Biblical evidence Peter no Pope

[JaneFrances]

Allis:

My curiosity is piqued. . .Do you really think that your assertion about the Last Supper is a viable arguement?

Truly. I appreciate your efforts to support and defend your position, but I am honestly interested if this particular arguement is really that strong for you. How did you fall upon this idea? Did someone teach this to you? Is it your own conclusion? Why did you throw out this idea–was it merely for argumentation or was this meant to bring about real discussion of Jewish custom and Christian Biblical interpretation?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Palamite:

Mickey,

Yikes, touchy. Sorry for calling the Pope “Vicar of Christ”.

etc., etc. yes, yes. And we also know the same St.John Chrysostom (as I’ve just shown) called Sts.John and James “heads” of the Church as well. He also explicitly teaches elsewhere that all of the Apostles “received the keys”, because he understands (as biblical context and the other Fathers who address this indicate) the “keys” to be a sign of the power to “bind and loose”, which St.Matthew 18:18 says was later promised to all of the Apostles.

Face it - the monarchic/pyramidal ecclessiology of the RCC with the Pope at the top, is not Patristic - it would not have even occured to Fathers like Pope St.Gregory the Great (who was always keen on guaranteeing the canonical rights of Rome in terms of it’s pre-eminance), who clearly taught that the idea of being a “Universal Patriarch” above all other Bishops amounted to a diminishing of the Priesthood of all Bishops, an arrogant pretense, and (his words, not mine, so don’t get angry with me) “precursor of the Anti-Christ”.

You aren’t reading very closely - he calls Sts.James and John this as well, and elsewhere (not cited, but I can find the passages if you’re interested) he applies this title (coryphaeus) to Sts.Andrew and Paul as well.

Besides, “first” - since when does “first” mean “universal juristiction” or “infallible” or “possessor of the two swords” (though recent Popes have gone pretty quiet about that idea)

Because, though a common doctrine, it was never a dogma. It was taught as a support for a more important doctrine - that regarding the way in which the authority of Rome impinged upon royal or imperial authority; in the first instance: later it developed into an articulation of how Church was related to State. Its particular metaphorical garb is an accessory to the doctrine, but is not itself the doctrine.​

Comparisons with swords or with the heavenly bodies are not themselves doctrines; at most, they may be side-effects of doctrines.

The mention in the Psalms of oil on Aaron’s beard, after all, is not a definition of the nature of friendship

or “above being judged by any man, including Ecumenical Councils”? I’d sooner believe what the Scriptures say. Namely that St.Peter was…

• the first to confess the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ (which the Fathers generally understand to be the bedrock of the Church - Simon bar Jonah was re-named because he, being the first confessor, is relatively so.)
• the first to receive the promise of the Priesthood (though he in fact received it at the same time as the other Apostles.)
• the first to preach the Gospel.
• the first to work miracles in Christ’s Name after Pentecost.
• among the first to suffer at the hands of men for Christ’s sake.
• the first to preside over the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the infant Church of Jerusalem.

I don’t see how his “firstness” makes him into an ecclessiastical autocrat. That’s certainly not how he behaved at the first Council of Jerusalem, where it was clearly St.James who was presiding (and no, taking the floor and articulating the truth does not make one the presider/president of an assembly, anymore than St.Athanasios’ persuasive witness to the truth of Christ’s Divinity made him “numero uno” save perhaps in terms of pleasing God.)

The first Papal title is found in the OT, and also in Matthew:​

Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

I think that puts things into perspective - I don’t think it is for him alone, but for us all ##

 

[Eireann]

Della:

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.

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.

Thanks for the explanation Della, it probably meant John was more switched on to the Love Jesus had for him.
Sorry about my spelling “observation” I have progressed from typing with two fingers to three.

Yes it is sometimes used a lot this love Jesus had for John, when Jesus never actually singled John out, it was like I said an observation from others, I assume.

 

[Mickey]

Gottle of Geer:

Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

I think that puts things into perspective - I don’t think it is for him alone, but for us all ##

This verse is a lesson in humilty. And yes, it is a lesson for us all.

 

[mlchance]

allischalmers:

All I can say is understanding Jewish customs of biblical times helps understand why things happen as they did.

Exactly so. Which is why it is accurate to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Queen of Heaven.

allischalmers:

but if you want to ignore that it is alright

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

swnunley:

Please refer to my post, #50.

I really should have known better.
Thanks!

 

[Della]

Eireann:

Thanks for the explanation Della, it probably meant John was more switched on to the Love Jesus had for him.
Sorry about my spelling “observation” I have progressed from typing with two fingers to three.

That is what I get from it, too–that John, in writing his Gospel, wanted to identify himself with this phrase as a statement of wonder over the fact that he, John, was loved–loved by the very Son of God. It was no doubt an epiphany he wanted to share with the readers of his Gospel.

And as for typos, etc., my high school typing teacher gave me a D, and that was out of the goodness of his heart because I deserved an F. And although I’ve had years of practice, I’m not much better than I was then. If it weren’t for the backspace bar and spelling checker nothing I write would make any sense at all!

Yes it is sometimes used a lot this love Jesus had for John, when Jesus never actually singled John out, it was like I said an observation from others, I assume.

It was John’s own observation, actually. Although others may have noted it not because Jesus showed partiality for personalities, but because they could see how John reacted to Jesus’ love for him. Does that make sense?

 

[Eden]

Just a hijack for a minute. Although we disagree with allischalmers’ theology, it is his birthday. So,

            http://bestsmileys.com/birthday1/5.gif


        http://bestsmileys.com/dancing/3.gif  http://bestsmileys.com/dancing/4.gif  http://bestsmileys.com/dancing/5.gif  http://bestsmileys.com/dancing/14.gif

 

[Eireann]

Della:

It was John’s own observation, actually. Although others may have noted it not because Jesus showed partiality for personalities, but because they could see how John reacted to Jesus’ love for him. Does that make sense?

Yes it does, like a flower to the sun, like John to Jesus.

 

[Della]

Eden:

Just a hijack for a minute. Although we disagree with allischalmers’ theology, it is his birthday. So,

            http://bestsmileys.com/birthday1/5.gif


        http://bestsmileys.com/dancing/3.gif  http://bestsmileys.com/dancing/4.gif  http://bestsmileys.com/dancing/5.gif  http://bestsmileys.com/dancing/14.gif

Hey! Great! Happy Birthday allischalmers! God bless!

 

[allischalmers]

Thank You Della !!

allischalmers

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

allischalmers:

All I can say is understanding Jewish customs of biblical times helps understand why things happen as they did. but if you want to ignore that it is alright.
Let me ask, how many cakes were on the Passover table, which one did Jesus take to share with the twelve, all these things help in understanding the last supper.

forever Baptist
allischalmers

I like the way you ignored Luke 22 above which proves that Jesus did NOT sit at the head of the table, but instead sat in the server’s position of the table.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I am still waiting…Luke 22, Jesus sat in the servers position.