1 Corinthians 1:10-13

  • Thread starter Thread starter Schrodinger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Schrodinger

Guest
I fully appreciate Paul saying we CAN be united together of the same mind and judgement with no divisions. Yet why is Cephas (Peter) included in the list?

Why is Paul not instructing all to follow Peter in this little passage calling for unity? At this point Jesus has ascended meaning there should be a clear church leader on earth.

I am trying to accept the idea of papal authority but what I have observed from my readings of Paul, James, and Peter is giving me a hard time feeling like Peter was the head. It is almost like there is friction between these three.

Please be gentle and help me understand what is being said here.

Thank you
 
Greetings.

Move 3 chapters forward and take a look at this:
1 Corinthians 4:5-7Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
Click to expand...
5 So don’t judge anyone now. The time for judging will be when the Lord comes. He will shine light on everything that is now hidden in darkness. He will make known the secret purposes of our hearts. Then the praise each person should get will come from God.
Click to expand...
6 Brothers and sisters, I have used Apollos and myself as examples for you. I did this so that you could learn from us the meaning of the words, “Follow what the Scriptures say.” Then you will not brag about one person and criticize another. 7 Who do you think you are? Everything you have was given to you. So, if everything you have was given to you, why do you act as if you got it all by your own power?
Click to expand...
Don’t criticize other Church leaders. That’s obviously what was happening in the infant Church and it’s what they are emphasizing and trying to prevent in that letter, among other issues… Especially in regards to the Corinthians as they were totally out of control. You can be in command humbly, without it being plastered all over the place and that was the case in Peter.

To overemphasize this passage and read into it what isn’t there is to negate Matt 16:16-19, John 21:15-19.

And another often overlooked passage in Luke:
Luke 22:31-33Amplified Bible (AMP)
Click to expand...
31 “Simon, Simon (Peter), listen! Satan has demanded permission to sift [all of] you like grain; 32 but I have prayed [especially] for you [Peter], that your faith [and confidence in Me] may not fail; and you, once you have turned back again [to Me], strengthen and support your brothers [in the faith].” 33 And Peter said to Him, “Lord, I am ready to go with You both to prison and to death!”
Click to expand...
Satan has demanded to sift ALL OF YOU(plural) But I have prayed for YOU(singular) That your faith(singular) may not fail. Now go strengthen your brothers.

And notice that two times in scripture God speaks directly to Peter. (Matt 16) and Acts 10

And speaking of ACTS… in the first 10 Chapters of ACTS, Peter is mentioned like 50 times.

Peter, Peter, Peter. Clearly he is in a position of authority, imo.

I missed this as a protestant and it’s likely because of how bold Paul was and I overemphasized his encounter with Peter. As Peter tells us, Paul’s words can be twisted to people’s own destruction. We need the Pillar and foundation of the Truth 1 Tim 3:15 for clarity.

Blessings
 
There is some discussion on these verses here, at the beginning of the section entitled “I. PARTY SPIRIT *1,10 – 4,*21.”

Haydock’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:14 suggests that perhaps some Christians at Corinth wrongly thought “that baptism had a greater virtue, when given by a minister of greater sanctity.”
 
Schrodinger said:
I fully appreciate Paul saying we CAN be united together of the same mind and judgement with no divisions. Yet why is Cephas (Peter) included in the list?

Why is Paul not instructing all to follow Peter in this little passage calling for unity? At this point Jesus has ascended meaning there should be a clear church leader on earth.

I am trying to accept the idea of papal authority but what I have observed from my readings of Paul, James, and Peter is giving me a hard time feeling like Peter was the head. It is almost like there is friction between these three.

Please be gentle and help me understand what is being said here.

Thank you
Click to expand...
Due to space requirements per post, I will focus on Peter, Jesus and authority He established, and the necessity of unity in the Church and consequences for those who divide.

Re: Authority, consider. .
  • An argument broke out in the upper room between the apostles over who among THEM is the greatest. They are about to go out into the garden and Jesus is going to begin His passion, and His 11 apostles are in this argument. (Judas has already left the room)
here is Luke’s account.of that ( ALL links that follow are operational)
  • Lk 22:24**A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest [μείζων. (http://bibleapps.com/greek/3187.htm) 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest [μείζων (http://bibleapps.com/greek/3187.htm) among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules [ἡγούμενος (http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm) like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31**“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen [στήρισον (http://bibleapps.com/greek/4741.htm) your brothers.”
    • Did Jesus confirm one of THEM is the greatest? Yes
    • Did the one who is greatest lobby for the position? No. He was selected
    • Did Jesus confirm this one would rule? Yes
    • Did Jesus promise to pray especially for this one who would rule over the others AND entire kingdom? Yes
    • Who is this man who is to rule and have primacy over the entire Church? Peter. Their Argument is over
    • *it goes without saying, the apostles are to respect and be obedient to this authority Jesus established
    • *as an aside, who got them into this argument? Satan. He was there in the upper room. He is vested in keeping people sifted from this plan of Jesus. *
    By definition then, Peter has full authority from Jesus to do what Jesus asked of him. And in extension, those who follow iPeter in his office.
    Here’s another episode I think you will find interesting.Historically speaking,
    • here is a condensed history of the 1st 4 centuries of the Catholic Church as in the 1st 4 centuries of Christianity.It also shows the condequences for those who divide #34
    .
 
We must examine the entirety of the New Testament, which is a seamless garment, as struggling along from verse to verse is like driving through a fog - it is very easy to swerve off the road and into a ditch. I have posted this elsewhere, and it is only a sampling, being nowhere near complete. **
"Scriptural evidence and the structure of the primitive Church make it absolutely undeniable.
Click to expand...
In the Gospels, Peter is mentioned 195 times. The closest is John (the beloved disciple) at just 29 times. The rest even less. Peter is always mentioned first, Judas Iscariot last.
Click to expand...
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven.
Jesus declared Peter to the the rock.
Jesus made Peter shepherd.
Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers
Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter.
Jesus preached from Peter’s boat.
Jesus told Peter to “Follow me”
Jesus called only Peter to Him across the water.
Jesus predicted Peter’s three-fold denial.
Jesus predicted Peter’s repentance and three-fold affirmation.
Jesus prophesied only Peter’s death.
Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times.
Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane.
Peter is always listed first.
Peter was first to confess Jesus as Messiah.
Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration.
Peter pointed out the withered fig tree.
Peter entered the tomb first - John deferring to him.
Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas.
Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost.
Peter was released from prison by the Angel.
Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council.
Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Saphira.
Peter’s shadow healed.
Peter declared the sin of Simony.
Peter explained the salvation of the Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem.
The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter.
The Holt Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them.
At the empty tomb, the Angel said, “Go tell His disciples, and Peter.”
Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple.
The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter.
Peter’s words silence the first council in Jerusalem.
Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain.
And on and on and on.
Click to expand...
So, one can deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing disregard of scripture and history to do so."
Click to expand...
** As Fr. Mitch Pacwa puts it, Peter was in management while Paul was in sales.
 
Schrodinger said:
I am trying to accept the idea of papal authority but what I have observed from my readings of Paul, James, and Peter is giving me a hard time feeling like Peter was the head. It is almost like there is friction between these three.
Click to expand...
Paul said:
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. … 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship… (Galatians 2:1-9a)

Paul was looking to “the reputed pillars” of the Church at Jerusalem, among whom was Peter (Cephas), to validate the gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles lest he was “running or had run in vain.” Paul may have been more consistent in the practice of the Christian faith (Galatians 2:11-14) but this clearly shows that Paul was ultimately under Peter’s authority with respect to doctrine.
 
Schrodinger. You asked . . .
I fully appreciate Paul saying we CAN be united together of the same mind and judgement with no divisions. Yet why is Cephas (Peter) included in the list?
Click to expand...
For the same reason St. Paul includes HIMSELF in his admonition.

To remind the Corinthians, that they are united mystically into Christ Jesus when they were Baptized, not into any mere man.

They are not united mystically to St. Peter, or St. Paul, or Apollos, or any other mere man (yes in a sense, the WHOLE Mystical Body is united, but that’s not the sense here contextually).

St. Paul isn’t giving them an order of authority here. If that’s what he was doing, he probably WOULD have mentioned St. Peter (Cephas).

But THAT wasn’t the issue here.

The issue here is WHO you are being Baptized into, and subsequent dissention.

And the answer is Jesus.

And since Jesus is ONE (with the Father and the Holy Spirit), and not fractured or “divided”, likewise there should be NO doctrinal fractures or divisions or “dissentions” among you Corinthians doctrinally either.
1st CORINTHIANS 1:10, 11b-13 10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. . . . there is quarreling among you, my brethren. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol′los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Click to expand...
St. Paul reminds the Corinthians, that they are Baptized INTO Jesus and not into mere people . . . EVEN people who are appointed by Christ (either directly appointed as was St. Peter and later St. Paul, or indirectly appointed as was Apollos).

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Hi Schrodinger. Good question. A couple things I’ll just point out (most people have already explained why we believe Peter had unique authority among the twelve, so I won’t add to that):

First, Catholics do not believe we are supposed to ONLY follow the Pope. We are supposed to be united to the bishops in union with him as well. So for Paul to tell the Corinthians to go ahead and say they belong to Cephas and ignore the other apostles would be a heresy according to the Church. It’s actually called ultramontanism and was condemned by Vatican I I believe.

Second, what the real issue with the Corinthians was was they were placing their faith and identity in the PERSON of Peter (and Paul, and Apollos). And they used who they were baptized by as some kind of proof that they were better Christians. That’s why Paul says “Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?” Etc… Catholics (as all Christians do) believe we are not to put our faith and identity in any man. Not even the Pope. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t given any real authority though.

Third, notice that Paul also in his example of how the Corinthians were divided says some were claiming “they belong to Christ.” Why would that be a problem? Aren’t we supposed to belong to Christ. Yes, but the Corinthians were doing it wrong. And that’s the other problem Paul is addressing. The Corinthians were PITTING the apostles against each other, and even against Christ. And that is something we can’t do as Christians. That’s why Paul in chapter 12 of the same letter will go on to talk about how we are all one body of Christ, and how one part cannot say to the other it does not need it. The Pope is the visible head of the Church, but the head can’t be separated from the other parts, let alone placed in opposition to them. Which is what the Corinthians were doing.

So basically, this passage isn’t in any conflict with Catholic teaching on the papacy, because Paul isn’t saying that Peter has no unique authority and that the Corinthians should ignore him. He’s telling them that they shouldn’t place their faith and identity in any man and shouldn’t try to pit one part of the body of Christ against the other.

Hope that helps a little. 🙂
 
Thank you all for responding so well. I will take the Bible and read every passage cited, follow the links provided, and try to carefully consider and digest all ideas that are presented here.

I am sure there will be more questions and follow up thoughts. Please understand that I am sincere in finding the objective truth so I will be really reading and thinking about what is said here, not just rapidly posting and parsing others FaceBook style on my phone. That will take a bit of time to actually focus on and it will take a couple of days for me to get it done. Please do not think my relative silence means I have abandoned the post. I appreciate those who have stopped and attempted to help.
 
Thanks for this interesting post.
Of course there was friction between Peter and Paul. However this does not contradict Catholic teaching.

And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.
For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews [also] acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. (Gal. 2:11-13 NAB)
 
Schrodinger said:
I fully appreciate Paul saying we CAN be united together of the same mind and judgement with no divisions. Yet why is Cephas (Peter) included in the list?

Why is Paul not instructing all to follow Peter in this little passage calling for unity? At this point Jesus has ascended meaning there should be a clear church leader on earth.

I am trying to accept the idea of papal authority but what I have observed from my readings of Paul, James, and Peter is giving me a hard time feeling like Peter was the head. It is almost like there is friction between these three.

Please be gentle and help me understand what is being said here.

Thank you
Click to expand...
No worries. It’s an important concern 👍

I think the specific issue has to be discerned before assuming the correct guidance.

The issue was not about anything specifically Taught by these leaders. Paul was centering their faith on Jesus. That’s why we have leaders. Because we are one body of believers in Jesus. Paul instructs us to obey our leaders. If our leaders contradict one another, that is something different, and where Peter (or his successor) would come into play.

I don’t tell people I am of Francis! I am of Jesus. He is the source of my faith. He is who died for me, and He is who I receive in Communion. The Bishop of Rome is the chief bishop in the whole Church. He is able to Teach doctrine, along with the College of Bishops.

As was mentioned, St Paul went to Peter to explain what he was preaching. He didn’t want Peter’s opinion as a man, but his confirmation as Chief Apostle. He did not ask what to preach either. He received his revelation from Jesus. But was compelled by that same revelation to confer with Peter.

In 1 Cor. 1, St Paul appeals to Christ’s sacrifice for unity, in this situation. Later, in chapter 10, he applies His Eucharist to Christian unity:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participationin the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

The two great means of unity in the Gospel, are Peter’s primacy, and His Holy Eucharist. Scripture attests to both, strongly. But I am not obsessed with the Bishop of Rome. He is only a man. I am concerned what Teachings are True and intended for us all to accept, in order to be united in one faith, mind, and judgment.
 
Schrodinger said:
I fully appreciate Paul saying we CAN be united together of the same mind and judgement with no divisions. Yet why is Cephas (Peter) included in the list?

Why is Paul not instructing all to follow Peter in this little passage calling for unity? At this point Jesus has ascended meaning there should be a clear church leader on earth.

I am trying to accept the idea of papal authority but what I have observed from my readings of Paul, James, and Peter is giving me a hard time feeling like Peter was the head. It is almost like there is friction between these three.

Please be gentle and help me understand what is being said here.

Thank you
Click to expand...
1st Cor.1: 10:13 Douay Bible
“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

WELCOME TO CAF dear friend:🙂

As FYI

There is an infallible rule for right understanding of the Bible

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

**Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible
useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”**

Here’s the short answer:

Gal. 2:8 “(For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,[THE JEWS] wrought in me also among the Gentiles [THE NON-JEWS]
Further evidence of this can be seen in

**1st Cor. 15:4-5 **“And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: And that he was seen [FIRST] by Cephas; and after that by the eleven
.
**& Gal. 2:9 **“And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

NOTE: James is mentioned here 1st as he was the FIRST Bishop of Jerusalem, while Peter was the 1st “POPE”; a GTERM not yet invented by theoligians

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Is a LIST of all popes & and there dates of Office

[1] It is not coincidental that nowhere in the NT is there evidence of a Leadership “fight”
The Original 12 Apostles [Mt 10:1-4] CLEARLY shows, and even expresses the FACT that Peter was seen as GOD”S choice of Leader:** Mt. 16:18-19**

The Early Fathers also recognized Peter as Christ 1st “Pope” [Leader]

http://www.churchfathers.org/category/the-church-and-the-papacy/

Keep in mind that from the time of the Crucifixion until Constantine [early 4th Century] the RCC was so severely persecuted that it was literally DRIVEN underground to the catacombs ;the burial grounds of the MANY Christian /CATHOLIC Martyrs

Catacombs of Rome - Wikipedia

Great Question, thanks for asking!

GBY
Patrick
 
Schrodinger said:
I fully appreciate Paul saying we CAN be united together of the same mind and judgement with no divisions. Yet why is Cephas (Peter) included in the list?
Click to expand...
Peter is included in the list because he probably preached in Corinth while passing through.
Why is Paul not instructing all to follow Peter in this little passage calling for unity?
Click to expand...
For the same reason that Paul isn’t instructing them to follow Apollos or him. Peter taught the same gospel Paul and Apollos taught.The three apostles weren’t divided in their teaching. They couldn’t be with Peter as head. That’s why Jesus appointed him to act as his vicar on earth.
It is almost like there is friction between these three.
Click to expand...
There was no friction between these three apostles at all. What created these divisions in the church at Corinth was the laities’ misunderstanding of what the apostles taught. So, as a result, each group among the three which was taught by either Peter, Paul, or Apollos thought that it was taught something different and ended up quarrelling over their different erroneous beliefs.
Please be gentle and help me understand what is being said here.
Click to expand...
I hope I was gentle enough and this helped. :tiphat:

The church at Corinth appears to have been a quarrelsome bunch. :slapfight::crutches: :stretcher::blackeye:

***"“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth …Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury…If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger.”
Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,1, 59 (c. A.D. 96). ***
PAX*

:heaven:
 
Good Fella,

you mention the lack of friction.

I repeat what I sent previously (#11):

*And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews [also] acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. (Gal. 2:11-13 NAB)
*
I am reminded what Aristotle is claimed to have said:

A friend of Plato, but a greater friend of truth.

Let us avoid alternative facts.
 
NoelFitz said:
Good Fella,

you mention the lack of friction.

I repeat what I sent previously (#11):

*And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews [also] acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. (Gal. 2:11-13 NAB)
*
I am reminded what Aristotle is claimed to have said:

A friend of Plato, but a greater friend of truth.

Let us avoid alternative facts.
Click to expand...
The situation in Corinth didn’t have to do with the issue of circumcision, which Peter and the apostles resolved at the Council of Jerusalem three or four years before Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians.

:heaven:
 
NoelFitz said:
Thanks for this interesting post.
Of course there was friction between Peter and Paul. However this does not contradict Catholic teaching.

And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.
For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews [also] acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. (Gal. 2:11-13 NAB)
Click to expand...
Agreed. The Church wasn’t exactly friction-proof. Meanwhile, the fact that Paul even referred to this event shows Peter’s prominence in the Church. Of all the apostles, the “Prince” should have set the standard of practice for all by his example. Peter’s supremacy is also underscored by the fact that Paul calls Peter by the name Jesus gave him: Cephas, which is “rock” in Aramaic. This title refers to Peter’s divine office, not his manhood. In any event, Peter’s conduct wasn’t as unreasonable as it’s been made out to be. Unlike the Gentiles, the Jews, including the Jewish converts, saw themselves as superior to the Gentiles by being God’s specially favoured people. They were in fact offended when Peter sat down to eat with the Gentiles, and even asked him, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” (Acts11:3). Peter sat down with them because he was on a mission to convert them. Likewise, Peter decided to eat with the Jews and not with the Gentiles so as to not create any obstacles to their conversion. He always had the good of the Church in mind. We mustn’t forget that Paul had Timothy circumcised “because of the Jews who were in those places” (Acts 16:3). It was a matter of acting discreetly in light of the mentality of people. Their acts didn’t reflect any established Church doctrine, but were intended to accommodate the religious sensibilities of the Jews which the council at Jerusalem was convened to address so as to resolve the issue once and for all.

:heaven:
 
Hello,

Thank you all sincerely for taking the time to post and discuss. Sorry it has taken me so long to read everything (so long that I may be losing what I read at first). I am blown away by the material in quantity and quality.

Wow…so please continue to be patient with me as I try to the curb the lens/bias inherent to my Protestant upbringing. Additionally, I confess that I am not a debator, pastor, seminarian, or even an arm chair theologian…but simply a civilian who is skeptical and asks a few more questions than normal and has started raising eyebrows at projector screen services held in sports arenas and gyms.

First, I should state that due to my research and the help I have received I am becoming more convinced that the Eucharist and Baptism are way more important and sacramental than they are often given credit for in Protestant megachurches. I am a Methodist on paper by baptism and membership but am probably actually more inline with a moderately conservative Lutheran by now. Indeed, I spent two years with a Missouri Synod congregation but never joined because I knew I was leaving the state the whole time.

So, you have successfully shown me that the original passage that I cited is not actually problematic like I first thought.

Additionally, the support for Peter being uniquely significant among the discples as explained here would take a bit of willful ignorance to ignore.

I think I understand some of the friction between the apostles coming from the need to be a jew to the jews and a gentile to the gentiles and so forth and the natural comparison of messages that stem from that( Yikes, I was hoping to get away from the many denominations arguing thing only to discover from a second look that it has been there the whole time).

But that raises more questions, like:
What is the Catholic understanding of the entire thrust of the letter of Galatians which is Protestant prooftext bedrock against all things legal and that which hint at being associated with the Judaizers?

In a topical overview and with the same skill as matching closest analogies on a SAT exam, it would seem that one would most likely associate the sprit and theme of Catholicism with legalism, Pharisees, and the Judaizers and the Protestants with the Gentiles. This is based on the declarations of Paul, Peter, and James of not placing such a heavy yoke on the Gentiles. Clearly, this is the fruit of cherry picked verses and it is offensive,ignorant, and simply wrong to make such assumptions; my heart tells me this is so but I do not understand the proper way to view this. Help? What is required of the Gentiles today? I admit that right now the scope of the Canon law baffles me…it seems at once exquisitely beautiful in actually having security and clarity of answers and simultaneously like a weighty overeach with the fast days, who can and can’t have a Carholic wedding or burial, celibacy, penances, obligatory feast days, mortal sins that will condemn you if you pass with them unconfessed and the like that “appear” to go against some of what Paul says in Romans and Colossians, etc.

Clearly Peter is special. Being called Cephas later on by the others does seem to support the play on words. In Acts 15 why did Peter wait for James to comfirm the decision of what to declare to the Gentiles? In Acts 6, why did Peter(?)lead them to decide to turn away from serving the widows in favor of the nobler task of the ministry of the Word when Jesus had explicity illustrated that the real leader serves, waits on tables and washes feet? Can that be explained by simple logistics and necessities of numbers or was that a glossed over form of disobedience? That is huge as it helps setup precedence for deacons and ordination and sucession by laying on of hands (right?).

What is the proof of the continuation of Peter’s office? Is not the history before Constantine ended the persecution scant and filled with controversy within the church due to the stress of severe persecution? Didn’t the Popes during the middle ages have to approved of by the secular rulers at the time (kings, emperors) from various kingdoms and agendas as political power shifted? What of bad popes, and two popes condemning each other, and different locations than Rome? Why exactly did Jan Huss, Luther, and Calvin start all of the pope = antichrist stuff? Why did the Eastern Orthodox split in 1054 and deny the Roman bishop’s primacy over all locations?

I just simply don’t ( or pretend to) know the answers to all of these things yet as I have only very recently considered them past what was necessary to get a good mark in history class. It would appear that I have several years worth of reading to do. I am so torn, I think I even want to believe the Catholic view but it is hard for me to accept that all of those Orthodox and Reformation men that are so much better than me risked bodily death and damnation of the soul just to carnally enjoy a little transient earthly attention. Vicar of Christ is one thing but God on earth is a bit much, yes? That makes old Baptists knee jerkingly reach for Isaiah 14:12-14 and 2 Thess. Chapter 2. Whatever it was that they (original protestants) knew or saw scared them and made them fear greatly for their progeny and countrymen and consequently as a Protestant it haunts me like an urban legend that I can’t explain.

More coming
 
I do apologize for referencing these things, I am sure for a devout Catholic this is horrendous to read. The ideal person to help me would be a former Protestant that understands how easy it is to find material like this.

I was also suprised to read of Jerome and Augustine squabbling like that. It kind of shakes my confidence in ever knowing what to do when I reflect on how hotly contested every idea, interpretation (down to individual words or commas), doctrine, or translation were.

So currently, I agree that Peter was the leader. I know that Linus got mentioned and then we become extra-biblical which is a challenge for me right now. Who can help me appreciate the actual reasons why so many devout well intentioned men left the Church in error and denied the authority of the papacy while knowing that Peter was the leader? What you showed me about Peter is good, but it was not hidden and Luther and Calvin would not have missed it.

As a hijack to my own thread, what would be the Catholic response to Les Feldick who seems to write off most of the hard sayings of Jesus on the premise that we are the gentiles grafted in by grace and when Jesus said all of those “hard” things that it was pre-crucifixion and therefor still under a period of law that does not apply to us? He seems to make little attempt to balance Paul with Jesus since Jesus was speaking under the law and Paul was for the Gentiles after the cross and resurrection. It sort of makes sense topically but it makes me mighty nervous to just wave my hand and dismiss the gospels as being for a different Jewish audience the way he appears to.

I am out of time and have to pop off now. If this gets locked will someone who is strong in the faith and experienced with apologetics please message me so we can move forward privately?

Thank you, my friends.
 
Schrodinger said:
Clearly Peter is special. Being called Cephas later on by the others does seem to support the play on words. In Acts 15 why did Peter wait for James to confirm the decision of what to declare to the Gentiles?
Click to expand...
James and the other Apostles understood that Peter was given the primacy of authority. This is evident in Matthew 16:18: “And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” In several instances in the Scriptures, when God gave authority to someone, he changed the name of that person: Abram - Abraham (primacy over all men; the father of a multitude of nations), Sarai - Sarah (primacy over all women; mother of nations) Jacob - Israel (the primacy of being the first Israelite) Saul - Paul (primacy in reaching out to the Gentiles), Simon - Peter (primacy over all the Apostles). This is known as the Law of First Mention, which means, when something is first mentioned in the Bible, the meaning of it remains the same throughout the rest of the Scriptures. Of all the Twelve, only Simon was given a new name.

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected."
Dr. Oscar Cullman: Co-editor, Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary

In John 21:1-11, Peter was the one that John chose to inform first that he saw Jesus standing by the shore. Peter was the first to jump into the sea while the others were behind getting into their boats. And it was Peter alone (the head fisher of men) who hauled the heavy net full of fish onto the shore land. In John 21:15-17, Jesus chooses to tell only Peter in a direct address: “Feed my sheep.” According to the underlying Greek text, in v. 16, the word for “feed” is poimaino, which means to act as shepherd, to rule and govern, to pastor, or act as presiding officer. In v. 17, the Greek word for feed is bosko, which simply means “to feed”. The preceding verse defines how it is that Peter is to feed Christ’s one flock of sheep - by a primacy of authority, not only over the Apostles, but over the entire Church founded by our Lord in union with the other apostles. The sheep refer to the clergy, the lambs refer to the laity.

Finally, during the first Church Council at Jerusalem, after a long debate,** it was Peter who stood up and said** to the other Apostles: " “Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe” (Acts 15:7). God made the choice that Peter should be the one by whom the Gentiles should hear the word of God. In other words, he had the final word in whatever the council should decide. In Acts 10:9-19, it is Peter who received the vision of the clean and unclean animals. And so James declared, as presider of the council by his temporal authority as Bishop of Jerusalem: “Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles … It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:13-19). Paul, Barnabas, and James all concurred with Peter’s declaration. James’ speech was not the definitive point of the council’s decision. He simply suggested how to implement what Peter had already definitively expressed. It’s evident that Peter acted as the head spokesman of the one Apostolic Church. It was he who first stood up after a long debate and formulated a doctrinal judgment, whereas James took the floor after him by way of formality, being the Bishop where the council was being held, to suggest a pastoral plan for adapting the Gospel in communities where Jewish and Gentile Christians worshipped together.

***“Now these are the names of the twelve Apostles: first ***Simon, who is called Peter,…”- Matthew 10, 2

:heaven:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top