A new wrinkle on the Primacy of Peter

[RyanL]

2/3rds of Christianity is wrong and 1/3 (Catholicism) is right? Where’s the maths in that?

You want math? How’s this?

Catholic & Near Catholic versus Protestant
Catholic & Near Catholic (Catholic, Orthodox, High Church Anglican) - 65%
Protestant (Protestant, Independent, Low Church Anglican) - 38%
Other - Mormon, Christian Scientists etc. - 1.3%

Source.

So actually it’s roughly 2/3’s who are right (about 10% with an ‘A-’) and 1/3 who are wrong (but are correct to a large extent - I would give most of them a ‘C’). Does that make it sit any better with you? BTW, even if you exclude the Orthodox and High Church Anglicans, Catholics are still > 50% of the world’s Christians; and if you include the last 2000 years, Catholics are about 85% of the world’s Christians. I’d say if you want math, the Catholic Church is a safe bet.

If you want Truth, there is only one major Christian religion in the world that claims to have the fullness of it…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

2/3rds of Christianity is wrong and 1/3 (Catholicism) is right? Where’s the maths in that?

You want math? How’s this?

Catholic & Near Catholic versus Protestant
Catholic & Near Catholic (Catholic, Orthodox, High Church Anglican) - 65%
Protestant (Protestant, Independent, Low Church Anglican) - 38%
Other - Mormon, Christian Scientists etc. - 1.3%

Source.

So actually it’s roughly 2/3’s who are right (about 10% with an ‘A-’) and 1/3 who are wrong (but are correct to a large extent - I would give most of them a ‘C’). Does that make it sit any better with you? BTW, even if you exclude the Orthodox and High Church Anglicans, Catholics are still > 50% of the world’s Christians; and if you include the last 2000 years, Catholics are about 85% of the world’s Christians. I’d say if you want math, the Catholic Church is a safe bet.

If you want Truth, there is only one major Christian religion in the world that claims to have the fullness of it…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[thessalonian]

This passage in Sirach that you pointed out Ryan has “Peter thou are rock and on thsi rock I will build my Church” all over it.

1 The greatest among his brethren, the glory of his people, was SIMON the priest, son of Jochanan, In whose time the house of God was renovated, in whose days the temple was reinforced.
2
In his time also the wall was built with powerful turrets for the temple precincts;
3
In his time the reservoir was dug, the pool with a vastness like the sea’s.
4
He protected his people against brigands and strengthened his city against the enemy.
5
How splendid he was as he appeared from the tent, as he came from within the veil!
6
Like a star shining among the clouds, like the full moon at the holyday season;
7
Like the sun shining upon the temple, like the rainbow appearing in the cloudy sky;
8
Like the blossoms on the branches in springtime, like a lily on the banks of a stream; Like the trees of Lebanon in summer,
9
like the fire of incense at the sacrifice; Like a vessel of beaten gold, studded with precious stones;
10
Like a luxuriant olive tree thick with fruit, like a cypress standing against the clouds;
11
Vested in his magnificent robes, and wearing his garments of splendor, As he ascended the glorious altar and lent majesty to the court of the sanctuary.
12
When he received the sundered victims from the priests while he stood before the sacrificial wood, His brethren ringed him about like a garland, like a stand of cedars on Lebanon;
13
All the sons of Aaron in their dignity clustered around him like poplars, With the offerings to the LORD in their hands, in the presence of the whole assembly of Israel.
14
Once he had completed the services at the altar with the arranging of the sacrifices for the Most High,
15
And had stretched forth his hand for the cup, to offer blood of the grape, And poured it out at the foot of the altar, a sweet-smelling odor to the Most High God,
16
The sons of Aaron would sound a blast, the priests, on their trumpets of beaten metal; A blast to resound mightily as a reminder before the Most High.
17
Then all the people with one accord would quickly fall prostrate to the ground In adoration before the Most High, before the Holy One of Israel.
18
Then hymns would re-echo, and over the throng sweet strains of praise resound.
19
All the people of the land would shout for joy, praying to the Merciful One, As the high priest completed the services at the altar by presenting to God the sacrifice due;
20
Then coming down he would raise his hands over all the congregation of Israel. The blessing of the LORD would be upon his lips, the name of the LORD would be his glory.

 

[thessalonian]

neophyte:

NotWorthy,

Thanks for a good find. That book series is now on my aquisition list.

A few days ago I told my wife (who’s a Jew) that she’s the reason I became a Catholic. When I started going to Temple with her, all kinds of lights started popping in my head, it was like puzzle pieces that suddenly started fitting together, and I became aware of how much Christianity (really Protestantism but I didn’t realise it until later) had deprived itself by forgetting its Jewish roots. So I started to study a bit, and by the time I stumbled on Catholic radio I was ripe for the picking because Catholicism is so Jewish!

It was like the graphic art pieces that look like a bunch of 2-D squiggly lines until you look at it in just the right manner, at which time a 3-D image jumps out at you. If you haven’t seen it yet, you can’t believe it’s there and you haven’t the slightest idea what the believers are talking about, but once you see it you wonder how you had missed it!

I was in Barnes and Noble one day and came accross a book called “Why do Jews do that”. I didn’t buy it though I should have. You are quite correct. Just flipping through it all the stuff on the seder, prayers for the dead, burial rites, prayers, customs, even eating fish on Fridays instead of meat is rooted in Judaism. It was fascinating just flipping through it for about a half hour. NO question where the roots of Catholicism are and well they should be.

 

[thessalonian]

2/3rds of Christianity is wrong and 1/3 (Catholicism) is right? Where’s the maths in that? There is a lot you can learn from the Protestants, btw, if only you would listen. Haven’t you ever heard the old saying that “Your enemy is your best friend”?

As Ryan points out, you do fuzzy math. Protestant + Orthodox + Catholic is not 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3. Sorry. And yes there is a lot we can learn from Protestants AND Orthodox becuase there is much that is true in both. Paul tells us to test everything and hold on to what is good.

Furthermore, how can you claim Orthodox interpretations are false when they are fully backed by Holy Scripture and 2000 y/o tradition? Are you now claiming that the Pope was also given authority by Jesus to contradict Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition?

Most of them are in fact correct. There is very little when it comes right down to it that Orthodox and Catholics truly disagree on. Some of it is sudlety such as use of the term purgatory. The Orthodox don’t use it and there is some minor variation in what they believe the cleansing in the afterlife is (i.e. most Orthodox I don’t think would see purgatory as cleansing fire, but rather, a place of sorrow) but the idea of purgatory is quite there. Transubstantiation is not used either but there is no significant difference in how we view the Eucharist. These things point to the great truth of these doctrines, that even though we have divided for 1000 years, the power of tradition has largeley kept these doctrines intact among many others. The only significant problem I see among the Orthodox is the denial and obvuscations of Matt 16:18 that do not hold water objectively speaking.

Blessings

 

[etcevenio]

NotWorthy:

Matthew notes that six days before the Transfiguration (the Transfiguration took place during the feast of the Tabernacles),

Not worthy, that’s a fantastic argument, I find.

I’d like to use it but I have a little problem with it : How do we know that Transficuration took place during the Feast of the Tabernacles?

Thanks for your help

 

[linus]

NotWorthy:

He says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Mt. 16:17-18). This remarkable passage seems to cast Peter, by his disclosure of Jesus’ previously hidden identity, in the role of the High Priest, who alone speaks the revealed name on the Day of Atonement. Jesus even calls Peter by his given name “Simon Bar-Jona,” which was also the name of a famous High Priest of the Maccabean era whose praises are sung in a passage in Sirach 50:1-20.

But to be true to the text, Peter didn’t call HIm Yahweh, he called Him “the Messiah.” And Jesus didn’t say to Peter, upon “you,” but, upon "this" rock I will build my church. One must be careful not to manipulate Scripture in order to force it into saying something it does not. To press it into serving one’s own doctrines. The true Christian faith is always based on divine revelation, never man’s manipulation.

 

[Fidelis]

linus:

But to be true to the text, Peter didn’t call HIm Yahweh, he called Him “the Messiah.” And Jesus didn’t say to Peter, upon “you,” but, upon "this" rock I will build my church. One must be careful not to manipulate Scripture in order to force it into saying something it does not. To press it into serving one’s own doctrines. The true Christian faith is always based on divine revelation, never man’s manipulation.

The question remains, however, of what Jesus was referring to when he said “this rock.” What rock? Grammatically, it would go back to the the most previous subject in the statement, which is “Peter.” So you must say it would have the sense of " You are Peter, and upon this rock Peter, I build my Church."

 

[RobNY]

linus:

But to be true to the text, Peter didn’t call HIm Yahweh, he called Him “the Messiah.” And Jesus didn’t say to Peter, upon “you,” but, upon "this" rock I will build my church. One must be careful not to manipulate Scripture in order to force it into saying something it does not. To press it into serving one’s own doctrines. The true Christian faith is always based on divine revelation, never man’s manipulation.

Nor is anyone claiming he called him Yahweh, merely the parallel between the High Priest saying Yahweh on the Day of Atonement, Yahweh being the name God revealed to Moses, and Peter calling Christ the Messiah, the name God the Father revealed to Peter.

---

For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

**

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

2/3rds of Christianity is wrong and 1/3 (Catholicism) is right? Where’s the maths in that?

2/3rds? Last I remember Catholicism is bigger than Orthodoxy and Protestantism combined…

 

[linus]

RobNY:

Nor is anyone claiming he called him Yahweh, merely the parallel between the High Priest saying Yahweh on the Day of Atonement, Yahweh being the name God revealed to Moses, and Peter calling Christ the Messiah, the name God the Father revealed to Peter.*** ***

But the whole interpretation is based on a Jewish superstition that they could not say the name of God. However, there was absolutely no Mosaic prohibition against Jews saying the name of God. This was a much later development by men. You don’t build doctrine nor interpret Scripture, based on the superstitions of men.

 

[linus]

Fidelis:

The question remains, however, of what Jesus was referring to when he said “this rock.” What rock? Grammatically, it would go back to the the most previous subject in the statement, which is “Peter.” So you must say it would have the sense of " You are Peter, and upon this rock Peter, I build my Church."

Actually Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my Church.” “This” in Greek is “toute,” and would refer not to Peter, but what Peter confessed: “*You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” * If He would have meant Peter, then He would have said, “…and upon you (Gr. humas) I will build my Church.” But instead He said, “upon this…”

Anyway, that’s the way I see it. The other makes no sense to me.

 

[Sir_Knight]

That would be true EXCEPT just before that, Jesus said that Peter was Rock. Therefore, the “This” refers to Peter. If Jesus didn’t say that Peter was Rock, than the ‘this’ would refer to what Peter confessed as you said but He did so it doesn’t.

 

[DOXA]

yochumjy:

Instead of making accusations with no backing, please explain what contradictions any Pope has made about Holy Scripture and Tradition.

The Third Ecumenical Council
CANON 8
…the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood. Wherefore, this holy and Ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is hero determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council
CANON 7
****WE have decreed that those who have once been enrolled among the clergy, or have been made monks, shall accept neither a military charge nor any secular dignity; and if they shall presume to do so and not repent in such wise as to turn again to that which they had first chosen for the love of God, they shall be anathematized.
CANON 17
********OUTLYING or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years. But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the province. And if any one be wronged by his Metropolitan, let the matter be judged by the Exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid. And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example.

---

****The Council of Trullo (Quinisextum Counci) 692 AD
CANON 52

ON all days of the holy fast of Lent, except on the Sabbath, the Lord’s day and the holy day of the Annunciation, **the Liturgy of the Presanctified is to be held. **

CANON 90
WE have received from our divine Fathers the canon law that in honor of Christ’s Resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays. Lest therefore we should ignore the fullness of this observance we make it plain to the faithful that after the priests have gone to the Altar for Vespers on Saturdays (according to the prevailing custom) no one shall kneel in prayer until the evening of Sunday, at which time after the entrance for compline, again with banded knees we offer our prayers to the Lord. For taking the night after the Sabbath, which was the forerunner of our Lord’s Resurrection, we begin from it to sing in the spirit hymns to God, leading our feast out of darkness into light, and thus during an entire day and night, we celebrate the Resurrection.

 

[linus]

Sir Knight:

That would be true EXCEPT just before that, Jesus said that Peter was Rock. Therefore, the “This” refers to Peter. If Jesus didn’t say that Peter was Rock, than the ‘this’ would refer to what Peter confessed as you said but He did so it doesn’t.

However, the word “rock” changes in the Greek.

“And I also say to you that you are Petros (a stone), and upon this petra (large rock, bed rock) I will build My church.”

Jesus is stating He will build HIs Church upon the foundational truth that He IS the Messiah, Son of the living God.

You see, when one starts out with a presupposition, i.e., the primacy of Peter and the Roman Bishops, then one interprets Scripture to conform to that presupposition. Yet Scripture, as a whole, and not even Peter himself, confirms that presupposition.

Did the Apostle Paul teach the primacy of Peter to the churches he planted? In all of his Epistles I find no such instruction. If Jesus was building His Church upon Petros ( a stone), then Paul certainly would have taught this major doctrine to those churches, right? Then why the Scriptural silence?

 

[jdnation]

The Third Ecumenical Council
CANON 8
…the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood. Wherefore, this holy and Ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is hero determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council
CANON 7
********WE have decreed that those who have once been enrolled among the clergy, or have been made monks, shall accept neither a military charge nor any secular dignity; and if they shall presume to do so and not repent in such wise as to turn again to that which they had first chosen for the love of God, they shall be anathematized.
CANON 17
********OUTLYING or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years. But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the province. And if any one be wronged by his Metropolitan, let the matter be judged by the Exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid. And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example.

---

****The Council of Trullo (Quinisextum Counci) 692 AD
CANON 52

ON all days of the holy fast of Lent, except on the Sabbath, the Lord’s day and the holy day of the Annunciation, **the Liturgy of the Presanctified is to be held. **

etc.

But these are Canon Laws, are they not? I don’t think they are the same as Scripture or Tradition, and are subject to be changed… I suppose an argument can be made only if something in there directly contradicted Scripture or Tradition, but I don’t notice any…

 

[MrS]

linus:

Did the Apostle Paul teach the primacy of Peter to the churches he planted? In all of his Epistles I find no such instruction. If Jesus was building His Church upon Petros ( a stone), then Paul certainly would have taught this major doctrine to those churches, right? Then why the Scriptural silence?

You are correct when you say don’t start with a false premise and look for Scripture to back you up.

But that is just what came as fruits of the reformation. Paul never said we are saved by Faith Alone, nor did he ever present the error of Scripture Alone. These are surly “major doctrines” held by our Protestant brothers, yet they were “invented” and verses are used out of context to support your positions. And Paul never supports those things.

The point is… Peters Primacey, and the understanding of how Christ built His Church were commonly accepted in the early Church. While much of the New Testament corrected problems and set guidlines in the early Church, the Gospels, however, presented Truth to various groups of peoples with much detail of miracles, events, parables, etc.

Peter = rock = Christ’s way of founding His church.

Authority has always - IMHO - been the problem that separated us.

 

[Fidelis]

linus:

However, the word “rock” changes in the Greek.

“And I also say to you that you are Petros (a stone), and upon this petra (large rock, bed rock) I will build My church.”

Jesus is stating He will build HIs Church upon the foundational truth that He IS the Messiah, Son of the living God.

Recall that Jesus spoke Aramiac and that Matthew’s Gospel was orignially in Aramaic, so Jesus would not originally have used the Greek “Petros” or “petra,” He would have used the Aramaic word Kepha in both places. So the original statement would have been “You are Kepha, and on this *Kepha * I build my Church.” Some of wordplay was lost when it was rendered in the Greek, and even more so when we read it in English.

For a more complete explanation of this, see this short article:
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

You see, when one starts out with a presupposition, i.e., the primacy of Peter and the Roman Bishops, then one interprets Scripture to conform to that presupposition.

One can easily say that about those that start with the opposite supposition.

Did the Apostle Paul teach the primacy of Peter to the churches he planted? In all of his Epistles I find no such instruction. If Jesus was building His Church upon Petros ( a stone), then Paul certainly would have taught this major doctrine to those churches, right? Then why the Scriptural silence?

The same argument from silence can be used against any extra-biblical article of faith. Is the Trinity explicitly taught in the Scriptures? How about the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? Aren’t these things central to Christianity as well? The Bible was never meant to be complete catechism, and there is no indication Paul meant his writings to be so either. He wrote mostly to address certain problems and errors that were occuring in cetain churches. If there was not an issue with Peter’s primacy, he had no need to address it. The entire New Testament (incuding the passage in question) gives witness to Peter’s primacy-- unless you are pre-disposed not to see it.

 

[jdnation]

linus:

However, the word “rock” changes in the Greek.

“And I also say to you that you are Petros (a stone), and upon this petra (large rock, bed rock) I will build My church.”

Jesus is stating He will build HIs Church upon the foundational truth that He IS the Messiah, Son of the living God.

You see, when one starts out with a presupposition, i.e., the primacy of Peter and the Roman Bishops, then one interprets Scripture to conform to that presupposition. Yet Scripture, as a whole, and not even Peter himself, confirms that presupposition.

Did the Apostle Paul teach the primacy of Peter to the churches he planted? In all of his Epistles I find no such instruction. If Jesus was building His Church upon Petros ( a stone), then Paul certainly would have taught this major doctrine to those churches, right? Then why the Scriptural silence?

It’s an old question of “I know that Matthew had to use the masculine “petros” to refer to Peter in Matthew 16:18, but why did he not then use “petros” the second time instead of “petra”?”

The answer to which is, “Because “petros” is a proper name that can only be used once in order to leave room for the noun “petra” to identify the application of the proper noun “petros.” We do the same in English. We don’t say: “John is a John,” we say, “John is a boy.””

Silence from Scripture isn’t an argument since upon silence either or can be assumed… But even if Paul didn’t directly teach about it (We assume because it was already believed by all and there was no reason to reiterate it), Paul never took decisions into his own hands and always went back to the Apostles, where Peter and all were, to clear up matters. Even when “Paul had direct revelation from Jesus Gal 1; 11-12, but even he checked with the “reputed pillars of the Church” to make sure his private revelation did not go against the teaching of the Church.” Luke always presents Paul in high regard, but not as in charge, even when Paul spoke before the council, and everyone only acepted whatever Peter said in the end. The debate would go on until Peter, after listening, gets up to say something, to deliver his own teaching, and everyone falls silent whenever he does, all debate stops, somebody like James will restate what Peter says and may add something, but ultimately only what Peter said becomes established.

 

[DOXA]

jdnation:

But these are Canon Laws, are they not? I don’t think they are the same as Scripture or Tradition, and are subject to be changed… I suppose an argument can be made only if something in there directly contradicted Scripture or Tradition, but I don’t notice any…

The Canons are Tradition, they contain unchangeable Ecumenical resolutions, decrees and dogmas of the Church. I hope you know what Ecumenical means? It means who whole Eco (Gk&Lat : house) the Whole Church United. We both believe and agree upon all 7 first Ecumenical Councils.

But since you cannot see anything that the Popes have done to contradict the sacred Canons, I shall explain.

Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council, affirms that each bishop is in charge of his own jurisdiction, there is no such thing as a “super bishop” who is in charge of all the Christian jurisdictions in the world.

At the Fourth EC it is clealy stated in the 7th Canon: that no bishop priest deacon or monk shall have a military title or a secular title and dignity, such as pontifex maximus (bridge builder), princeps (prince) otherwise they will be anathematised, unless they repent and return to the original purpose of their position as shepherds of the flock.

The 17th Canon of the same council gave authority to the throne of Constantinople as the last resort for disputes, not Rome.

Then at the Council of Trullo in Canon 52 there is the mention of the Presanctified liturgy which I think is not performed in the Latin Rite?

Lastly I mentioned this of many other Canons reminding us of no kneeling on Sundays. St Ignatius and all the fathers ask us to preserve this tradition of remembering Sudays as the day of Resurrection. This is Holy Tradition. (Quinisextum, Canon 90)

And if you don’t follow the Canons of the Church, here is a biblical contradiction in the RCC. “A presbyter then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;” (1 Timothy 3:2) and “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” (1 Tim 3:12).