An orthodox sent me the link to a blog that made an article entitled “All bishops are successors of Peter” [1], this article has the proposal to show several patristic authors who were defenders of this thesis. Right away I noticed something unusual, several Saints whose thought I already knew, and used for Catholic apology, were described in the blog as defenders of this thesis, and they not only retained to affirm that these saints are defenders of this thesis but also the many Holy Popes.

But unfortunately, for them, I got used to debating with people who like to bring thousands of foogy quotes and hope that their opponent simply accepts them at the price of having to demystify countless quotes. So I chose a Saint, Saint John Chrysostom, to demonstrate the false and revisionist nature of this article, as well as showing, as you will see, the bad character of the author and those who use the blog.

So, let's go ahead:


Did Saint John Chrysostom support the thesis that all priests are successors to Peter?



They used 2 quotations to "demonstrate" that the Saint defended this thought, here is the first one:

Commenting on the words “feed my lambs, feed my sheep” (which Rome wishes to apply only to St. Peter): “This was not said to the Apostles and bishops only, but also to each one of us, however humble, to whom has been committed the care of the flock.”

~Homilies on St. Matthew, 77th homily

This section was uncharacterized by cuts and had its argument distorted to turn it into an orthodox apology. So that we can recover its real meaning we will first expose the sentence without its cuts:


Will you that I tell you a fourth proof also of these things? Peter, do you love me, says He; Feed my sheep: John 21:15-17 and having asked him a third time, declared this to be an infallible proof of love. But not to priests only is this said, but to every one of us also, who are also entrusted with a little flock. For do not despise it, because it is a little flock: For my Father, He says, has pleasure in them. Luke 12:32 Each of us has a sheep, let him lead that to the proper pastures. And let the man, as soon as he has risen from his bed, seek after nothing else, but how he may do and say something whereby he may render his whole house more reverent. The woman again, let her be indeed a good housekeeper; but before attending to this, let her have another more needful care, that the whole household may work the works of Heaven. For if in worldly matters, before attending to the affairs of our household, we labor diligently to pay public dues, that we may not for our undutifulness in these matters be beaten and dragged to the market places, and suffer ten thousand unseemly things; much more ought we to do this in things spiritual, and to render what is due to God, the King of all, first, that we may not come to that place, where is gnashing of teeth.[2] 


Therefore, it is clear from the outset that this passage is part of a whole, where this is the fourth argument. Therefore, in order for us to understand it, we must understand the whole.

The Saint says, at the beginning: "Let there be then two ways of most holy life, and let the one secure the goodness of him that practises it, but the other of his neighbor also. Let us see whether is the more approved and leads us to the summit of virtue."

In the 1st Argument, St. John Chrysostom quotes 2 passages, 1 Corinthians 10:24 and Romans 15: 2-3. Both cases used as an example for us to seek more to stick to caring for our neighbors than caring for ourselves, as this was the example of Christ and, that way, we would please Him more.

In the 2nd St. John Chrysostom quotes the passage where St. Paul says that even if he donates everything he has to the poor, and does not give in to lust, if he does not practice charity (care for others) he would be nothing.

In the 3rd, he uses the example of Saint Paul to the Philippians, where the apostle says that he would prefer to be with Christ but that he needs to be with others (who need his help). And St. John Chrysostom comments on how this goes against our common sense, of thinking that we must be with Christ to fulfill His will, but nothing is more of Christ's will than to be with others.

And then we come to the 4th Argument, which is the aforementioned passage, and now we can understand it. St. John Chrysostom cites it as an example of how caring for others represents love for God, for Christ asks if Peter loves him, and then asks to care for his sheep. This would be, for St. John Chrysostom, a proof of the apostle's love for Christ, because to love Christ he had to care for others.

And then St. John Chrysostom goes on to say that this does not apply only to Peter, but what does not apply only to Peter? The flock of the Church? as the author of the post tries to state? No! What applies to all of us is the infallible proof of love for God when we care for others, when we practice charity. And that is why St. John Chrysostom tries to make it clear that we all have a small flock, not the flock of the Church, but a specific flock, a sheep, someone to help, someone to practice charity; and that is why he says that this applies to all of us, not just to priests. Or the author of the post would have the audacity to affirm that Saint John Chrysostom said that the flock of Christ should be cared for by the OWN FLOCK, removing from the priesthood the duty to shepherd the sheep, which is the precept of the priesthood itself, question this is to question the the priest's own existence. For we are Christ's flock, and in saying that care applies to us he would be saying that our care would be under our care. And St. John Chrysostom still says that he should take her to the appropriate pastures, which proves that she speaks in a “broad” sense, where it is necessary to describe multiple pastures because of the multiple occasions.

Furthermore, there are the examples given by Saint John Chrysostom, the man who makes his home more reverent, the woman who is a good housekeeper. And he ends by saying, "And after these virtues let us seek, which together with our own salvation will be able in the greatest degree to profit our neighbor." St. John Chrysotomes does not say that the shepherding of the sheep applies to all of us but that we all receive a mission analogous to the shepherding mission of Peter, where we must prove our utmost love for Christ caring for others, in this sense this applies to everyone , "Peter if you love me take care of my sheep", if a Christian loves Christ he takes care of his neighbor. What can be seen clearly for anyone who reads ALL the homily.

Therefore, it is more than clear that this is not a simple false interpretation, but a notorious misrepresentation made by a fake and a liar. For the text was purposely cut into specific sections to remove its general context. And it becomes more evident when we realize that the comment was taken from St. John Chrysostom's homily on the gospel of >MATTHEW<. Now, the Saint himself made a homily on the passage of John, why not quote it? Is it because of the fear of seeing this farce being exposed? Well, if they didn't, then I will:


He says unto him, Feed My sheep.

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.[3]


Quite different isn't it?

Saint John Chrysostom emphatically replies: Why did Christ return this statement only to Peter? Because he is the CHOSEN OF THE APOSTLES, THE MOUTH OF THE DISCIPLES, THE LEADER OF THE BAND. Therefore, the brazen lie committed by an orthodox, who tries to cut the words of our Catholic Saints to try to put them against the true orthodoxy, which is that of the Catholic Church, is more than proven.

Let's go to the second quote that he makes, and says that he proves his central thesis, that Saint John Chrysostom believed that all the priests were successors of Peter.

“In speaking of St. Peter, the recollection of another Peter [Flavian, Bishop of Antioch, at the time the discourse was written,] has come to me, the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter”

~On the Inscription of the Acts

 

The second quote is difficult even to understand the reason for being in the post, the author was denouncing that, not because of his desire to distort the history of the Church, but because of his own inability to serve his objectives. Certainly the passage was placed with the intention of showing that St. John Chrysostom was in favor of the idea that all the priests were successors of Peter, claiming, as the author wants to make it appear, that he retained Petrine authority. However, the text does not have this meaning, but it brings precisely the opposite meaning. St. John Chrysostom speaks of the privilege that city (antioch) had in hosting the episcopate of the leader of the Church. And he goes on to say that he was not retained until the end of his life, but goes on to say that he did, not the apostle himself, but his faith, THE FAITH OF PETER. So, the communion of faith with the universal pastor of the Church, following the commandments of the universal pastor, the leader of the apostles.

The Saint, therefore, says that even though Peter left the governance of that place, physically, he maintained his spiritual governance, because everyone had maintained his faith and fellowship with him. And the Saint is absolutely correct, because everywhere Peter's faith must be maintained, even if Peter is not under the physical governance of that place he is in spiritual governance, because he is, as the Saint himself said, the leader of apostles. And where did Pedro go? the text itself says "it was delivered to real Rome". Where he lives today in apostolic succession.

One adulterated and lying text, the other placed by the author's interpretive incapacity. One represented the lack of character and the other the lack of intelligence. Both showing, however, an empty attempt to create a non-existent and fanciful orthodoxy, a failed attempt to separate the Saints from the Catholic Church from the Catholic Church.


[1] Link of the article "All Bishops Are Successors of Peter (Florilegium)"

[2] Homily 77 of St. John Chrysostom about the golpel of Matthew

[3] Homily 88 of St. John Chrysostom about the golpel of John