A new wrinkle on the Primacy of Peter

[Church_Militant]

DOXA:

…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). Really? Here’s a Biblical contradiction in the Orthodox then I guess. (Yes, I looked at your profile to figure why you’d make such a remark.)

Matthew 19:11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

Meanwhile the same author of Timothy, St. Paul points out the merits of celibate priesthood when he says:

1st Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

Let’s just keep the context of any topic in the whole Word of God next time, huh.

BTW…Canon law can and does change. :yawn:
Pax tecum,

 

[CARose]

DOXA:

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.

Canon Law is discipline which is changable, not dogmatic. While it is in effect, we, as members of the Church, are required to follow it in obedience to the Body of Christ. The Pope and the Bishops in union with him have the authority to change disciplines in accord with the needs of the times, but always in accord with the teachings of Christ, both through Scripture and Tradition.

God Bless,

CARose

 

[linus]

MrS:

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.

I didn’t actually say a false premise. I said a “presupposition.” This “new wrinkle” is based on a presupposition and uses even Jewish superstition to back it up.

Paul never added the word “alone,” but he did say, “For by grace you have been saved through faith…” He did say, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved…” He didn’t say through faith PLUS: works, sacraments, penance, baptism, etc. Who are we to add conditions because we lack the faith to believe the Divine message of “grace” through “faith?”

The point is… Peters Primacey, and the understanding of how Christ built His Church were commonly accepted in the early Church.

It was??? The early Church? How early? You state this in defense of no Apostolic teaching on the matter of Peter’s primacy. Yet one of the main purposes for the Epistles was Apostolic instruction to the churches. But no such teaching on Peter’s primacy is found in them. Not even a hint.

Actually, Paul points out that the scope of Peter’s ministry was restricted. He was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (Jews, Gal. 2:7), while he (Paul) was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles). And you’ll notice that Peter’s letters are addressed to Jews.

Paul also points out in his letter to the Galatians that those Apostles who were of “reputation” added nothing to his gospel (Gal. 2:6). Hence, no primacy of Peter taught here! In fact, Paul puts himself on the same level as Peter in Gal. 2:8. Paul never bowed the knee to Peter; nor do any of the other Apostles in Scripture. Nor do they instruct others either.

Paul did instruct on Christ building (present tense) His Church:

“…having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in
the Spirit” (Eph. 2:20-22).

Notice that the Church is built upon the Apostles (plural, not just Peter; hence, no primacy found here). A foundation is laid only ONCE. One need not continually build a foundation; hence, no need for Apostolic “succession.” The Church is being built, to this very day, UPON the foundation of the Apostles (plural), Jesus Himself the corner stone.

 

[linus]

Fidelis:

Recall that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that Matthew’s Gospel was orignially in Aramaic, so Jesus would not originally have used the Greek “Petros” or “petra,”

What proof do have that Matthew was “originally” written in Aramaic?

If Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, how do you explain Matt. 27:46? Matthew interprets what Jesus says in Aramaic. If his Gospel account was originally written in Aramaic he wouldn’t have added the translation.

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

The point is one is to approach the Scriptures without ANY presuppositions, thereby allowing the Scriptures themselves to teach us. In respect to the primacy of Peter, other than your interpretation of Matt. 16:18, can you show me where any of the writers of the Epistles categorically teach Peter’s primacy?

 

[MrS]

linus:

Paul never added the word “alone,” but he did say, “For by grace you have been saved through faith…” He did say, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved…” He didn’t say through faith PLUS: works, sacraments, penance, baptism, etc. Who are we to add conditions because we lack the faith to believe the Divine message of “grace” through “faith?” It was???

Notice that the Church is built upon the Apostles (plural, not just Peter; hence, no primacy found here). A foundation is laid only ONCE. One need not continually build a foundation; hence, no need for Apostolic “succession.” The Church is being built, to this very day, UPON the foundation of the Apostles (plural), Jesus Himself the corner stone.

You would think, perhaps, that for the hundreds of time Paul used the words faith, and the word alone, he NEVER used them together. And in the entire New Testament, they only occur one time together… “…not by faith alone” in Timothy.

Paul opens and closes his discourse on faith in Romans with the words “… the obedience of faith …” No Protestant can sincerely resolve these issues, can you?

The “you” in “Whatever you shall bind…” is singular to Peter. Later Christ repeats the power of this binding and loosing to the “you” plural … however only the Apostles are present. Hence the Catholic understanding of the Magisterium (teaching body of the Church) which places so much responsibility first on the Pope (first among equals), and then collectivelyon the bishops.

Gee, no wonder the Holy Spirit is so busy protecting this responsibility with all the attacks based so often on individual interpretation - something our Bible warns us about.

 

[MrS]

MrS:

You would think, perhaps, that for the hundreds of time Paul used the words faith, and the word alone, he NEVER used them together. And in the entire New Testament, they only occur one time together… “…not by faith alone” in Timothy.

.

oops… Timothy is not Luther’s “straw” man… it was James. My mistake.

 

[Sir_Knight]

linus:

Notice that the Church is built upon the Apostles (plural, not just Peter; hence, no primacy found here). A foundation is laid only ONCE. One need not continually build a foundation; hence, no need for Apostolic “succession.” The Church is being built, to this very day, UPON the foundation of the Apostles (plural), Jesus Himself the corner stone.

God always works through one human head, no matter how imperfect he may be. Throughout the whole Old Testament God’s system of government was a hierarchy that ruled from the top down. God has always worked through one organized hierarchy. In ancient Israel God used Moses, the judges, and the kings. He had captains over the thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. God does things in order, and He always governs from the top down, not from the bottom up. Also, God does not change from one generation to the next (Hebrews 13:8). Therefore, there is no reason to even think that His hierarchy system of government would change. In the New Testament His true church naturally followed this top-down principle of government by submitting to ONE top human spiritual leader over other ministers of various ranks. It should be obvious to anyone with even a superficial knowledge of history that the Pope has been the human spiritual leader ever since based on “Apostolic succession”.

 

[JLove]

linus:

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

If that is the case, and it does not depend on the person professing it, then why didn’t He rename Martha Pe,troj?

She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” John 11:27

 

[CARose]

It is not incorrect to acknowledge that the Church is built on Peter’s confession. But it is also built on Peter, the rock. You will find that frequently when an either / or choice is laid out by our Protestant brethren, the fullest truth is that the answer is Both. Scripture is deep and the meanings are manyfold.

God Bless,

CARose

 

[JLove]

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.”

Linus, since you like the Greek so much I was hoping you’d be so kind so as to show me some verses where these two “rock” words are used.

I’m sure you’ll find some that use pe,tra| as bedrock or large rock or something resembling or suggesting a rock (Matt. 7:24-25, Matt. 16:18, Matt. 27:51, Matt. 27:60, Mar. 15:46, Luk. 6:48, Luk. 8:6, Luk. 8:13, Rom. 9:33, 1 Cor. 10:4, 1 Pe. 2:8, Rev. 16:15-16). Well, I guess that is actually all of them, but find me one, just one, where Petroj means a stone. I did a little word study and found that the word refering to Peter is used 99 times (excluding the disputed Matt. 16:18). Of those 99, 58 times the Pe,troj is preceeded by a o`. Which unless I’m mistaken is the article “the.” Now, maybe it is just me, but why would the various authors say, “The Peter,” unless that is, of course, that Peter means rock, because to me the rock sounds a lot better than the peter. (In case your interested the other 41 times Pe,troj is used, 26 of them it is all alone and 15 it is paired with Simon.)

 

[Sir_Knight]

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “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 an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

Quoted almost word for word from an earlier post made by MichaelTDoyle.​

 

[linus]

MrS:

Paul opens and closes his discourse on faith in Romans with the words “… the obedience of faith …” No Protestant can sincerely resolve these issues, can you?

Actually, Paul’s phrase “obedience of faith” works far more in my favor in respect to salvation by grace through faith alone than yours. Careful that you take note of the prepositional phrase "of faith": “Obedience OF FAITH.” The “faith” here is not the body of doctrine presented for belief, but the belief itself. One’s act of personal faith is itself the obedience.

Jesus parallels this “obedience of faith” when asked by the unbelieving crowd at Capernaum what they should do to work the works of God. He didn’t respond with “do this” or “do that,” but “This is the work of God, that you BELIEVE IN HIM whom He has sent.” (Jn. 6:28-29).

Paul wasn’t establishing what is now called the “Christian religion” (that worship which is conducted through ceremonies). He’d already abandoned the only religion God ever gave, that of the Jews under the Mosaic Law. But he went to the Gentiles with the simple message concerning Christ, to be believed by everybody, anybody, anywhere. All for “His name’s sake.” It couldn’t be any other way. The Messiah had done it all, He’d done the work required, He’d emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, becoming obedient unto death, even death of the cross (Phil. 2:7-8).

Paul goes on to explain "obedience of faith:

“Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteous apart from works” (Rom. 4:4-6).

You appeal to James, but James’ argument is not faith PLUS works, but against a false faith. There is a true faith and a false faith. That’s why James begins with “show me” your faith without the works, and I will “show you” my faith by my works" (Ja. 2:18). True faith is always demonstrable. In fact Paul agrees in Eph. 2:10.

But this is all digression from the theme of this thread. Except that this all ties in with Peter’s confession and the faith on which Christ is building His church.

 

[linus]

Sir Knight:

God always works through one human head, no matter how imperfect he may be. Throughout the whole Old Testament God’s system of government was a hierarchy that ruled from the top down. God has always worked through one organized hierarchy. In ancient Israel God used Moses, the judges, and the kings. He had captains over the thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. God does things in order, and He always governs from the top down, not from the bottom up. Also, God does not change from one generation to the next (Hebrews 13:8). Therefore, there is no reason to even think that His hierarchy system of government would change. In the New Testament His true church naturally followed this top-down principle of government by submitting to ONE top human spiritual leader over other ministers of various ranks. It should be obvious to anyone with even a superficial knowledge of history that the Pope has been the human spiritual leader ever since based on “Apostolic succession”.

Your whole argument is easily refuted by Eph. 2:20-22. Again, you’re starting with a presupposition and conforming Scripture to it. This is all subjective reasoning.

 

[Fidelis]

linus:

What proof do have that Matthew was “originally” written in Aramaic?

See this article:
newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

If Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, how do you explain Matt. 27:46? Matthew interprets what Jesus says in Aramaic. If his Gospel account was originally written in Aramaic he wouldn’t have added the translation.

It only makes sense that when his Gospel was translated into Greek, the translation of that sentence had to be provided so the Greek readers understood it. It was also important to retain the Aramaic rendering so that the surrounding verses, with their play on words and OT references, would make sense.

In any case, that is a side issue, and you have managed to ignore the main point I brought up, i.e., that Jesus spoke Aramiac 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, I also invited you to see this short article:
catholic.com/library/Pet…_the_Papacy.asp

The point is one is to approach the Scriptures without ANY presuppositions, thereby allowing the Scriptures themselves to teach us.

As I said above, I agree, but that it works both ways.

In respect to the primacy of Peter, other than your interpretation of Matt. 16:18, can you show me where any of the writers of the Epistles categorically teach Peter’s primacy?

Again, I addressed this above.

 

[MrS]

linus:

Actually, Paul’s phrase “obedience of faith” works far more in my favor in respect to salvation by grace through faith alone than yours. Careful that you take note of the prepositional phrase "of faith": “Obedience OF FAITH.” The “faith” here is not the body of doctrine presented for belief, but the belief itself. One’s act of personal faith is itself the obedience.

.

yes… and the subject is “Obedience”… which obedience (?), the obedience (an action, a deed, something we do) of faith.

 

[MrS]

linus:

You appeal to James, but James’ argument is not faith PLUS works, but against a false faith. There is a true faith and a false faith. That’s why James begins with “show me” your faith without the works, and I will “show you” my faith by my works" (Ja. 2:18). True faith is always demonstrable. In fact Paul agrees in Eph. 2:10.

.

So would you prefer the translation to read something like:

“…we are not saved by false faith alone…” silly huh

 

[Fidelis]

MrS:

So would you prefer the translation to read something like:

“…we are not saved by false faith alone…” silly huh

Silly is putting it mildly, especially if you insert that understanding into the whole passage:

James 2:14
6 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has false faith but does not have works? Can that false faith save him?
15
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16
and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17
So also false faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, “You have **false ** faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your false faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my false faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that **false ** faith without works is useless?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22
You see that false ** faith was active along with his works, and false faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by false faith alone.
25
And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also false ** faith without works is dead.

:whacky:

 

[CindyGia]

Fidelis:

For a more complete explanation of this, I also invited you to see this short article:
[catholic.com/library/Pet…_the_Papacy.asp/url]](http://www.catholic.com/library/Pet…_the_Papacy.asp/url])

Fidelis,

That link doesn’t work.

 

[Fidelis]

linus:

Your whole argument is easily refuted by Eph. 2:20-22. Again, you’re starting with a presupposition and conforming Scripture to it. This is all subjective reasoning.

For the record, Eph. 2:20-22 reads:

…built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

This in no way requires a supposition to a hierarchy. If anything, this reinforces the argument for a hierachical Church.

 

[cazayoux]

linus:

:
:
Notice that the Church is built upon the Apostles (plural, not just Peter; hence, no primacy found here). A foundation is laid only ONCE. One need not continually build a foundation; hence, no need for Apostolic “succession.” The Church is being built, to this very day, UPON the foundation of the Apostles (plural), Jesus Himself the corner stone.

… no apostolic succession !!! …

what about …

Matt 28:19-20 ("… to the end of the age …")
1 Cor 12:28 (“apostles, prophets, teachers”)
Acts 1:15-26 (filling Judas’s position - he was gone, yet the office remained)
1 Tim 1:18 (Paul passes on authority to Timothy)
1 Cor 4:17 (instruction to respect Timothy - FULL authority)
2 Tim 1: 13-14 (asserting his teaching authority)
2 Tim 2: 2 (4 generations of apostolic succession in this line)
Titus 1:5-7 (appoint elders)
1 Tim 1:3; 4:11-13 (“command and teach these things”)
2 Tim 1:6 (laying on of hands … to ordain others)
1 Tim 4:14; 5:22 (“which was conferred on you … hands”, “lay hands”)

c’moooooooon …

michel