Pope, Pope, Whose got the Papacy?

[King Wenceslas]

The term antipope refers to any person who claims to be pope, but whose claim is treated as invalid today by the Roman Catholic Church. This should be a straightforward concept, but in practice, it is much more difficult and complex than it might appear.

The problems lie in determining who qualifies as pope and why. It isn't enough to say that their election did not follow standard procedures, because those procedures have changed over time. Sometimes not following the rules isn't even relevant - Innocent II was elected in secret by a minority of cardinals but his papacy is treated as legitimate today. It also isn't enough to say that an alleged pope did not lead an adequately moral life because many legitimate popes led terrible lives while the first antipope, Hippolytus, is a saint.

What's more, over time names have shifted back and forth between the lists of popes and antipopes because people have changed their minds about what to do with them.

The Vatican's official list of popes is called the Annuario Pontificio.

Silverius vs. Vigilius 

Pope Silverius was forced to resign by Vigilius who became his successor, but the dates don't match up properly. The date of Vigilius' election is listed as March 29, 537, but Silverius' resignation is marked as November 11, 537. Technically there can't be two popes at the same time, so one of them had to be an antipope — but the Annuario Pontificio treats them both as valid popes for the time period in question. Another factoid is that Vigilius then proceeded to banish Silverius to an island where Silverius starved to death. Nice guy that Vigilius was.

Martin I vs. Eugenius I 

Martin I died in exile on September 16, 655, without ever having resigned. The people of Rome weren't sure that he would return and didn't want the Byzantine emperor to impose someone awful on them, so they elected Eugenius I on August 10, 654. Who was the real pope during that year? Martin I was not removed from office by any canonically valid procedure, so Eugenius' election should be treated as invalid — but he's still listed as a legitimate pope.
   
John XII vs. Leo VIII vs. Benedict V 

In this very confusing state of affairs, Leo was elected pope on December 4, 963, while his predecessor was still alive — John didn't die until May 14, 964 and he never resigned. Leo, in turn, was still alive when his successor was elected. Benedict's papacy is listed as having started on May 22, 964 (just after the death of John) but Leo didn't die until March 1, 965. So, was Leo a legitimate pope, even though John was still alive? If not, then Benedict was presumably valid, but if he was, then how was Benedict a valid pope? Either Leo or Benedict has to have been an invalid pope (an antipope), but the Annuario Pontificio doesn't decide one way or the other.

Benedict IX vs. Everyone Else 

Benedict IX had the most confusing papacy, or the most confusing three papacies, in the history of the Catholic Church. Benedict was forcibly removed from office in 1044 and Sylvester II was elected to take his place. In 1045 Benedict seized control again, and again he was removed — but this time he resigned as well. He was succeeded first by Gregory VI and then by Clement II, after which he returned once again for a few months before being ejected. It's not clear that any of the times Benedict was removed from office was canonically valid, which would mean that the other three mentioned here were all antipopes, but the Annuario Pontificio continues to list them as genuine popes.

Matthew 16:18
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Seems like sometimes the rock was made out of sandstone.

Now along comes Francis I who is obviously an antipope while their is a living/breathing semi x-pope named Benedict XVI who decided to call himself Pope Emeritus thus creating a whole new ecclesiastical office that didn't exist before. Then of course you have a semi-arian previous pope named John Paul II who declared that a Pope Emeritus is impossible. Meaning for himself or was that dogmatically an impossibility (who knows since Popes seem to be half-gods since Vatican I at least in this world.)?

You really can't make this stuff up.

[Vetus Ordo]

Seems like sometimes the rock was made out of sandstone.

You must keep in mind that the rock (Matt. 16:18) upon which the Church is built is first and foremost the identity of Christ, "the son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16), not the identity of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles. His own confession of faith is supreme and the focal point of the passage. The identity of Christ is where our faith is built upon. It is this Petrine confession, per se, that constitutes the very cornerstone of all faith. It is Christ, our rock (1 Cor. 10:4) and foundation (1. Cor. 3:11), who sustains the Christian people and the edifice of the Church throughout the ages.

St. Peter's identity as an ecclesiastical rock to run the earthly matters of the Church is only secondary to it. This might help you to put the past problems of Church history, and the papacy in particular, in proper perspective.

[St.Justin]

Seems like sometimes the rock was made out of sandstone.

You must keep in mind that the rock (Matt. 16:18) upon which the Church is built is first and foremost the identity of Christ, "the son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16), not the identity of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles. His own confession of faith is supreme and the focal point of the passage. The identity of Christ is where our faith is built upon. It is this Petrine confession, per se, that constitutes the very cornerstone of all faith. It is Christ, our rock (1 Cor. 10:4) and foundation (1. Cor. 3:11), who sustains the Christian people and the edifice of the Church throughout the ages.

St. Peter's identity as an ecclesiastical rock to run the earthly matters of the Church is only secondary to it. This might help you to put the past problems of Church history, and the papacy in particular, in proper perspective.

there have been several theologians who have take that position but that is not what the Church teaches. In fact this is a protestant position. Was it built on Peter or the Faith of Peter. The Church has always stated the former.

[mikemac]

"And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." [John 1:42]

Cephas means rock in Aramaic.

[King Wenceslas]

This is actually even better:

Today the Catholic Pope is a generally respected figure, but that hasn't always been the case. Some have been very despicable people, involved in all sorts of nasty situations. Aside from those who were martyred during the earliest decades of Christianity, a number of popes have been murdered by rivals, cardinals, and even supporters.
Popes Who Were Murdered or Assassinated

Pontian (230 - 235): The first pope to resign was also the first pope we can confirm was killed for his beliefs. Earlier popes are listed as having been martyred for their faith, but none of the tales can be substantiated. We know, however, that Pontian was arrested by Roman authorities during the persecutions under emperor Maximinus Thrax and exiled to Sardina, known as the "island of death" because no one ever came back. As expected, Pontian died of starvation and exposure, but he resigned his office before he left so that there wouldn't be a power vacuum in the church. Technically, then, he wasn't actually pope when he died.

Sixtus II (257 - 258): Sixtus II was another early martyr who died during the persecutions instituted by Emperor Valerian. Sixtus had been able to avoid participating in forced pagan ceremonies, but Valerina issued a decree that condemned all Christian priests, bishops and deacons to death. Sixtus was captured by soldiers while giving a sermon and perhaps beheaded right there.

Martin I (649 - 653): Martin got off to a bad start by not having his election confirmed by Emperor Constans II. He then proceeded to make things worse by convening a synod that condemned the doctrines of Monothelite heretics — doctrines adhered to by a number of powerful officials in Constantinople, including Constans himself. The emperor had the pope taken from his sick bed, arrested, and shipped to Constantinople. There Martin was tried for treason, found guilty, and sentenced to death. Rather than kill him outright, Constans had Martin exiled to the Crimea where he died of starvation and exposure. Martin was the last pope killed as a martyr for defending orthodoxy and Christianity.

John VIII (872 - 882): John was paranoid, though perhaps with good reason, and his entire papacy was characterized by various political plots and intrigue. When he feared that people were plotting to overthrow him, he had a number of powerful bishops and other officials excommunicated. This ensured that they moved against him and a relative was convinced to slip poison in his drink. When he didn't die fast enough, members of his own entourage beat him to death.

John XII (955 - 964): Just 18 years old when he was elected pope, John was a notorious womanizer and the papal palace came to be described as a brothel during his reign. It is perhaps fitting that he died of injuries sustained when he was caught in bed by the husband of one of his mistresses. Some legends say that he died of a stroke while in the act.

Benedict VI (973 - 974): Not much is known about Pope Benedict VI except that he came to a violent end. When his protector, Emperor Otto the Great, died, the Roman citizens rebelled against Benedict and he was strangled by a priest on the orders of Crescentius, a brother of the late Pope John XIII and the son of the Theodora. Boniface Franco, a deacon who helped Crescentius, was made pope and called himself Boniface VII. Boniface, however, had to flee Rome because the people were so outraged that a pope had been strangled to death in such a manner.

John XIV (983 - 984): John was chosen by emperor Otto II, without consultation with anyone else, as a replacement for the murdered John XIII. This meant that Otto was his only friend or supporter in the world. Otto died not long into John's papacy and this left John all alone. Antipope Boniface, the one who had John XIII murdered, moved quickly and had John imprisoned. Reports suggest that he died of starvation after several months in jail.

So what does this all mean anyway? There is the very high regard for the Papacy because of Sacred Scripture but it just doesn't come out very well in the actually work a day world of fallen man.

Actually the Papacy becomes quite unappealing if looked at in context of 2000 years.

But since humans don't or won't view the complete history of the Papacy, we come out looking like fools.

Is the Papacy really that important for each and everyone of us to be Catholic? Is the Papacy of Vatican I a burden that can't or shouldn't be borne by any reasonable human being especially in the full blown apostasy of Francis elected by a conclave? Isn't Francis just more of the same and the Papacy is reverting to its norm of power hungry individuals? Fallen man once again.

400 or 500 years of good popes then the Church goes off the rails again. Was Pius IX power hungry?

[TradGranny]

Jesus said to Peter, "Thou are Peter and upon this rock I found my Church and the gates of hell will not PREVAIL against it."

Of course Catholics are familiar with the Church's history and problems with various popes. The point is that we have the promise of Jesus Christ that however strongly the enemy batters against the Church, they will not PREVAIL against it.

This is true even when it APPEARS to us that all is lost.

[Stubborn]

Jesus said to Peter, "Thou are Peter and upon this rock I found my Church and the gates of hell will not PREVAIL against it."

Of course Catholics are familiar with the Church's history and problems with various popes. The point is that we have the promise of Jesus Christ that however strongly the enemy batters against the Church, they will not PREVAIL against it.

This is true even when it APPEARS to us that all is lost.

Well said!

Snip of a sermon given by Fr. Wathen that elaborates a bit more....


"...We have reason to celebrate at all times because as you know, even though we commemorate the sorrowful event of Our Lord's Passion and death, and even though we live in a very sad situation, we realize that our sorrow is not that of complete tragedy. We might even use the expression, "The Divine Comedy", of which we are players, because everything that happens is under the Divine Control.

And even though there is much sin and there is real tragedy, the only real tragedy and the only irreparable tragedy of course being the loss of a soul. And this actually happens. But as far as creation is concerned and our part in it, we do not really recognize any tragedy because we anticipate salvation. We have no reason to disbelieve that Almighty God does not intend to save us. Not that we are not able to lose our own souls, but we recognize that we are serious about being saved. We intend to be and we have reason to rejoice that Almighty God has shown us such mercy.

Among all the mysteries that we live amongst, is that of the fact that God saves those whom He wills. And yet those who are lost are lost because they will. No one is saved against his will and no one is damned against his will. At the same time almighty God has known from all eternity who would be His, whom He would succeed in saving. And all the jubilation that the Church expresses in its many Masses and in its office is over the fact that those whom God regards as His elect, will be saved.

Furthermore that no matter how much tragedy with which history is strewn, Christ moves towards His glorious triumph. With His resurrection was the announcement that He would have his victory, when he emerged from the tomb, He proved that there was no force, no power greater than He. And He proved that if He was invincible, then that which He would establish is also invincible, namely His Church.

It really does not matter therefore that throughout history, the Church suffer terrific blows, that it at times – and these times almost have always prevailed – that the Church suffer It's terrible embarrassments, It's setbacks.

Despite all this, despite all appearances and despite whatever losses, Christ is triumphing in the Church and He is proving His power, His invincibility and He is succeeding in doing what He came to the world to achieve, and God the Father is fulfilling the purposes of His creation.

If it were not so He would never have created anything to begin with. If it could be, that Almighty God could set in motion anything out of which He could not draw whatever He wished, then He would never had done anything like that, and He indeed would not be infinite in the first place.

We have it in our power to participate or we have it in our choice to be turned away, it is strictly within our choice and whatever grace is necessary is within our grasp...."

[Miriam_M]

The identity of Christ is where our faith is built upon.

But the identity of Peter is not the identity of Christ.  Ergo, the identities of Popes Paul VI, JXXIII, JP2, BXVI, and Francis are also not the identity of Christ.

Don't get confused.

One God.  He shares His life, not His identity.  That's traditional Catholic philosophy, upon which traditional Catholic theology is built.  It's an important distinction. 

[TheReturnofLive]

Seems like sometimes the rock was made out of sandstone.

You must keep in mind that the rock (Matt. 16:18) upon which the Church is built is first and foremost the identity of Christ, "the son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16), not the identity of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles. His own confession of faith is supreme and the focal point of the passage. The identity of Christ is where our faith is built upon. It is this Petrine confession, per se, that constitutes the very cornerstone of all faith. It is Christ, our rock (1 Cor. 10:4) and foundation (1. Cor. 3:11), who sustains the Christian people and the edifice of the Church throughout the ages.

St. Peter's identity as an ecclesiastical rock to run the earthly matters of the Church is only secondary to it. This might help you to put the past problems of Church history, and the papacy in particular, in proper perspective.

there have been several theologians who have take that position but that is not what the Church teaches. In fact this is a protestant position. Was it built on Peter or the Faith of Peter. The Church has always stated the former.

Ah, really?

"1. The Gospel which has just been read touching the Lord Christ, who walked on the waters of the sea; and the Apostle Peter, who as he was walking, tottered through fear, and sinking in distrust, rose again by confession, gives us to understand that the sea is the present world, and the Apostle Peter the type of the One Church. For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but My Father which is in heaven. Then He added, and I say unto you. As if He had said, Because you have said to Me, 'You are the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto you, 'You are Peter.' For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, he says, You are Peter; and upon this Rock which you have confessed, upon this Rock which you have acknowledged, saying, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church; that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church. I will build you upon Myself, not Myself upon you.

2. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas, who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, But I am of Christ. And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160326.htm

"The blessed Peter, the first of the Apostles, the ardent lover of Christ, who was found worthy to hear, "And I say to you, that you are Peter" (Matthew 16:13-20). He himself, you see, had just said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Christ said to him, "And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Upon this rock I will build the faith you have just confessed. Upon your words, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," I will build my Church; because you are Peter. Peter comes from petra, meaning a rock. Peter, "Rocky", from "rock"; not "rock" from "Rocky". Peter comes from the word for a rock in exactly the same way as the name Christian comes from Christ.

After all, it is not just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter's acknowledged pre-eminence, that he stood for the Church's universality and unity, when he was told, "To you I am entrusting," what has in fact been entrusted to all. To show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: "Receive the Holy Spirit; and immediately afterwards, Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained" (John 20:22-23)."

https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/peter-and-paul-st-augustine/

[St.Justin]

Seems like sometimes the rock was made out of sandstone.

You must keep in mind that the rock (Matt. 16:18) upon which the Church is built is first and foremost the identity of Christ, "the son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16), not the identity of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles. His own confession of faith is supreme and the focal point of the passage. The identity of Christ is where our faith is built upon. It is this Petrine confession, per se, that constitutes the very cornerstone of all faith. It is Christ, our rock (1 Cor. 10:4) and foundation (1. Cor. 3:11), who sustains the Christian people and the edifice of the Church throughout the ages.

St. Peter's identity as an ecclesiastical rock to run the earthly matters of the Church is only secondary to it. This might help you to put the past problems of Church history, and the papacy in particular, in proper perspective.

there have been several theologians who have take that position but that is not what the Church teaches. In fact this is a protestant position. Was it built on Peter or the Faith of Peter. The Church has always stated the former.

Ah, really?

"1. The Gospel which has just been read touching the Lord Christ, who walked on the waters of the sea; and the Apostle Peter, who as he was walking, tottered through fear, and sinking in distrust, rose again by confession, gives us to understand that the sea is the present world, and the Apostle Peter the type of the One Church. For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but My Father which is in heaven. Then He added, and I say unto you. As if He had said, Because you have said to Me, 'You are the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto you, 'You are Peter.' For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, he says, You are Peter; and upon this Rock which you have confessed, upon this Rock which you have acknowledged, saying, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church; that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church. I will build you upon Myself, not Myself upon you.

2. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas, who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, But I am of Christ. And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160326.htm

"The blessed Peter, the first of the Apostles, the ardent lover of Christ, who was found worthy to hear, "And I say to you, that you are Peter" (Matthew 16:13-20). He himself, you see, had just said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Christ said to him, "And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Upon this rock I will build the faith you have just confessed. Upon your words, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," I will build my Church; because you are Peter. Peter comes from petra, meaning a rock. Peter, "Rocky", from "rock"; not "rock" from "Rocky". Peter comes from the word for a rock in exactly the same way as the name Christian comes from Christ.

After all, it is not just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter's acknowledged pre-eminence, that he stood for the Church's universality and unity, when he was told, "To you I am entrusting," what has in fact been entrusted to all. To show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: "Receive the Holy Spirit; and immediately afterwards, Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained" (John 20:22-23)."

https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/peter-and-paul-st-augustine/

He also said we could be saved by Faith alone. I recon that is why Martin Luther loved him. In any case not everything St. Augustine said is the position of the Church. Your quote from St. Augustine is exactly what protestants claim about ST Peter in order to disprove the Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

[Gardener]

In his Retractions, St. Augustine offered both opinions to the reader. He was never staunch on it because, as other Fathers exposit, its both.

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/CAMatthew.htm#16

[TheReturnofLive]

In his Retractions, St. Augustine offered both opinions to the reader. He was never staunch on it because, as other Fathers exposit, its both.

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/CAMatthew.htm#16

It doesn't explain away the dismissed Sola Scriptura casuistry Catholics use with the keys, as if the keys are distinct from the ability of "bounding and loosening."

And even the Orthodox will admit that Peter is the rock, but that in such instances he can't be separated from the other Apostles; see Revelation 21:14

[TheReturnofLive]

Seems like sometimes the rock was made out of sandstone.

You must keep in mind that the rock (Matt. 16:18) upon which the Church is built is first and foremost the identity of Christ, "the son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16), not the identity of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles. His own confession of faith is supreme and the focal point of the passage. The identity of Christ is where our faith is built upon. It is this Petrine confession, per se, that constitutes the very cornerstone of all faith. It is Christ, our rock (1 Cor. 10:4) and foundation (1. Cor. 3:11), who sustains the Christian people and the edifice of the Church throughout the ages.

St. Peter's identity as an ecclesiastical rock to run the earthly matters of the Church is only secondary to it. This might help you to put the past problems of Church history, and the papacy in particular, in proper perspective.

there have been several theologians who have take that position but that is not what the Church teaches. In fact this is a protestant position. Was it built on Peter or the Faith of Peter. The Church has always stated the former.

Ah, really?

"1. The Gospel which has just been read touching the Lord Christ, who walked on the waters of the sea; and the Apostle Peter, who as he was walking, tottered through fear, and sinking in distrust, rose again by confession, gives us to understand that the sea is the present world, and the Apostle Peter the type of the One Church. For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but My Father which is in heaven. Then He added, and I say unto you. As if He had said, Because you have said to Me, 'You are the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto you, 'You are Peter.' For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, he says, You are Peter; and upon this Rock which you have confessed, upon this Rock which you have acknowledged, saying, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church; that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church. I will build you upon Myself, not Myself upon you.

2. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas, who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, But I am of Christ. And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160326.htm

"The blessed Peter, the first of the Apostles, the ardent lover of Christ, who was found worthy to hear, "And I say to you, that you are Peter" (Matthew 16:13-20). He himself, you see, had just said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Christ said to him, "And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Upon this rock I will build the faith you have just confessed. Upon your words, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," I will build my Church; because you are Peter. Peter comes from petra, meaning a rock. Peter, "Rocky", from "rock"; not "rock" from "Rocky". Peter comes from the word for a rock in exactly the same way as the name Christian comes from Christ.

After all, it is not just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter's acknowledged pre-eminence, that he stood for the Church's universality and unity, when he was told, "To you I am entrusting," what has in fact been entrusted to all. To show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: "Receive the Holy Spirit; and immediately afterwards, Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained" (John 20:22-23)."

https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/peter-and-paul-st-augustine/

He also said we could be saved by Faith alone. I recon that is why Martin Luther loved him. In any case not everything St. Augustine said is the position of the Church. Your quote from St. Augustine is exactly what protestants claim about ST Peter in order to disprove the Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

Wow. It takes a certain amount of ignorance to make this claim (that Augustine isn't trustworthy because he taught "Sola Fida")

Saint Augustine was a staunch opponent of Pelagianism, which was the heresy that taught that Salvation was determined only by the actions of the individual, and not Grace.

Yes, many Protestants will refer to Augustine, especially the Calvinists, who take Augustine to an extreme he wouldn't have gone and claim that God positively wills some to be saved and some not to be saved; to say this is Sola Fida, however, is not really founded, considering that the Catholic Church claims he's right but also adds that it's up to the individual to respond or reject this Grace.

And Augustine is not a figure that can be easily dismissed; he's responsible for a view of Original Sin that logically leads to mass damnata, something he readily embraced; he's responsible for the development of the Filioque theology that many in the East are bitterly opposed to; and for these reasons and others, he would be THE primarily influence on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, whose works are the de-facto go to for the Theology of Catholicism.

Of course, while no Church Father is infallible, it's hard to figure out what the teaching of the Church "was," especially considering that Popes could definitely be wrong in Encyclicals and before the "Magisterium" was actually defined as a thing. And herein lies the problem with Christianity, and dare I say all religions that have a claim of inherited tradition - tradition is something defined by someone today, and people project what's believed today to what the people back then said, even if it leads to likely false portrayals of how history worked.

[St.Justin]

Wow. It takes a certain amount of ignorance to make this claim (that Augustine isn't trustworthy because he taught "Sola Fida")

I have nothing against St Augustine. I was merely pointing out that those who cherry pick his writing can prove anything they want to.

[Vetus Ordo]

Wow. It takes a certain amount of ignorance to make this claim (that Augustine isn't trustworthy because he taught "Sola Fida")

It's sola fide, "by faith alone" in the ablative case, not "sola fida."

And this has nothing to do with predestination, regardless of one's views on it. By sola fide it is meant the sole instrument by which the believer is justified before God, apart from his own works of righteousness, which seems to be St. Paul's whole point in Romans and also Clement's in his first epistle to the Corinthian church: "And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Eventually, the understanding of the role of works done in the state of grace evolved as the sacramental life of the Church became more important. Whatever the case may be, I think it's reasonably safe to say that it is the fides caritata formata that ultimately saves the individual, as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification stated.

Of course, while no Church Father is infallible, it's hard to figure out what the teaching of the Church "was," especially considering that Popes could definitely be wrong in Encyclicals and before the "Magisterium" was actually defined as a thing. And herein lies the problem with Christianity, and dare I say all religions that have a claim of inherited tradition - tradition is something defined by someone today, and people project what's believed today to what the people back then said, even if it leads to likely false portrayals of how history worked.

This is an excellent point.

The solution, in the Catholic model, is the Church's practice and authority. The definition of apostolicity and catholicity is what the Holy See declares to be so. The Church and the Papacy are the definite criterion.