Biblical evidence Peter no Pope

[Della]

Eireann:

It’s interesting that this has been said in the Bible, “the one whom Jesus loved” although off track here I’m assuming that this was an obervation from others, and not actual words of Jesus.

Yes, an important point. Actually, it is John himself who described himself (in the third person) as “the one whom Jesus loved.” He never records that Jesus said these word.

**Is there anything recorded that Jesus said He favoured John more than the rest of the Apostles ? **
I’m not trying to start a quarrel but I have wondered about this for a long time.
This would say to me that God has favourites, when I don’t think He has, just from listening to what Jesus said about John the Baptist would take care of that.
The least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.

True. So, what does John mean by saying he was “the one whom Jesus loved?” He means that he, John, was cognizant of the fact that Jesus loved him. That was his great insight and the linchpin of his apostolate–that God is love. He did not mean that Jesus loved him more than the others, but that he realized that Jesus loved him. St. Therese of Lisieux also came to this understanding in this profound way, which is why she declared that her mission was to be love in the heart of the Church.

 

[Palamite]

Mickey,

It is your anti-Roman Catholic sarcasm and your wordy cynicism that is not very becoming.

Who is being cynical - if the Pope gets to be a “Vicar of Christ”, I think it’s only fair that our two men (as well as the Archbishop of athens, the Archbishop of Thessaloniki, the Metropolitan of Corinth, etc. etc. all of the ones mentioned here having been founded by St.Paul) get the same props.

But I guess that’s the irony here - all bishops are successors of the Apostles, and all probably have lineages going back to any one of the coryphaei (plural in case you missed that) listed by Fathers like St.John Chrysostom. IOW. if one of them is the Vicar of Christ, they all are (and in a sense, this is in fact true - since St.Ignatios of Antioch does teach that the Bishop is to be reverenced and obeyed as Christ - get that, any Bishop, not simply ones reigning from St.John the Lateran.)

Yes, we’ve heard this argument from protestantism for a very long time. I’m not here to convince you otherwise.

Well put in it’s proper perspective, the Orthodox were rebuking the Popes for their pretended powers well before the Protestants got in on the action. Hence, this complaint of the Protestants, actually has a very sound basis, and is an “Orthodox position” rather than vice versa.

“See the unanimity of the apostles,” he says, on Acts 2:4: “they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach.” “Hear how this same John, who now comes forward (to ask for a seat at Christ’s right hand) in the Acts of the Apostles, always gives up the first place to Peter both in preaching and in working miracles. Afterwards James and John were not thus. Everywhere they gave up the first place to Peter, and in preaching they set him first, though he seemed of rougher manners than the others.”

Yeah, get a load of that - gave.

“I would willing ask those who wish to lessen the dignity of the Son: Which are the greater gifts, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son, but the Son gave to him to spread that of the Father and of Himself throughout the world, and to a mortal man He entrusted the power over all that is in heaven, in giving the keys to him who extended the Church throughout the world, and showed it stronger than the world.” (Hom 54[55] in Matt VII, 531[546] seq)

Yes, and guess what - St.John taught that all of the Apostles had “received” the keys.

*“For the Son of thunder [ed. - St.John the Apostle], the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now.” (Volume XIV, St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1)

Indeed, it would seem typology is lost on RC’s here - they’re being slavishly literalistic. After all, their favourite Father (St.Augustine) teaches…

“For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy which he bore among the Disciples; as it is written, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other passages of like purport: so Judas doth represent those Jews who were enemies of Christ.” (Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 119)

IOW. St.Augustine is of the same mind as St.Cyprian, who also understood St.Peter to be a “type” of the Episcopate/Priesthood in general.

Interestingly, St.Augustine also taught (among his self revised opinions - many RC’s forget that St.Augustine changed his mind a few times on certain issues)…

"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer." (Sermon 229)

Again, St.Peter personally was a foundation only in a typological/relative sense - the same way that all Bishops ultimatly draw their authority in relation to their confession (since a heretical Bishop is in reality, no shepherd at all.)

 

[Mickey]

Palamite:

Who is being cynical - if the Pope gets to be a “Vicar of Christ”, I think it’s only fair that our two men (as well as the Archbishop of athens, the Archbishop of Thessaloniki, the Metropolitan of Corinth, etc. etc. all of the ones mentioned here having been founded by St.Paul) get the same props.

Go for it pal!

Palamite:

Hence, this complaint of the Protestants, actually has a very sound basis, and is an “Orthodox position” rather than vice versa.

If you say so.

Palamite:

Indeed, it would seem typology is lost on RC’s here - they’re being slavishly literalistic.

And you are not?

Palamite:

Again, St.Peter personally was a foundation only in a typological/relative sense - the same way that all Bishops ultimatly draw their authority in relation to their confession (since a heretical Bishop is in reality, no shepherd at all.)

I do not separate the man from his confession.

“If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world.”(Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88, Migne PG 59:478,

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Augustine Sermons 295:2 A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Augustine Commentary on John 56:1 A.D. 416]).

 

[Palamite]

Mickey,

I do not separate the man from his confession.

Funny, St.Augustine does.

“If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world.”(Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88, Migne PG 59:478,

It’s precisely this type of citation which makes me doubt the honesty of many (though not all) RC apologists. Here is a more complete citation of this same passage…

"Here again He alludeth to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

Ver. 20, 21. “Then Peter turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who also leaned on His breast at supper; and saith, Lord, and what shall this man do?”

…(keep reading)…

Ver. 23. “Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple ed. - St.John the Evangelist) should not die; yet Jesus said not that he shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”

“Do not thou on any account suppose,” He saith, “that I order your matters after a single rule.” And this He did to withdraw them from their unseasonable sympathy for each other ed. - St.Peter and St.John]; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together; for assuredly this would have been a great loss to the world." (Volume XIV, St.John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2)

Also, let’s not forget what is so often neglected in these types of discussions - apart from the issue of whether or not St.Peter had the same relationship to the other Apostles that the Pope believes he has with the world wide episcopate, there is the matter of just why anyone should believe the Pope is somehow especially entitled to claim this alleged “unique Petrine authority” for himself? Did St.Peter only ordain a single Bishop in Rome? Is there a Holy Order above “Bishop” we’re unaware of? Are all men who are elected to the Papacy ordained Bishops in this unique lineage? If not, what makes one’s simply occupying the cathedral of Rome (as opposed to that of say, Antioch or Jerusalem?) a unique inheritor of anything other than the prestige of reigning over the Church blessed with the martyrdoms of Sts.Peter, Paul, and so many others?

 

[JaneFrances]

WOW. . .Augustinian sword drills! That’s almost as fun as Scripture. We could pick and choose our favorite quotation from St. Augustine to support our presuppositions all day, but in the end are we any closer to the truth? St. Augustine is a Doctor of the Church. He recognized the primacy of Peter and by his actions and writings supported the office of the Roman Pontiff. If we wanted, we could find a quotation somewhere, in some homily, that suggests St. Augustine had a broader understanding of Scripture than most of us are accustomed to. This fact, however, does not prove that he in any way opposed the Pope or ever refuted the primacy of Peter. As always, the context is just as important as the quotation. It is a true to challenge to read any work of St. Augustine in its entirity and still draw the conclusion that his “ideas” were somehow opposed to Catholic teaching.

 

[JaneFrances]

. . .And if I may suggest some light reading. . .

newadvent.org/fathers/1701124.htm

This is truly a wonderful work of St. Augustine precisely addressing the different roles of St. Peter and St. John in the Church and how their roles affect our sojourn in this life. In it, you are sure to find good singular quotations that would support both sids of the arguement at hand. Yet, having read the whole work, it is hard to escape or deny St. Augustine’s blatant Catholicity.

 

[Mickey]

Palamite:

Funny, St.Augustine does.

Context, context, context.

Palamite:

It’s precisely this type of citation which makes me doubt the honesty of many (though not all) RC apologists. Here is a more complete citation of this same passage…

Those pesky dishonest RC apologists.

“Peter, therefore, turning seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also reclined on His breast at supper, following, and saith: ‘Lord, what shall this man do?’ Why did he mention the reclining? Not without reason or by chance, but to show what confidence Peter had after his fall. For he who then had not dared to ask a question, but committed it to another, was given the presidency over the brethren. And he not only commits his own case to another, but even himself puts a question to the Master about another, and John this time is silent, while it is Peter who speaks…Peter loved John greatly…Since then He foretold great things for Peter, and entrusted him with the world, and predicted his martyrdom and testified that his love was greater than that of the others, Peter wishing to receive John as his fellow, saith: And what of this man? Shall he not go the same way?”

Palamite:

Also, let’s not forget what is so often neglected in these types of discussions - apart from the issue of whether or not St.Peter had the same relationship to the other Apostles that the Pope believes he has with the world wide episcopate, there is the matter of just why anyone should believe the Pope is somehow especially entitled to claim this alleged “unique Petrine authority” for himself?

“In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me” (viz. St. Flavian, his bishop) “our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself.” (Hom in inscr Act II, 6, vol III, 86[70])

Palamite:

Did St.Peter only ordain a single Bishop in Rome? Is there a Holy Order above “Bishop” we’re unaware of? Are all men who are elected to the Papacy ordained Bishops in this unique lineage? If not, what makes one’s simply occupying the cathedral of Rome (as opposed to that of say, Antioch or Jerusalem?) a unique inheritor of anything other than the prestige of reigning over the Church blessed with the martyrdoms of Sts.Peter, Paul, and so many others?

The Fathers really believed that Peter (though sharing a common office with the other Apostles) was also charged by Jesus with a sacred office and duty particular to him and his successors, given the right (authority) to carry out his mission, and given the blessings and grace necessary to serve. This is what the Church is supposed to esteem and what the Fathers did esteem: service.

 

[Mickey]

JaneFrances:

WOW. . .Augustinian sword drills! That’s almost as fun as Scripture. We could pick and choose our favorite quotation from St. Augustine to support our presuppositions all day, but in the end are we any closer to the truth? St. Augustine is a Doctor of the Church. He recognized the primacy of Peter and by his actions and writings supported the office of the Roman Pontiff. If we wanted, we could find a quotation somewhere, in some homily, that suggests St. Augustine had a broader understanding of Scripture than most of us are accustomed to. This fact, however, does not prove that he in any way opposed the Pope or ever refuted the primacy of Peter. As always, the context is just as important as the quotation. It is a true to challenge to read any work of St. Augustine in its entirity and still draw the conclusion that his “ideas” were somehow opposed to Catholic teaching.

Yes Jane,

Unfortunately there are those who would dedicate their lives to the scholarly pursuit of disproving the petrine primacy. Some do it out of ignorance. Others have been wounded in some way by the worldly element within the Church and so they carry a subtle and sometimes subconscious axe to grind. I pray for them all–that their wounds will be healed by the grace of God.

The worst of sinners,
Mickey

 

[jim1130]

JaneFrances:

WOW. . .Augustinian sword drills! That’s almost as fun as Scripture. We could pick and choose our favorite quotation from St. Augustine to support our presuppositions all day, but in the end are we any closer to the truth? St. Augustine is a Doctor of the Church. He recognized the primacy of Peter and by his actions and writings supported the office of the Roman Pontiff. If we wanted, we could find a quotation somewhere, in some homily, that suggests St. Augustine had a broader understanding of Scripture than most of us are accustomed to. This fact, however, does not prove that he in any way opposed the Pope or ever refuted the primacy of Peter. As always, the context is just as important as the quotation. It is a true to challenge to read any work of St. Augustine in its entirity and still draw the conclusion that his “ideas” were somehow opposed to Catholic teaching.

Peace.

Is it true that St. Augustine dealt more with symbolism in his writings, which makes him more desireable for non-Catholics since he often wrote figuratively and allegorically, occasionally allowing for his writings to be misinterpreted?

Peace.

 

[swnunley]

We’ve all done pretty well rebutting Allis’ post. We’ve offered up history, the Church fathers, and other theological items, but very few scriptures have been offered, in keeping with her request of biblical proof of Peter being appointed as the 1st pope.

Well, I’ll give it a try. Here goes. Perhaps not the most definitive list of scriptures, but it’s a start.

Primacy of Peter
Mt 16:18 ~ upon this rock I will build my church
Mt 16:19 ~ keys of the kingdom, power to bind/loose
Lk 22:32 ~ prayed faith not fail, when you return, strengthen brothers
Jn 21:17 ~ given Christ’s flock, good shepherd
Mk 6:7 ~ angel announces resurrection to Peter
Lk 21:34 ~ risen Jesus 1st appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 ~ leads election of Matthias
Acts 2:14 ~ led Apostles preaching on Pentacost
Acts 3:6-7 ~ performs 1st miracle after Pentacost
Acts 5:1-11 ~ inflicts 1st punishment
Acts 8:21 ~ excommunicated 1st heretic
Acts 10:44-46 ~ revelation Gentiles baptised
Acts 15 ~ led 1st council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:17 ~ pronounces 1st dogmatic decision
Gal 1:8 ~ Paul visits Peter after conversion
Peter’s name heads list of Apostles:
-Mt 10:1-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions…”:

• Lk 9:32, 8:46, Mk 16:7
  Peter spoke for the Apostles:
• Mt 18:21, Mk 8:29, Lk 12:41, Jn 6:69

I would like to add one more thing. Some of us have not been as charitable as we should have been, however. We need to keep in mind that the written word in mediums like this can come accross as harsher than we meant. Every non-Catholic that comes here is a potential convert, and we shouldn’t make them feel unwelcome, as some of us have been when visiting their churches - your truly included. We need to reach out in love and compassion while we “give them a reason for our joy”.

 

[JaneFrances]

jim1130:

Peace.

Is it true that St. Augustine dealt more with symbolism in his writings, which makes him more desireable for non-Catholics since he often wrote figuratively and allegorically, occasionally allowing for his writings to be misinterpreted?

Peace.

Good point in question.

From my research and understanding, St. Augustine’s interpretive and teaching styles, while well within the bounds of Catholic doctrine, seem much broader than our modern sensitivities would often tolerate. Indeed, he does wax metaphorical in many of his spiritual writings which would lend itself well to wide misinterpretation. However, it is essential to keep in mind that St. Augustine’s writings (while profitable and authoritative given his postition as bishop) are not in any way on par with Scripture or the Deposit of Faith. This is precisely why one must always consider the whole body of his work and writing when drawing conclusions about his position on a topic such as Petrine primacy, for instance.

 

[VociMike]

Della:

So, what does John mean by saying he was “the one whom Jesus loved?” He means that he, John, was cognizant of the fact that Jesus loved him. That was his great insight and the linchpin of his apostolate–that God is love. He did not mean that Jesus loved him more than the others, but that he realized that Jesus loved him. St. Therese of Lisieux also came to this understanding in this profound way, which is why she declared that her mission was to be love in the heart of the Church.

This is actually quite interesting, and something I never pondered before. I wonder if we could say that John realized that his entire identity (his entire existence, even) derived from the fact of God’s love? Much to think about here!

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Did I miss it somewhere or did anyone not mention John 21:15-17

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You " He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You " Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

 

[Tom]

RobbyS:

Since both Peter and Paul died in Rome, and given the huge impact that Paul had, then Peter must have been something special for the Church of Rome to trace its authority to Peter alone rather than both of the apostles.

So let me get this straight, at the Last Supper, when Jesus establishes His Church and institutes the leadership of His earthly Church, you think He establishes Saul, who would persecute and kill His followers? Yeah, O.K. or are you saying Peter was indeed the leader? sorry I’m sooo confused…

 

[ChristsSoldier]

Mickey:

Yes Jane,

Unfortunately there are those who would dedicate their lives to the scholarly pursuit of disproving the petrine primacy. Some do it out of ignorance. Others have been wounded in some way by the worldly element within the Church and so they carry a subtle and sometimes subconscious axe to grind. I pray for them all–that their wounds will be healed by the grace of God.

The worst of sinners,
Mickey

Be Blessed
There are protestants, since Luther, who understand the need to destroy the Petrine office - or any other tenant of the RC faith. Funny how they use the book protected by the RC to do it… Fortunately, with the help of the Holy Spirit there are others who see Mt 16 for what it is…

There is an article on here somewhere that discusses this argument from a different perspective. Rather than look at how we see Peter today, or what Christ meant when speaking to Peter, it discusses how Peter saw himself.

Blowing well past the tired arguments of 1 Peter 5:1 and diving into 2 Peter (which is a reiteration of 1 Peter, a stressing of divine authority, and a argument against false teaching).

From 2 Peter, regardless of who wrote it (new thread), it is clear that he, himself, understood his office as did Paul. He understands, like Moses, the voice he heard from heaven bestowed upon him prophetic authority.

I will search the article and post it here.

Peace,
CS

 

[ChristsSoldier]

The article I mentioned.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9906fea4.asp

Be Blessed
CS

2 Peter 18 - 21
We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

 

[Della]

Originally Posted by Della
So, what does John mean by saying he was “the one whom Jesus loved?” He means that he, John, was cognizant of the fact that Jesus loved him. That was his great insight and the linchpin of his apostolate–that God is love. He did not mean that Jesus loved him more than the others, but that he realized that Jesus loved him. St. Therese of Lisieux also came to this understanding in this profound way, which is why she declared that her mission was to be love in the heart of the Church.

VociMike:

This is actually quite interesting, and something I never pondered before. I wonder if we could say that John realized that his entire identity (his entire existence, even) derived from the fact of God’s love? Much to think about here!

Yes, especially when we consider he wrote his Gospel many years after the others, and so wrote a more spiritual interpretation of Jesus’ life and mission, upon which he had no doubt meditated in great depth. And, that he and he alone of all the Apostles actually witnessed Christ’s death on the cross. I can only imagine what impression that left on the heart and mind of such a sensitive young man as he.

 

[swnunley]

Joe Gloor:

Did I miss it somewhere or did anyone not mention John 21:15-17

Please refer to my post, #50.

 

[super64]

hello,

John wes the one sitting a Jesus (who was the Host) right side.

Jesus was not the host…or did you mean THE host, as in “communion host”. Well anyway, since Jesus didn’t have a house to live in, he wouldn’t be the host.(Mark14:12-16)

Mar 14:12 And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
Mar 14:13 And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, “**Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him,
Mar 14:14 and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ ** Mar 14:15 And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us.”
Mar 14:16 And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover
ESV

The owner of that house was the host.

Scott

 

[Eden]

super64:

Jesus was not the host…or did you mean THE host, as in “communion host”.