As for 1 Timothy 3:1-7 a commentary by Chrystostem views it as an Episcopal Office. And yes, it was to continue the ministry of the Apostles who were commanded to celebrate the Eucharist, baptize in the Trinity, hear confessions and forgive sins in Christ name, etc, etc. Do you think that because the NT epistles don’t clearly give that authority to the Presbyters means that as the Apostles died all those functions stopped????????????????
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
As for Galatians, Chrystostem’s interpretation of the “disagreement between Peter and Paul” is consistent with Saint Jerome’s [point of another thread] and again, nothing in it are a quick summary of the other cites from the Church Fathers says Rome has no apostolic authority. Again, why is that?
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
Saint Chrysostem’s commentary on Titus 1:5-7 indicates that Titus was a Bishop who had jurisdiction over many others in his region, which is consistent with Catholic Ecclesiology.
Again, Chrysostem’s Homily on Acts 20, the central reason for Paul coming together was too break bread [Eucharist] so I don’t know what you are getting at
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
He also has a homily on Ephesians 2:20. As for your cites of 1 Cor 9:2, 2 Cor 6, 12, here is a link to the citations from the Church fathers who quoted those passages and I don’t think any of those commentaries in the Church Fathers draw the conclusions you are making regarding Rome. Why is that
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
So all these passages cited by the infallible authority of Daniel1212 and interpreted by your infallible opinion don’t seem to match anything I can find in the Patristic commentaries on these same scriptural passages. Again, why is that?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
In-credible! What he states is that this is "showing what sort of a person a Bishop ought to be. And here he does not do it as in the course of his exhortation to Timothy, but addresses all, and instructs others through him." But once again you compel Scripture to say what is needed to support Rome but it does not! First, you do not need Chrysostom to tell you 1 Timothy 3:1-7 refers to the Episcopal Office, that being the same as being a presbyteros/elder, (cf. Tts. 1:5-7) as that is clear enough, while CFs can disagree with each other and do not necessarily mean that is what Rome teaches.
Second, once again you have zero support in Acts onward, descriptive of the church, that the primary and unique function of NT pastors was to consecrate and dispense human flesh and blood by which souls obtained spiritual and eternal life, and as an expiation for sin. And that thus they were titled "priests" by the Holy Spirit. And which manner of omission of what Rome holds is the source and summit of the Christian faith is almost like leaving out any record of apostolic preaching which effected manifest regeneration!
Moreover, even baptism, by which Rome imagines souls become formally justified by their own "infused" holiness, is not shown to be the primary function of the primary evangelist of the church. "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." (1 Corinthians 1:17)
Do you think that because the NT epistles don’t clearly give that authority to the Presbyters means that as the Apostles died all those functions stopped????????????????
Simply more sophistry! Here you are begging the question, assuming as a conclusion the very thing you cannot show, that of a separate class of "priests" engaging in a uniquely sacrificial function, turning bread and wine into human flesh and dispensing it... Among other things not seen in the NT church.
Acts is called the Acts because it is the acts of the apostles and NT church, but Rome is the invisible church in it and elsewhere. And your argument by such profound silence, and in the light of the description of the function of presbyters impugns the Holy Spirit and Scripture, and adds to it what is not there in the life of the church.
As for Galatians, Chrystostem’s interpretation of the “disagreement between Peter and Paul” is consistent with Saint Jerome’s [point of another thread]
Why is Gal. 2 such a dark chapter to you that you cannot see that Peter was publicly reproved for acting hypocritically? "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." (Galatians 2:13) And whatever Chrysostom says is neither infallible or official RC teaching (and he encouraged personal Bible reading), while the commentary in your own NAB, read for decades, states ,
When Cephas first came to the racially mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Christians in Antioch (Gal 2:12), he ate with non-Jews. Pressure from persons arriving later from Jerusalem caused him and Barnabas to draw back. Paul therefore publicly rebuked Peter’s inconsistency toward the gospel (Gal 2:14). Some think that what Paul said on that occasion extends through Gal 2:16, 21.
* [2:11] Clearly was wrong: literally, “stood condemned,” by himself and also by Paul. His action in breaking table fellowship was especially grievous if the eating involved the meal at the Lord’s supper (cf. 1 Cor 11:17–25).
Moreover, stating that "none of the church Fathers say Rome has no apostolic authority - a negative argument - does not translate into the fantasy that the NT church looked to Rome as its leader is absurd, nor is historical descent the basis for authenticity. Nor can it even mean that they all ECFs saw Rome as having unlimited authority and supreme jurisdiction, which even the EO's will argue against. But again, the views of CFs are not determinative of Truth, though they were apparently pious men, but the visible church is never perfect, being an amalgam of true and false believers, unlike the body of Christ.
Saint Chrysostem’s commentary on Titus 1:5-7 indicates that Titus was a Bishop who had jurisdiction over many others in his region, which is consistent with Catholic Ecclesiology.
Which validity does not translate into the Roman hierarchy, and he also states , “In every city,” he says, for he did not wish the whole island to be intrusted to one , but that each should have his own charge and care, for thus he would have less labor himself, and those under his rule would receive greater attention, if the Teacher had not to go about to the presidency of many Churches, but was left to be occupied with one only , and to bring that into order."
But whatever he "indicates," the text and its companion in 1Tim. 3:1-7 simply states the requirements for being a NT pastor, and says nothing about the scope of his jurisdiction.
And again, while you choose Chrysostom, CFs can disagree with each other even in Mt. 16:18, and are not even not binding for Rome, while only Scripture is plenary inspired of God. But you resort to the non-Divine words of men to support reading into Scripture what you can only wish it said. And we know why that is.
Again, Chrysostem’s Homily on Acts 20, the central reason for Paul coming together was too break bread [Eucharist] so I don’t know what you are getting at
More eisegesis. The text says nothing about the Lord's supper, or anything about ceremony but only that they broke bread and ate, which the multitudes did in other non-sacramental events. (Mt. 14:19; 15:36) and Paul did by himself: "And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat." (Act 27:35)
The text simply says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." (Acts 20:11) (Acts 20:7,11)
Breaking bread is hardly a unique or specific term for the Lord's supper, and it is obvious the Lord knows how to describe that as seen in 1Cor. 11:20-34, and while what is indicated here is not a wafer and wine, but the oriental custom of eating a long communal meal. Meanwhile it is preaching that is set forth as the primary function of Paul, and if there is something miraculous about the food eaten it certainly is not manifested. Nor does giving thanks and eating bread necessarily signify the Lord's supper.
I don’t think any of those commentaries in the Church Fathers draw the conclusions you are making regarding Rome. Why is that
Why not ask a cultist why his sources always support him? Yet I can supply quotes from CFs that disagree with you, but what does that prove? They cannot be the basis for your assurance of Truth, nor mine.
Once again, it would seem your RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Schismatic or heretic.