezi Petra :

"DOCUMENI T54 -Augustine, Sermo I 49.
(P.L. 38. 802; L.F. 20. 691 $.)

7. For Peter in many places in the Scriptures appears to represent the Church; especially in that place where it was said "I give to thee the keys . . . shall' be loosed in heaven". What! did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive? Did Peter receive and John ( Jovan ) and James ( Jakov ) not receive, and the rest of the apostles? Or are not the keys in the Church where sins are daily remitted? But since in a figure Peter represented the Church, what was given to him singly was given to the Church.
(Gore 89 ; Chapman 5 1 A note.)

Giles, E., ed. Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454. London: S.P.C.K., 1952. p. 175

Ili, :

"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: "On him as on a rock the Church was built." This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the rock: "At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt."2 But I know thatvery frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,"4 that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,"5 and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received "the keys of the kingdom of heaven."6 For, "Thou art Peter" and not "Thou art the rock" was said to him. But "the rock was Christ,"7 in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable "

Augustine-The-Retractation

Mislim, da je dosta navedeno i da moze da se vidi, da Avgustin nije apostolu Petru davao neke vece povlastice u odnosu na ostale apostole.

Imamo ustvari više nego jedan "nerješiv problem". Nijedan od citata koji sam tamo stavio nije iz Pseudodekretalija niti imaju kakve veze s njima. Kod svakog je napisano odakle su tj. iz kojeg tačno djela sv. Avgustina, sv. Hilarija i sv. Jovana Zlatoustog.  Osim toga još niste ništa odgovorili na ovo o sv. Atanaziju i papi Juliju I. A kako vidim i sv. Hilarija iz Poitiera ste samo tako cutke lagano preskočili i bez osvrtanja jer je izgleda bio previše explicitan pa se to nije više dalo zamazat ni nikakvim "kontekstima" a ni "pseudodekretalijama".  U stilu: Я не хочу этого видеть! Inače nismo još riješili ni problem sa tumačenjem kritičkih pasaža, odlomaka iz Jevandjelja koji se tiču sv. Petra, prvenstva, jednog stada i jednog pastira, ključeva, stijene, kamena temeljca Crkve koju ni vrata paklena nece nadvladati itd. a ti odlomci iz Jevandjelja takodjer nisu ni iz kakvih "pseudodekretalija". A iz navedenih daljih citata je vidno koji od Svetih Otaca su te dijelove razumjeli i tumačili na vlas isto kao što ih tumačimo i mi katolički "papisti" danas. Na primjer sveti Jovan Zlatousti. Citati su kao što vidite iz njegovih autorskih djela, tamo je navedeno i iz kojih tačno a ne iz nikakvih "pseudodekretalija" Pseudodekretalije smo isključili, ostao nam je "nerješivi problem" i dalje. Vi ste tvrdili da sve to nije uopšte tako i da smo mi valjda pogrešno nešto shvatili ili izmislili a ovdje vidimo da tako zaista jest, da je zaista važno "da je apostol Petar prvi u Crkvi" - "Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church" Sveti Jovam Zlatousti o apostolu Petru, i da si ništa nismo izmislili. Kad je to bilo važno svetom Jovanu Zlatoustom, svetom Avgustinu, svetom Atanaziju, svetom Hilariju, svetim Ćirilu i Metodiju, svetom Teodoru Studiti, svetom Simeonu Bogoslovu Novom i cijelom nizu daljih Svetih Otaca i svetitelja zapadnih i istočnih što to onda ne bi bilo važno i nama katolicima? Ako smo u zabludi mi - onda su u zabludi i svi ti Sveti Oci koji su o tom isto pisali kao mi, da je Petar prvi itd. itd. , počev od sv. Jovana Zlatoustog pa dalje. Koji biste onda kontext vi dali ovdje? "Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." Sveti Jovan Zlatousti o apostolu Petru. Ili ovdje: "Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven." Sveti Hilarije o apostolu Petru.  

A ovo ste si izložili, protumačili i razumjeli kako?

"...If the primacy of St. Peter is so unimportant a fact -- if it gave him no prerogatives, no duties, no successors -- why on earth is it so extraordinarily prominent in Holy Writ?" Sveti Jovan Zlatousti

Ma važno da je prvi 

St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter

"...If the primacy of St. Peter is so unimportant a fact -- if it gave him no prerogatives, no duties, no successors -- why on earth is it so extraordinarily prominent in Holy Writ?"

"I know no more emphatic testimony to the supreme jurisdiction of St. Peter in any writer, ancient or modern, than the view taken in this homily [of St. John Chrysostom] of the election of St. Matthias, for I know of no act of jurisdiction in the Church more tremendous than the appointment of an apostle."

In the first place, let us note St. Chrysostom's habit of showing his extraordinary reverence for St. Peter, by habitually adding to his name a whole list of titles, for instance:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

HILARY OF POTIERS

"Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven." (On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105)

A ovdje su i ti ključevi  

Blessed Simon who received the keys to the kingdom of heaven

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num52.htm

Evo vam i na češkom, i na engleskom ponovo ta episoda o  sv. Atanaziju i o papi juliju I. Mislim da je malo pretjerano nazivati citate iz autorskih djela iz koje stoji tačan izvor odakle su "pseudodekretalijama" i služit se s njima kao s univerzalnim lijekom i "čarobnim štapicen" u situaciji kad ne umijete objasnit odakle se najednom iz ničega ništa stvorilo toliko Svetih Otaca "papista" koji pišu s otvorenih i ne može biti jasnijih "papističkih pozicija", otprilike sve ono isto što se o papama i o sv. Petru piše i tvrdi na Zapadu u Katoličkoj Crkvi i dan danas 2017 godine. Najlakše je reci onda da je sve to što vam ne zapada do vaših predstava falsifikat, jasna stvar. Ako se radi o falsifikatima dokažite to! I ja mogu proglasiti i sve vaše citate na koje se pozivate vi jednostavno falsifikatima i mirna Bosna, ali bez dokaza to važi samo za mene kao i ta vaša ničim nepodložena tvrdnja samo za vas kad smo vec ustanovili da nijedan od navedenih citata nije iz nikakvih "pseudodekretalija". Treba li da vam opet donesem citate sv. Ćirila i Metodija koji takodjer nisu iz nikakvih "pseudodekretalija"? Evo vam onda i njih, baš me zanima koji cete sad novi ugibni, izvrdavajuci manevar izvesti, da su tako morali jer im je papa držao S & W . 357 Magnum kraj glave u momentu kad je to bilo napisano ili nešto slično? Vaša kreativita u izmišljanju izvrdavajucih manevara je beskonačna! A šta sv. Teodor Studita i sv. Simeon Novi Bogoslov i svi ostali tamo nabrojani na tom linku dole, pape su ih sve držali u gladomorni u Vatikanu, bičevali nekoliko puta dnevno i prijetili betonskim cipelama kako bi ih prinudili na takve izjave?   

http://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.php

Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865):

"It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" (Methodius ---N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).

St. Athanasius, Arianism, and the Holy See

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num51.htm

Sv. Julius I. (337–352) se neohlížel na nepřítomnost východních zástupců a konal roku 342 ohlášený sněm v záležitosti sv. Atanáše. Atanáš se zúčastnil zasedání. Tím, jakož i svou apelací k papeži dal najevo, že uznává kompetenci Říma v rozhodování otázek týkajících se celé Církve. Julius psal mírně, ale rozhodně: „Ohlásil jsem sněm v Římě, a proto jste neměli předcházeti sněm.“ Tím prohlásil svou moc a vědomí své moci svolávati sněm i pro záležitosti východních obcí. Dále jim vytýkal, že nepsali napřed jemu v záležitosti sesazení Atanáše: „Což nevíte, že je zvykem psáti nejprve nám? (…) Ti, kteří nás neupozornili, kteří dělali, co chtěli, přáli by si nyní, abychom schválili soudy, jež neznáme. (…) Co jsme přijali od blaženého Petra, to vám také nyní projevujeme.“ (Hist. Ecc. III, 25, 30, 36) Julius žádal svolání nového sněmu na Východě. Byl svolán do Sardik a byly přítomny obě strany. Julius prohlásil, že Řím má právo přijímati odvolání biskupa odsouzeného svými krajany a má právo rozhodnout, zda je třeba obnovy sporu. Sněm v Sardikách prohlásil proti ariánům toto právo za obecné (Batiffol, Cathedra Petri, 1938, s. 227). Hosius, předsedající biskup, uvedl toto rozhodnutí slovy: „Líbí-li se vám, uctěme památku svatého apoštola Petra.“ (Batiffol, La paix Const., s. 449)v
 

Što se tiče sv. Avgustina i tu mi takodjer imamo svoj kontekst kao i vi svoj a on je ovdje, ako se vi pozivate na pravo imati svoj kontekst onda sasvim isto "pravo na kontext" imamo i mi:  

http://corinquietam.blogspot.cz/2012/02/st-augustine-on-chair-of-st-peter-and.html

P.S. Kad smo vec kod tih "kontexta", kakav bi prema vama "kontext" trebalo imati ovo. Ali prvo nadjite sve citate iz "pseudodekretalija" ako ih tamo negdje ima i pokažite koji su to, koliko ja vidim svi koji su navedeni u fusnotama su sv. Avgustina i iz njegovih djela:

Yes, St. Augustine Really Did Mean “Roma Locuta, Causa Finita Est”

Inače ovo je moj posljednji post ove godine, sad sam u poslu s pripremom na put do Njemačke, vracam se tek za srpsku Novu Godinu i nastavljam dalje samo sa postovanjem slovenskih folklornih videa na https://crkva.net/slovenskifolklor/ a ovdje se više necu pojavljivati na diskusijama, maximalno tu i tamo sa čestitkama povodom crkvenih praznika, to cemo se još stici čuti, za božicne čestitke je još prerano. S pánem Bohem! Ostajte u zdravlju!

 

[Isusovo magare]

пре 4 часа, Zayron рече

Imamo ustvari više nego jedan "nerješiv problem". Nijedan od citata koji sam tamo stavio nije iz Pseudodekretalija niti imaju kakve veze s njima. Kod svakog je napisano odakle su tj. iz kojeg tačno djela sv. Avgustina, sv. Hilarija i sv. Jovana Zlatoustog.  Osim toga još niste ništa odgovorili na ovo o sv. Atanaziju i papi Juliju I. A kako vidim i sv. Hilarija iz Poitiera ste samo tako cutke lagano preskočili i bez osvrtanja jer je izgleda bio previše explicitan pa se to nije više dalo zamazat ni nikakvim "kontekstima" a ni "pseudodekretalijama".  U stilu: Я не хочу этого видеть! Inače nismo još riješili ni problem sa tumačenjem kritičkih pasaža, odlomaka iz Jevandjelja koji se tiču sv. Petra, prvenstva, jednog stada i jednog pastira, ključeva, stijene, kamena temeljca Crkve koju ni vrata paklena nece nadvladati itd. a ti odlomci iz Jevandjelja takodjer nisu ni iz kakvih "pseudodekretalija". A iz navedenih daljih citata je vidno koji od Svetih Otaca su te dijelove razumjeli i tumačili na vlas isto kao što ih tumačimo i mi katolički "papisti" danas. Na primjer sveti Jovan Zlatousti. Citati su kao što vidite iz njegovih autorskih djela, tamo je navedeno i iz kojih tačno a ne iz nikakvih "pseudodekretalija" Pseudodekretalije smo isključili, ostao nam je "nerješivi problem" i dalje. Vi ste tvrdili da sve to nije uopšte tako i da smo mi valjda pogrešno nešto shvatili ili izmislili a ovdje vidimo da tako zaista jest, da je zaista važno "da je apostol Petar prvi u Crkvi" - "Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church" Sveti Jovam Zlatousti o apostolu Petru, i da si ništa nismo izmislili. Kad je to bilo važno svetom Jovanu Zlatoustom, svetom Avgustinu, svetom Atanaziju, svetom Hilariju, svetim Ćirilu i Metodiju, svetom Teodoru Studiti, svetom Simeonu Bogoslovu Novom i cijelom nizu daljih Svetih Otaca i svetitelja zapadnih i istočnih što to onda ne bi bilo važno i nama katolicima? Ako smo u zabludi mi - onda su u zabludi i svi ti Sveti Oci koji su o tom isto pisali kao mi, da je Petar prvi itd. itd. , počev od sv. Jovana Zlatoustog pa dalje. Koji biste onda kontext vi dali ovdje? "Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." Sveti Jovan Zlatousti o apostolu Petru. Ili ovdje: "Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven." Sveti Hilarije o apostolu Petru.  

A ovo ste si izložili, protumačili i razumjeli kako?

"...If the primacy of St. Peter is so unimportant a fact -- if it gave him no prerogatives, no duties, no successors -- why on earth is it so extraordinarily prominent in Holy Writ?" Sveti Jovan Zlatousti

Ma važno da je prvi 

St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter

"...If the primacy of St. Peter is so unimportant a fact -- if it gave him no prerogatives, no duties, no successors -- why on earth is it so extraordinarily prominent in Holy Writ?"

"I know no more emphatic testimony to the supreme jurisdiction of St. Peter in any writer, ancient or modern, than the view taken in this homily [of St. John Chrysostom] of the election of St. Matthias, for I know of no act of jurisdiction in the Church more tremendous than the appointment of an apostle."

In the first place, let us note St. Chrysostom's habit of showing his extraordinary reverence for St. Peter, by habitually adding to his name a whole list of titles, for instance:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

HILARY OF POTIERS

"Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven." (On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105)

A ovdje su i ti ključevi  

Blessed Simon who received the keys to the kingdom of heaven

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num52.htm

Evo vam i na češkom, i na engleskom ponovo ta episoda o  sv. Atanaziju i o papi juliju I. Mislim da je malo pretjerano nazivati citate iz autorskih djela iz koje stoji tačan izvor odakle su "pseudodekretalijama" i služit se s njima kao s univerzalnim lijekom i "čarobnim štapicen" u situaciji kad ne umijete objasnit odakle se najednom iz ničega ništa stvorilo toliko Svetih Otaca "papista" koji pišu s otvorenih i ne može biti jasnijih "papističkih pozicija", otprilike sve ono isto što se o papama i o sv. Petru piše i tvrdi na Zapadu u Katoličkoj Crkvi i dan danas 2017 godine. Najlakše je reci onda da je sve to što vam ne zapada do vaših predstava falsifikat, jasna stvar. Ako se radi o falsifikatima dokažite to! I ja mogu proglasiti i sve vaše citate na koje se pozivate vi jednostavno falsifikatima i mirna Bosna, ali bez dokaza to važi samo za mene kao i ta vaša ničim nepodložena tvrdnja samo za vas kad smo vec ustanovili da nijedan od navedenih citata nije iz nikakvih "pseudodekretalija". Treba li da vam opet donesem citate sv. Ćirila i Metodija koji takodjer nisu iz nikakvih "pseudodekretalija"? Evo vam onda i njih, baš me zanima koji cete sad novi ugibni, izvrdavajuci manevar izvesti, da su tako morali jer im je papa držao S & W . 357 Magnum kraj glave u momentu kad je to bilo napisano ili nešto slično? Vaša kreativita u izmišljanju izvrdavajucih manevara je beskonačna! A šta sv. Teodor Studita i sv. Simeon Novi Bogoslov i svi ostali tamo nabrojani na tom linku dole, pape su ih sve držali u gladomorni u Vatikanu, bičevali nekoliko puta dnevno i prijetili betonskim cipelama kako bi ih prinudili na takve izjave?   

http://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.php

Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865):

"It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" (Methodius ---N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).

St. Athanasius, Arianism, and the Holy See

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num51.htm

Sv. Julius I. (337–352) se neohlížel na nepřítomnost východních zástupců a konal roku 342 ohlášený sněm v záležitosti sv. Atanáše. Atanáš se zúčastnil zasedání. Tím, jakož i svou apelací k papeži dal najevo, že uznává kompetenci Říma v rozhodování otázek týkajících se celé Církve. Julius psal mírně, ale rozhodně: „Ohlásil jsem sněm v Římě, a proto jste neměli předcházeti sněm.“ Tím prohlásil svou moc a vědomí své moci svolávati sněm i pro záležitosti východních obcí. Dále jim vytýkal, že nepsali napřed jemu v záležitosti sesazení Atanáše: „Což nevíte, že je zvykem psáti nejprve nám? (…) Ti, kteří nás neupozornili, kteří dělali, co chtěli, přáli by si nyní, abychom schválili soudy, jež neznáme. (…) Co jsme přijali od blaženého Petra, to vám také nyní projevujeme.“ (Hist. Ecc. III, 25, 30, 36) Julius žádal svolání nového sněmu na Východě. Byl svolán do Sardik a byly přítomny obě strany. Julius prohlásil, že Řím má právo přijímati odvolání biskupa odsouzeného svými krajany a má právo rozhodnout, zda je třeba obnovy sporu. Sněm v Sardikách prohlásil proti ariánům toto právo za obecné (Batiffol, Cathedra Petri, 1938, s. 227). Hosius, předsedající biskup, uvedl toto rozhodnutí slovy: „Líbí-li se vám, uctěme památku svatého apoštola Petra.“ (Batiffol, La paix Const., s. 449)v
 

Što se tiče sv. Avgustina i tu mi takodjer imamo svoj kontekst kao i vi svoj a on je ovdje, ako se vi pozivate na pravo imati svoj kontekst onda sasvim isto "pravo na kontext" imamo i mi:  

http://corinquietam.blogspot.cz/2012/02/st-augustine-on-chair-of-st-peter-and.html

P.S. Kad smo vec kod tih "kontexta", kakav bi prema vama "kontext" trebalo imati ovo. Ali prvo nadjite sve citate iz "pseudodekretalija" ako ih tamo negdje ima i pokažite koji su to, koliko ja vidim svi koji su navedeni u fusnotama su sv. Avgustina i iz njegovih djela:

Yes, St. Augustine Really Did Mean “Roma Locuta, Causa Finita Est”

Inače ovo je moj posljednji post ove godine, sad sam u poslu s pripremom na put do Njemačke, vracam se tek za srpsku Novu Godinu i nastavljam dalje samo sa postovanjem slovenskih folklornih videa na https://crkva.net/slovenskifolklor/ a ovdje se više necu pojavljivati na diskusijama, maximalno tu i tamo sa čestitkama povodom crkvenih praznika, to cemo se još stici čuti, za božicne čestitke je još prerano. S pánem Bohem! Ostajte u zdravlju!

 

Ma možeš ti njima pisati i na Turskom neće te razumjeti jer ne žele..Nego kad vec tako tvrde da Petar nije dobio nikakvu vlast od Isusa sto Čovjek nije fino napravio više tih kljuceva pa svima podijelio nego dao samo Petru pa sad ovi ljubomorni.??????????

[Zayron]

пре 1 сат, Isusovo magare рече

Ma možeš ti njima pisati i na Turskom neće te razumjeti jer ne žele..Nego kad vec tako tvrde da Petar nije dobio nikakvu vlast od Isusa sto Čovjek nije fino napravio više tih kljuceva pa svima podijelio nego dao samo Petru pa sad ovi ljubomorni.??????????

To sam i ustanovio poslije 7 godina a zato sam odlučio od 2018. više ne učestvovati u nikakvim diskusijama, od 2010 sam tu na forumu. Izgleda da to ne bude nikakav teološki a ni vjeronaučni problem, sve te razlike izmedju nas i pravoslavaca, vec valjda nekakav njihov poseban način čitanja textova. Ili oni trpe teškom dislexijom ili mi teškim halucinacijama? Ne shvatam kako mi tamo vidimo i pročitamo i to da je Petar glavni tj. prvi i tamo te ključeve napisane vidimo i tu stijenu itd. a oni ništa od toga što vidimo mi? Vidiš li ti isto što i ja šta je tamo napisano, valjda se meni nije učiniílo da se tamo spominje head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the keys to the kingdom of heaven? Čuo sam da pri problemima s dislexijom pomaže kad su slova crna na žutoj kontrastnoj pozadini i slično pa ce valjda nešto od toga uspjeti pročitati.

To bude prelest nekakva, naša ili njihova, šta misliš?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelest

Tamo kod sv. Jovana Zlatoustog piše o svetom apostolu Petru ovo:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey."

A oni to čitaju i razumiju ovako:

"Peter, is not head of the Apostles, he is not first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean he is not unbroken Rock, he is not unshaken foundation, the great apostle, he is not first of the disciples, he is not first called, he is not first to obey."

St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter

In the first place, let us note St. Chrysostom's habit of showing his extraordinary reverence for St. Peter, by habitually adding to his name a whole list of titles, for instance:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

HILARY OF POTIERS

"Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven." (On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105)

 

[Isusovo magare]

пре 33 минута, Zayron рече

To sam i ustanovio poslije 7 godina a zato sam odlučio od 2018. više ne učestvovati u nikakvim diskusijama, od 2010 sam tu na forumu. Izgleda da to ne bude nikakav teološki a ni vjeronaučni problem, sve te razlike izmedju nas i pravoslavaca, vec valjda nekakav njihov poseban način čitanja textova. Ili oni trpe teškom dislexijom ili mi teškim halucinacijama? Ne shvatam kako mi tamo vidimo i pročitamo i to da je Petar glavni tj. prvi i tamo te ključeve napisane vidimo i tu stijenu itd. a oni ništa od toga što vidimo mi? Vidiš li ti isto što i ja šta je tamo napisano, valjda se meni nije učiniílo da se tamo spominje head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the keys to the kingdom of heaven? Čuo sam da pri problemima s dislexijom pomaže kad su slova crna na žutoj kontrastnoj pozadini i slično pa ce valjda nešto od toga uspjeti pročitati.

To bude prelest nekakva, naša ili njihova, šta misliš?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelest

St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter

In the first place, let us note St. Chrysostom's habit of showing his extraordinary reverence for St. Peter, by habitually adding to his name a whole list of titles, for instance:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

HILARY OF POTIERS

"Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven." (On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105)

 

Ja ću riknut..ali ne ove godine nego iduće  al' sad će to brzo ...samo me nešto strah da neću koga sresti pred vratima Raja od ovih forumaša kako mašu ključevima sv.Petra i opet prijete kako ne mogu u Raj dok se ne pokajem i priznam da ne vidim Petra..a Petar jadan stoji blize vratima i plače.

[Zayron]

пре 15 минута, Isusovo magare рече

Ja ću riknut..ali ne ove godine nego iduće  al' sad će to brzo ...samo me nešto strah da neću koga sresti pred vratima Raja od ovih forumaša kako mašu ključevima sv.Petra i opet prijete kako ne mogu u Raj dok se ne pokajem i priznam da ne vidim Petra..a Petar jadan stoji blize vratima i plače.

Pa stvarno, o kakvim kontekstima tu može biti riječi i kakvom smislu dalje kad nismo ustvari utvrdili ni šta smo to ustvari tačno pročitali i da li je to isto, isti text, ista stvar što ju čitamo u Svetom Pismu, kod Svetih Otaca mi i oni? Mi o gljivama oni o šljivama, mi o žabama oni o babama!

Tamo kod sv. Jovana Zlatoustog na primjer lijepo i jasno piše o svetom apostolu Petru ovo da to ne može biti jasnije, razumjelo bi to i dijete u drugom osnovne. Moramo prvo utvrditi da li je to uopšte ista stvar što ju čitamo mi i oni, a ne mi čitamo žitije sv. Marka a oni žitije svete Lucije. Pa se onda čudimo što se tu nešto ne slaže, bodaj bi se i ne slagalo!

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey."

A oni to čitaju i razumiju ovako:

"Peter is not head of the Apostles, he is not first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean he is not unbroken Rock, he is not unshaken foundation, the great apostle, he is not first of the disciples, he is not first called, he is not first to obey."

[Isusovo magare]

пре 4 минута, Zayron рече

Pa stvarno, o kakvim kontekstima tu može biti riječi i kakvom smislu dalje kad nismo ustvari utvrdili ni šta smo to ustvari tačno pročitali i da li je to isto, isti text što čitamo u Svetom Pismu, kod Svetih Otaca mi i oni? Mi o gljivama oni o šljivama, mi o žabama oni o babama!

Tamo kod sv. Jovana Zlatoustog na primjer lijepo i jasno piše o svetom apostolu Petru ovo da to ne može biti jasnije, razumjelo bi to i dijete u drugom osnovne:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey."

A oni to čitaju i razumiju ovako:

"Peter is not head of the Apostles, he is not first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean he is not unbroken Rock, he is not unshaken foundation, the great apostle, he is not first of the disciples, he is not first called, he is not first to obey."

A šta ćeš velim ti onda u Božje ruke..ja vjerujem da će on "jednom nekada davno" svojom velikom Ljubavlju "uspjeti" "pomiriti" "naše" dvije Crkve.

[Ведран*]

Кошићеви аколити писали писмо. 

Посве свакидашња вест. Ништа садржајем необично осим једне чињенице, а то је да су Кошићеви аколити написали писмо, тј. да су колико - толико писмени.

 

[Bokisd]

пре 9 часа, Zayron рече

Imamo ustvari više nego jedan "nerješiv problem". Nijedan od citata koji sam tamo stavio nije iz Pseudodekretalija niti imaju kakve veze s njima. Kod svakog je napisano odakle su tj. iz kojeg tačno djela sv. Avgustina, sv. Hilarija i sv. Jovana Zlatoustog.  Osim toga još niste ništa odgovorili na ovo o sv. Atanaziju i papi Juliju I. A kako vidim i sv. Hilarija iz Poitiera ste samo tako cutke lagano preskočili i bez osvrtanja jer je izgleda bio previše explicitan pa se to nije više dalo zamazat ni nikakvim "kontekstima" a ni "pseudodekretalijama".  U stilu: Я не хочу этого видеть!

Naravno, rekao sam, ako imamo tacnu odrednicu citata iz koje je knjige, onda, ne bi trebalo da imamo problem.

Ali, glavna fora sa Pseudo dekretalijama jeste, zbog cega je trebalo da se publikuje jedno takvo delo, u kojem su navedeni falsifikovani citati otaca i sabora u vezi primata Petra, ....ako, je  bila kristalno jasna prica, da je Petar na osnovu Pisma i dela otaca i crkve, bio vrhovni apostol ? Cemu onda, lazni citati otaca, ako su vec postojali validni i tacno interpretirani citati otaca o prvenstvu Petrovom ? U tom slucaju, ne bi trebalo da bude uopste nikakve poptrebe za izdavanje jednog  takvog dela , koji je , osim toga i falsifikat ? 

Pseudo dekretalije su nastale sredinom 9. veka i bile su potrebne papi Nikoli I radi ucvrscivanja papske vlasti , prvo na Zapadu, a, potom i u borbi za crkvenu vlast na teritoriji Carigradske patrijarsije, pod sv.Fotijem Velikim. I, kasnije su koriscene, kako bi sve vise i jace utvrdjivala papska vlast, kako crkvena, tako i svetovna. To je problem sa ovim dekretalijama.

Sto se tice sv. Hilarija , odmah da ti kazem Zayrone,  situacija je slicna kao i u prici sa sv.Atanasijem i sv. Avgustinom, gde smo videli , da trebamo , da gledamo kontekst u kome su navedeni neki citati. Tako i ovde :

""Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven." (On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105)

Ovaj citat je uzet odavde :

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330206.htm

U 20. poglavlju.

Meni je odmah upalo u oci (  ), kako se kaze,,.... blagosloveni Simon ( ne, Petar ), ....koji, je prostavljen kao kamen temeljac Crkve,.....posle njegovog ispovedanja, ...cega ?.... pa, odredjene misterije i tajne. Poznato je iz patrologoje , da su mnogi oci tumacili reci iz Mateja 16, 18,....kao stenu, koje jeste upravo, ispovedanje Hrista kao Sina Bozijeg , od strane Petra.

Stena - ispovedanje vere u Sina Bozijeg. Na toj steni je sagradjena crkva, ne na Petru kao licnosti.

Da ovako misli Hilarije ( na ispovedanje Petrovo, koje je stena na kojoj je izgradjena crkva ) mozemo videti iz ovih njegovih reci. 

https://books.google.rs/books?id=pIv3wJ-zQGUC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=hilary+of+poitiers+on+the+trinity+Blessed+Simon,+who+after+his+confession+of+the+mystery+was+set+to+be+the+foundation-stone+of+the+Church,+and+received+the+keys+to+the+kingdom+of+heaven.&source=bl&ots=RMEzZMf0Qy&sig=OG1o9l3vvetX0JWOzsWwKoJjgWE&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMssHero7YAhUObVAKHU_4AccQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Moramo pogledati i druge reference koje u daljem izlaganju Hilarija navodi o apostolu Petru. U celom 36. poglavlju, on govori o ispovedanju Petrovom kojim je Hrista nazvao Sinom Bozijim, da bi zakljucio :

"You are, is the believer's welcome to the truth. And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built."

I, nastavlja u 37.poglavlju :

"37. This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation;....

.....The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father's revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth... "

Dakle, to je ta' vera i ispovedanje, kroz koju ni vrata paklena  ne mogu nadvladati Crkvu, nije Petar . To je ta' vera, koja ima kljuceve nebeskog kraljevstva, nema' samo Petar kjluceve. To je ta' vera, kojom se vezuje i razresava, kako na zemlji, tako i na nebu, ne razresava Petar.

Ta' vera je Ocem data' svima, kao otkrovenjem. Tu veru i tu' stenu, poseduju i svi ostali apostoli. Kako kaze, Hilarije, kako kaze i Avgustin :

". For Peter in many places in the Scriptures appears to represent the Church; especially in that place where it was said "I give to thee the keys . . . shall' be loosed in heaven". What! did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive? Did Peter receive and John ( Jovan ) and James ( Jakov ) not receive, and the rest of the apostles? Or are not the keys in the Church where sins are daily remitted? But since in a figure Peter represented the Church, what was given to him singly was given to the Church."

Petar je, kako da kazem, univerzalni obrazac ispovedanja vere kao stene na kojoj je osnovana Crkva. I, ( Petar ) je samo, u ime svih apostola i svih nas hriscana, ispovedio Hrista kao Sina Bozijeg i svi mi, ucestvujemo u tom njegovom ispovedanju, ...kada, priznamo Sina Bozijeg.

Kasnije , da razmotrimo i druge citate otaca.

[Кратос]

пре 9 минута, Bokisd рече

"You are, is the believer's welcome to the truth. And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built."

I, nastavlja u 37.poglavlju :

"37. This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation;....

.....The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father's revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth... "

To je to,objašnjeno  da i što kažeZajron i dete od 12. godina razume...

[Bokisd]

пре 3 минута, Кратос рече

To je to,objašnjeno  da i što kaže Zajron i dete od 12. godina razume...

Kaze ava Justin, ....jasno je i komarcevoj savesti...  .. (  )..

[Volim_Sina_Bozjeg]

Baš je sramotno to što vi ne vidite da se tek preobražen Simon koji od Oca Nebeskog dobi poznanje Isusa Hrista kao Sina Božjeg i u toj veri ispovedi Ga tako i da neposredno posle toga sam Isus menja ime Simona u Petar ( a znamo koliko su imena u ono vreme bila važna) i toj preobraženoj ličnosti koja se nije sama preobrazila niti joj je to došlo od stolice meke ili tvrde ni od krvi ni od mesa nego od Oca Nebeskog, gradi Crkvu svoju i takvoj ličnosti daje Ključeve vezivanja ili razrešavanja.

Još je sramotnije da ne vidite da je to čast a ne vlast, jer čast se zadobija kad ti neko da nešto Odozgo a vlast se zadobija ako je ti kao ličnost poseduješ. Simon nikada nije posedovao ličnost koja u je mogla dobiti poznanje Sina Božjeg i vere da je to upravo Isus Hristos, nego mu je prvome data ta čast bez koje niko od nas ne može ući u raj ili Carstvo Božje jer se samo preko Isusa Hrista kao Sina Božjeg ulazi u Carstvo i to su ti ključevi.

Drugo čitajći Jevanđelije molim vas da obratite pažnju i na one reference (povezanost) koje se nudi čitajući stihove.

Pa tako ako čitate Jovana i razgovor Isusa i Petra gde Isus govori ljubiš li me i napasaj ovce moje, imate i objašnjenje toga da je Hristos neke postavljao kao apostole, neke kao pastire i učitelje a neke kao jevanđeliste.

Hristos ih je postavljao da budu jedno kao što su Otac Nebeski i on Jedno i da nemaju prevlast jedan nad drugim niti je Božja volja da daje prevlast bilo kom delu uda svog, nego da u sabornosti deluju kao apostoli,pastiri i učitelji i jevanđelisti po slobodi i Božjoj vlasti.

Apostoli su postavljali episkope i to su činili ispunjavajući Boju vlast koja dolazi opet odozgo sa neba a ne od Petra, Pavla,Mateja itd... zato i Isus kaže Petru utvrđivaću te u veri tvojoj, znači veri koja mu je data odozgo da bi služio i delio vlast odozgo.

Hristos upravo radi Petra sva nas i podučava ko je prvi a ko je poslednji u Carstvu Nebeskom. Nema braćo katolčka ni prvog ni poslednjeg, da ga ima onda bi taj neko imao vlast i tapiju nad ključevima ima samo ličnost Petra koji je prvi dobio te ključeve jer je prvi ispovedio Hrista kao Sina Božjeg i ima onog još nerođenog nekog drugog Petra koji će to isto učiniti i imati ključeve od raja, jer se u Carstvo ulazi preko vrata a vrata je sam Isus Hristos i ispovedanje vere u Njega kao Sina Božjeg.

Kako nekog nije sramota pomisliti da je od 11 apostola u (Jovan17.) kad je Hristos definitivno potvrdio da su ovi svi jedno svi su Petar stena i da budu jedno kao što su Otac i Sin jedno, bez ikakve vlasti i načela te vlasti.

Očigledno da nije samo u Srbiji problem velikog vođe, mislim da je to problem od izabranog starog jevrejskog naroda na ovamo večiti problem čovečanstva, pa sada vi ne razumete da je Hristos došao upravo kako bi život svoj položio i dao za to da pokaže nama nesrećnicima da se ne krvimo ko nad kim veću vlast ima i ko može od nas zabludivih govoriti ex katedra a ko ne , jer Pastir dobri, je posla Duha Istine Upravitelja i rukovodioca Crkve, upravo čuvajući se te zmije koja se izgleda uvukla i u Hrišćane da se prepiru ko je od Boga dobio veću ili manju vlast.

Kao što reče Vedran, kakve bre stolice apostolske, apostoli su bili jedno nisu imali gde glavu da zaklone a ne da se ustoličavaju i prevladavaju jedno nad drugim, to je za njih bilo nezamisljivo jer su prisustvovali Sinovom Proslavljanju Oca I Očevog proslavljanja Sina kao jedno a ne kao da Otac nad Sinom vlast ima, čime im se iskazala istinska sabornost i buduće delovanje Duha Svetoga koji je sišao na apostole i tako postao jedini ex katedra Upravitelj i Utešitelj Crkve.

Sram bilo svakog Hrišćana koji ne misli da je prvi jednak poslednjem.

Među apostolima ne postoji prevlast, među pastirima i učiteljima ne postoji prevlast, među jevanđelistima nema onih koji nad drugim jevanđelistom vlast imaju, nego postoji sloboda u delovanju po Božjoj vlasti svakog episkopa podjednako jer podjednak čin i vlast imaju.

Možemo govoriti samo o prvome po časti koja treba izabranome da služi tako što će drugim episkopima koji ga izabraše noge da opere a ne da nad njima vlada ex katedra.

[Bernard]

пре 5 часа, Zayron рече

To sam i ustanovio poslije 7 godina a zato sam odlučio od 2018. više ne učestvovati u nikakvim diskusijama, od 2010 sam tu na forumu. Izgleda da to ne bude nikakav teološki a ni vjeronaučni problem, sve te razlike izmedju nas i pravoslavaca, vec valjda nekakav njihov poseban način čitanja textova. Ili oni trpe teškom dislexijom ili mi teškim halucinacijama? Ne shvatam kako mi tamo vidimo i pročitamo i to da je Petar glavni tj. prvi i tamo te ključeve napisane vidimo i tu stijenu itd. a oni ništa od toga što vidimo mi? Vidiš li ti isto što i ja šta je tamo napisano, valjda se meni nije učiniílo da se tamo spominje head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the keys to the kingdom of heaven? Čuo sam da pri problemima s dislexijom pomaže kad su slova crna na žutoj kontrastnoj pozadini i slično pa ce valjda nešto od toga uspjeti pročitati.

To bude prelest nekakva, naša ili njihova, šta misliš?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelest

Tamo kod sv. Jovana Zlatoustog piše o svetom apostolu Petru ovo:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey."

A oni to čitaju i razumiju ovako:

"Peter, is not head of the Apostles, he is not first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean he is not unbroken Rock, he is not unshaken foundation, the great apostle, he is not first of the disciples, he is not first called, he is not first to obey."

St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter

In the first place, let us note St. Chrysostom's habit of showing his extraordinary reverence for St. Peter, by habitually adding to his name a whole list of titles, for instance:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

HILARY OF POTIERS

"Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven." (On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105)

 

Evo prilike da pročitamo kako će razumeti ove citate:

Peter's Primacy

In another Fathers Know Best tract, Peter the Rock, we showed that the early Church Fathers recognized that Peter is the rock of whom Christ spoke when he said, "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church." This tract highlights some of the implications of that fact. 

Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this. 

 

Clement of Alexandria

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]). 

 

Tertullian

"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]). 

"[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" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]). 

 

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]). 

 

Origen

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]). 

 

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], 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 [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] 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 [should] 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; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). 

 

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]). 

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14). 

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27). 

 

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]). 

 

Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]). 

 

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). 

 

Jerome

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]). 

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]). 

 

Pope Innocent I

"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]). 

 

Augustine

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). 

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]). 

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]). 

 

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]). 

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior 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’" (ibid., session 3). 

 

Pope Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445). 

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2–3). 

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).

https://www.catholic.com/tract/peters-primacy