A new wrinkle on the Primacy of Peter

[NotWorthy]

Jesus needed twelve Apostles only for the Pentecost, to reconstitue the new Israel. You’ll notice there was no requirement to choose another Apostle when the first Apostle was martyred (I can’t remember the name). After that, they, the Apostles, were to spread the news of the Gospel to all the nations of the earth. This necessitated the need for more bishops. The position of Bishop had Apostolic Succession.

Notworthy

 

[JLove]

linus:

You’re putting a meaning into the word which the context cannot bear. Matthew states nothing, nor implies, anything about rank, but simply a list of names. Peter is the first mentioned in the list. If we went with your logic, then Andrew would have a higher rank than John. I don’t think so!

I was not asserting that the list is a descending one of rank, rather that I find it amazing to see that Peter is the only one in the list with such terminology attached. If we are to believe that the protos is there merely to indicate that Peter is the first name listed in the list, then I think we could safely say that Matthew was a redundant fool. Unless, that is of course he places it in there to indicate Peter’s primacy.

 

[FCEGM]

JLove:

I was not asserting that the list is a descending one of rank, rather that I find it amazing to see that Peter is the only one in the list with such terminology attached. If we are to believe that the protos is there merely to indicate that Peter is the first name listed in the list, then I think we could safely say that Matthew was a redundant fool. Unless, that is of course he places it in there to indicate Peter’s primacy.

And then there is St. Paul’s pun in Galatians when he switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. Why? Why use both versions of Peter’s name? The name “Kephas” is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” (“Rock) – the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”. And so, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.

 

[JLove]

And then there is St. Paul’s pun in Galatians when he switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. Why? Why use both versions of Peter’s name? The name “Kephas” is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” (“Rock) – the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”. And so, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.
[/quote]

That’s awesome I’ve never seen that conection before.:bowdown2:

 

[RyanL]

FCEGM:

…in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”…

I have never heard this before. I went online to find out if this was true, and I found the following Greek entries for “head”:

kephalêgonos LSJhead
kephalêdon LSJhead
kephalis LSJ, Middle Liddellhead
kephalikos LSJhead
kephalodesmos LSJhead-band
kephaloklasta LSJhead
kephalothlastos LSJhead
kephalobarês LSJhead
kephaloeidês LSJhead
kephalotomos LSJhead
kephalotomeô LSJhead
kephalôdês LSJhead

I wasn’t able to find “kepha” or “kephas”, but certainly the connotation is there!

Wonderful find!

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[FCEGM]

JLove:

That’s awesome I’ve never seen that conection before.:bowdown2:

I’ll pass that :bowdown2: to the person who pointed this out to me.

 

[RyanL]

linus:

Paul was chosen directly by Christ Himself, and He personally saw and was taught by the resurrected Lord. Which he claims as his credentials for his Apostleship (1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11-12). Can any of your Popes honestly claim any of these credentials?

All of the Popes can claim the blessing of God in the charism of infallibility, in addition to their Holy Orders. In that sense, yes, they have all been chosen by God, in that God ratified the decision by gracing them with these gifts (in addition to God’s perfect foreknowledge and subsequent permission). Have they witnessed the Resurrected Lord? Yes, in the Eucharist. That way is just as real and just as profound as the witness of St. Paul.

The requirements I mentioned are totally Biblical. Again, Paul was taught directly by Christ Himself (Gal. 1:11-12; 2 Cor. 12:1-4).

Let’s examine the credentials you listed with St. Paul…
(1) accompanied them all the time the Lord Jesus went in and out among them;
(2) beginning with the baptism of John;
(3) an eyewitness to the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ
(1) - Not St. Paul
(2) - Not St. Paul
(3) - Not St. Paul
And yet, St. Paul was an Apostle. How do you reconcile that? Beyond this, you reject the one who actually fits these criteria (Barsabas - see below).

I am one of those who believes that Paul is the 12th Apostle. Chosen by Christ Himself. Scripture records in Acts what Peter suggested to the others concerning they drawing lots to chose another Apostle.

Just to make sure I’m reading this correctly, you are denying the selection of Barsabas as an Apostle…correct? Are you also denying Judas as an Apostle? It would only make 12 if you deny Judas; otherwise, St. Paul would be the 13th Apostle (14th if you include Barsabas - which you aparently don’t).

But the account is void of stating that he was led by the Holy Spirit, or instructed by Christ, to do so.

By the power of God’s word, quoted by St. Peter, the authority was there. Following a prayer for God’s guidance, lots were cast. This is exactly how the high priest was chosen in the OT. Do also you deny God’s role in selecting high priests in the OT?

Your quote from Clement is vague.

I’ll provide other, less ambiguous quotes:

Hegesippus
“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History *4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

                    "We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the                         ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God                         have by succession transmitted to us." *Origen, Commentary on Matthew (post A.D.                             244).*

Clear enough?

Has he performed the signs and wonders and miracles of a true Apostle (2 Cor. 12:12)?

He turns bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, and forgives men’s sins. No pope has ever contradicted another in over 2000 years on a binding matter of faith and morals - Congress can’t go so much as a day. Are these miracles enough? What more would you require?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

linus,

I forgot to ask…are there Bishops in your church?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Sir_Knight]

linus:

Paul was chosen directly by Christ Himself, and He personally saw and was taught by the resurrected Lord. Which he claims as his credentials for his Apostleship (1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11-12). Can any of your Popes honestly claim any of these credentials?The requirements I mentioned are totally Biblical. Again, Paul was taught directly by Christ Himself (Gal. 1:11-12; 2 Cor. 12:1-4).

Even though Paul was DIRECTLY chosen by Christ, Acts 9:17-19 shows us that he only became a minister AFTER the laying of hands by a bishop … this is proof-test supporting the authority of the church.

 

[Brucealeg]

I don’t mean to intrude, but this has been a VERY educational thread for me. To hear questions, answers and comments as well thought out as these is a blessing.

In my humble views I have always seen Peter as 1st among equals. He was granted the power to establish Church and Tradition. If he was just the start of some great heresy I would imagine an Almighty Being would have chosen differently. Christ showed His knowledge of things to come by pointing our Judas’s betrayal. I just can’t believe that he would allow Peter to become the corner stone of heresy. He knew what he grated Peter and what would come from it. If it wasn’t what He wanted, he would have called Peter out like Judas. Well, maybe not exactly like Judas…but I would think there would be NO doubt about Peter’s role.

I apologize as I understand this is my opinion and not 100% historical or biblical fact. However, some times a little common sense goes a long way.

Again, I am really learning a lot here. Mostly about greek words.

God Bless,
Bruce

 

[CindyGia]

Brucealeg:

However, some times a little common sense goes a long way.

Again, I am really learning a lot here. Mostly about greek words.

You got that right Bruce!

All it takes is a little common sense. I also have been awe struck with this thread and what people know about the Greek language. My own opinion (sadly) though, is that however great an answer from a Catholic, a Protestant will still try to belittle it or debate it, simply because Protestants refuse to believe that the Catholic Church is the one and only Church of Christ. So sad…

But you’re right. This thread is mind boggling!

 

[DOXA]

If indeed, dogmatic resolutions from the 7 Ecumenical Councils and other synods may change from time to time in your church, then that means you are no longer the same Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and are therefore simply a (very) High Episcopalian Church.

If you change Canon Laws “according to the times” does that mean that the Pope is no longer the protector of the Law but the Lawmaker? You are no longer preserving the Tradition and teaching of the Church but are making up your own rules as you go?

That is very scary. :bigyikes:

The Orthodox Church has never changed nor altered the resolutions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodoxy Catholic Church. That means we are the true Catholic Church…all we need to do is convince 1.6 billion Christians and 5 billion heterodox that the fullness of grace is found in the True Catholic Church.

 

[MrS]

DOXA:

That means we are the true Catholic Church…all we need to do is convince 1.6 billion Christians and 5 billion heterodox that the fullness of grace is found in the True Catholic Church.

Come home to Rome, and the Pope will talk to you about it.

 

[NotWorthy]

DOXA:

If indeed, dogmatic resolutions from the 7 Ecumenical Councils and other synods may change from time to time in your church, then that means you are no longer the same Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and are therefore simply a (very) High Episcopalian Church.

If you change Canon Laws “according to the times” does that mean that the Pope is no longer the protector of the Law but the Lawmaker? You are no longer preserving the Tradition and teaching of the Church but are making up your own rules as you go?

That is very scary. :bigyikes:

The Orthodox Church has never changed nor altered the resolutions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodoxy Catholic Church. That means we are the true Catholic Church…all we need to do is convince 1.6 billion Christians and 5 billion heterodox that the fullness of grace is found in the True Catholic Church.

I thought that horse was dead, DOXA. Yet again, you confuse Tradition with tradition.

Notworthy

 

[linus]

Sir Knight:

Even though Paul was DIRECTLY chosen by Christ, Acts 9:17-19 shows us that he only became a minister AFTER the laying of hands by a bishop … this is proof-test supporting the authority of the church.

Actually, Paul was *chosen * by Christ BEFORE Ananias laid hands on him (see Acts 9:15).

 

[NotWorthy]

linus:

Actually, Paul was *chosen * by Christ BEFORE Ananias laid hands on him (see Acts 9:15).

And your point is …?

Nobody is arguing whether Jesus chose Paul or not.

Notworthy

 

[linus]

RyanL:

All of the Popes can claim the blessing of God in the charism of infallibility, in addition to their Holy Orders.

That’s an assertion by the Roman church, not a Biblical doctrine.

In that sense, yes, they have all been chosen by God, in that God ratified the decision by gracing them with these gifts (in addition to God’s perfect foreknowledge and subsequent permission).What is your OBJECTIVE proof of this?

Have they witnessed the Resurrected Lord? Yes, in the Eucharist. That way is just as real and just as profound as the witness of St. Paul.

This is totally irrational. The requirement by Peter was to have witnessed the actual, bodily resurrection of Christ. This was the main requirement. Afterall, they were chosen to be His eyewitnesses to the world; eyewitnesses of His bodily resurrection. He had to have personally seen the resurrected Lord just after his actual death and burial.

Or maybe you’re claiming that your popes all receive a vision of Christ when they partake in the eucharist? Or maybe they’re transported back in time? If so, from where do you get this information?

Let’s examine the credentials you listed with St. Paul…
(1) accompanied them all the time the Lord Jesus went in and out among them;
(2) beginning with the baptism of John;
(3) an eyewitness to the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ
(1) - Not St. Paul
(2) - Not St. Paul
(3) - Not St. Paul
And yet, St. Paul was an Apostle. How do you reconcile that? Beyond this, you reject the one who actually fits these criteria (Barsabas - see below).

These were the requirements Peter set forth when they themselves were going to choose another man for the Apostolic office. And since that is what happens in your church (men choose other men), you must abide in those requirement. Consequently, none can fill the bill.

But Jesus said to the Apostles, “You did not choose Me, but I have chosen you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit…” (Jn. 15:16). The the first twelve Apostles were directly chosen by Christ, subsequently, so was Paul. Matthias, however, was the choice of men (you keep saying Barsabbas).

Just to make sure I’m reading this correctly, you are denying the selection of Barsabas as an Apostle…correct?

Yes, so did the Apostles in Acts 1:26.

Are you also denying Judas as an Apostle?

Of course! You don’t? Jesus Himself called him a “devil” (Jn. 6:70). Do you really believe Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Christ and committed suicide, is numbered with the twelve??? That in the Kingdom to come, during the “regeneration” (this being an eschatological term in reference to national Israel) he will be one of them judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28)?

It would only make 12 if you deny Judas; otherwise, St. Paul would be the 13th Apostle (14th if you include Barsabas - which you aparently don’t).

There are always only 12 chosen by Christ. Judas forfeited his calling by betraying the Lord. But this was all within the foreknowledge and sovereignty of God.

In the regeneration to come Christ mentions only 12 “thrones” for 12 Apostles (Matt. 19:28). And in the New Jerusalem twelve foundation stones on which the 12 names of the 12 Apostles are written (Rev. 21:14). Throughout Scripture (from the Gospel accounts to Revelation) there are only twelve Apostles -not thirteen or fourteen.

Continued…

 

[linus]

Continued from previous post…

By the power of God’s word, quoted by St. Peter, the authority was there. Following a prayer for God’s guidance, lots were cast. This is exactly how the high priest was chosen in the OT. Do also you deny God’s role in selecting high priests in the OT?

Peter was known to crave for action in times of tension and could persuade others to follow him. In Acts chapter one he runs true to form. Rather than do what he was instructed to do by Christ, i.e., WAIT until the Holy Spirit descended, he took action into his own hands (Acts 1:4-5). Casting lots was a provision of the Law and Peter acted on an obsolete form; with the cross of Christ they were no longer under the Law (Lev. 16:8; Rom. 7:1-6). This was a demonstration of Peter’s yet immaturity. He ran ahead of God’s purpose in seeking a replacement; and all before Pentecost, the coming of the Spirit who would guide them. As you read further into the historical account of Acts it becomes obvious that it was Paul who was destined to fill the vacancy left by Judas Iscariot.

Of the the early writers you quote, none viewed the Roman Bishops the way Roman Catholicism presents them today, especially the “Pope.” Don’t read your own ecclesiastical concept into their writings. First of all, you need to remember that those early writings are not Dininely inspired - they’re expressed opinions of men and are subject to the limited knowledge, personal errors and church culture of their day. That’s why it is erroneous indeed to build Christian doctrine on those writings. Second, the exclusive, ecclesiastical, heirachical, office of Bishop (metropolitan and eventually patriarchal), with its unique authority, was developed after the Apostolic age and never sanctioned by Scripture. If you will study Church history you will see the eventual power struggle between the Patriarch (Bishop) of Constantinople and the Pope (Bishop) of Rome. Which eventually led to the division.

forgot to ask…are there Bishops in your church?

We have “elders” and “deacons.” Biblically, elders (Gr. presbuteros) and bishops (Gr. episkopos) are synonymous (see Titus 1:5, 7).

He turns bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, and forgives men’s sins. No pope has ever contradicted another in over 2000 years on a binding matter of faith and morals - Congress can’t go so much as a day. Are these miracles enough? What more would you require?

A REAL miracle!! Not something based on interpretation and assertion. Do you really think Paul had these things in mind when he wrote 2 Cor. 12:12??? I know you don’t, but you got backed into a corner and your only escape was to become irrational with your answers.

Blessings back at cha!

 

[DOXA]

MrS:

Come home to Rome, and the Pope will talk to you about it.

I’m affraid your right Rome was Catholic once.

 

[linus]

NotWorthy:

And your point is …?

Nobody is arguing whether Jesus chose Paul or not.

My point is that Paul received his Apostleship and ministry directly from Christ just like the other Apostles, not through the laying on of hands, i.e., the agency of man. The text states, quoting Christ Himself: “…he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel…” (Acts 9:15).

Note, not only was He called by Christ himself to be an Apostle, but his ministry was already determined by Christ. And Paul himself states: “Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead…” (Gal. 1:1).

Sir Knight, on the other hand, contends that Paul received his ministry through the “agency of man.” All in the context, of course, of supporting Apostolic succession.