Generally speaking, one does not. But the question is, which was the common understanding and which was the non-extant opposing idea? You blindly assert one way, and I do the other (though I’d like to believe there’s a bit more logic and evidence to my point than yours, but this could simply be incorrect).
That you assume one particular view to have been the obviously accepted one of the day does not make it so, any more than my assumption of the opposite makes it so.
What you are asking is ridiculous, and I really, really wish you could see that. Because I am sure it is painfully obvious to everyone else on this forum, with the possible exception of Melville.
I’m just asking you to substantiate your claim that none of the early fathers believed there was a difference betwen petros and petra.
Do you want to go back into the church fathers thread again to get into all of this? By all means, I am willing.
Then start with addressing the quote I provided, rather than ignoring it. Thanks.
Of course, when faced with a real disagreement with the bishop of Rome over rebaptising, he sings a different tune…
It would seem that situations of pressure such as this are more likely to reveal one’s true beliefs, so this only supports that Cyprian didn’t actually view the bishop of Rome as superior.
…but future generations fully supported Pope Stephen in his rights as the leader of the Catholic church.
Future generations are reading into the past what they wish to see (no matter which side they’re on). Let’s not bring them into this.
If I remember correctly, I even posted several quotes about the subject which you failed to answer in the church fathers thread.
Actually, I just got tired of you guys ignoring the hardest questions I asked, and repeatedly ignoring my responses to your questions (every one of which I responded to up until I got tired of the refusal to acknowledge what I’d said). There are probably two pages worth of questions and quotes in that thread which you have yet to respond to. If needed, I’ll go put them all together again for you.
And as we already covered, this is quite the literary device, used to emphasize the point that, of all the churches the heretics could have gone to, Rome was quite a bad choice. Also, it says that “faithlessness could have no access” to the church of Rome, not that “sin can have no access”. There is a difference between being without faith, and being without infallibility. You can have faith (as Rome did in that day), and still lack infallibility. Falling into error is simply not faithlessness. Lacking any faith at all is faithlessness.
To say the entire Roman Church is incapable of falling into error does indeed reflect favorably upon the Church’s bishop, doesn’t it?
No more than it does every member of that congregation. After all, the text doesn’t say that it was the bishop of Rome himself to whom faithlessness (again, not sin) can have no access. It says it was the church (the assembly of true believers that were in Rome) that had this quality.