Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Tomyris]

Problem being the post scriptural support for the Trinity and for determining what scripture to look at (what is scripture) is equally suspect to you.

So you just arbitrarily determine what to consider and what not. Perhaps you are infallible? Most Protestants are their own authority which is why they despise the papacy so much. It’s tough putting trust in God/the church as opposed to yourself.

Wow. You wanna change the subject, since you have nothing to add that is constructive?

Does this thread make me look fat?

 

[Tomyris]

The reformation was the blow that made the world and some Christians, follow their own whims under the guise of following the Hoy Spirit. Jesus said the road is narrow that leads to life ,and wide that leads to damnation.

God Bless

And this fits here how?

 

[onenow1]

1. There is no indication here of any sort of position over the others.

Any objections?

Depends who is interpreting the scripture, the church Jesus established or some that do not want to listen to it. I think it pretty obvious when Jesus talks of lambs and sheep to Peter this is a commandment to instruct them; the sheep the Apostles, the Lambs the disciples now and to come.

God Bless

 

[onenow1]

And this fits here how?

Look at the world and Christianity today. Christianity divided, the world following its pride doing Satins promptings, trying to extinguish it completely.

God Bless

 

[Jon_S_1]

Wow. You wanna change the subject, since you have nothing to add that is constructive?

Does this thread make me look fat?

Sorry but it is the subject if you want to reject all extra biblical documents. We have to say, why. You cannot give a valid reason…hence your unproductive comment.

 

[Karen107]

Wow this has been really active since last night…

Let me add this:.

The Father has all the authority but passed that authority to Jesus as the begotten Son of God…

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

John 3:35
The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.

And Jesus who had the authority passed His authority to Peter.

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter. and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Why? Because God wanted us to be GATHERED by being led in through the main Shepherd on Earth.- the Pope who has the keys to heaven

Why? Because the plan was that God would gather us in Through His Church…Psalm 106:47 Save us, LORD our God, and gather us from the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name and glory in your praise.

What happens when a person leaves this gathering? They become the sheep who lost their way. Do I believe they will be saved? I like to believe everyone will be saved, but it’s not for me to decide it’s for Jesus to decide.

That’s what I believe as truth. People may not accept that but this is the way I accept it and why I am Catholic.

God bless you all… May peace find you today…!

 

[adrift]

There would have been no need to change any of their names at that point because Peter’s profession of faith had already been made in front of the other disciples. John the Baptist had professed Jesus Son of God and Andrew (along with just one other) heard from the Baptist that Jesus was the Lamb of God. Then Andrew told his brother Simon Peter that Jesus was the Messiah. This is from Jn 1:29-41 and can be found here:

usccb.org/bible/john/1

Then Peter made the profession to the rest of the disciples in Matt 16. Yes only from God could Peter have known. But what Andrew had heard from the Baptist and then told Simon could have been from God. Jn 1:6 in the above link even says John was sent from God. So anyway once they all knew about Christ there was no need to change their names too. Peter’s name could have been changed because it so happened to be Peter who made this profession of faith to all the rest. And then upon his profession of faith that Christ was the Savior the Son of God, Christ’s Church could have been built. Not necessarily upon Peter. But just 2 different faith interpretations and beliefs is all we’re dealing with when it comes to Peter. It’s all a matter of faith and belief.

You really think this answers my question?

When God changed a name it was a momentous event.
Abram which means high father was changed to Abraham father of nations. His wife Sarai, meaning my princes was changed to Sarah meaning Mother of all nations. We know that God promised to Abraham 5 He took him outside and said: “Look up at the sky and count the stars, if you can. Just so,” he added, “shall your descendants be.” The name change was indicative of the role that God had for him. Not only is the the name change significant but what the name is changed to is also significant.
Jacob wrestles with an angle and has his name which means supplanter changed to Israel meaning having power with God. He had stolen his inheritance God wanted to make sure that is inheritance is from God and not through his manipulation. There is a lot of reasons put forth for this name change and the exact meaning is disputed but one thing is clear with each name change there is a significant change a new life that these people lead.
Peter is no different. He is the only one who has his name changed in the New Testament. His name is changed to Rock. Like those before him with name changes it is not insignificant. It is the beginning of a change. Like Abraham who is father of a nation Peter is who Jesus is building His Church upon. Like Jacob who was not perfect, Peter is not perfect, get behind me Satan, but it wasn’t out of selfishness but out of love of Jesus misplace as it was. It wasn’t until the Holy Spirit descends on him that he becomes the rock Jesus knew he would be

 

[adrift]

Randy:

Quit spamming the thread. It is against Form Rules and is rude. I don’t and I won’t read posts that long. I just consider it trash you threw on the thread and it is not worth responding to.

Thank you for your cooperation.

What and whom are you referring too?

Randy Carson post are short. He is not spamming but his post are hard to refute.

 

[adrift]

1. There is no indication here of any sort of position over the others.

Or is it that you don’t want to see it? Jesus prayed for Peter’s faith not to fail.
Jesus tells Peter that once he has turned back he must strengthen the other apostles. That is a leadership role.

1. Keep reading (as I said earlier in the thread). v22ff was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say something along the lines of “there’s a good shepherd, Peter”. Instead Jesus chews him out for what seems to be Peter trying to do pastoral ministry. “What about this man?” Jesus essentially tells him that what happens to John is none of Peter’s business - just about the exact opposite of what you would expect of Jesus was putting Peter in a position over John. It is clear from this passage that Jesus was denying Peter such a place as it seems he coveted.

v22ff is not a standard way of citing scripture as a result it is hard to follow what scripture you are referring to. If this is the same as you mentioned before, it was Jesus rebuking Peter for trying to dissuade Jesus from His mission.
It seems you might be referring to John 21:23. Which seems you are throwing things out to see if something sticks. Since I am unsure what passage your refer to it has become clear as mud.
Jesus is only saying that it is not for Peter to know. What He doesn’t say is that your not in charge so why do you need to know? Peter isn’t above Jesus which is what you seem to think a Pope would be. Peter is the vicar of Jesus. He represents Jesus not rules Him.

If this is true, then the papacy is a result of Peter’s carnal lust for power, not the will of God. I am surprised that Catholics are not tamely and docilely going along with this theory. I mean, it would overthrow much of what is regarded as Sacred Tradition and the church structure and hierarchy, so I expect you would take it calmly. Not much at stake.

It is not true. It was Jesus who gave him this position. I give you the Keys if you understood what this meant in scripture you wouldn’t be making up these attacks on Peter.

I read that over and added the word “carnal” just to keep you happy. I am not sure it will, though.

Any objections?

 

[KathleenGee]

Randy Carson…you did great work in your presentation.

I think the bottom line is accepting the Church 's authority over private interpretation outside the Church.

Bottom line of issue is authority.

 

[SteveVH]

Randy:

Quit spamming the thread. It is against Form Rules and is rude. I don’t and I won’t read posts that long. I just consider it trash you threw on the thread and it is not worth responding to.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I just read through this entire thread and was a little shocked at this. Randy’s posts are short and to the point. What in the heck are you talking about?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy:

Quit spamming the thread. It is against Form Rules and is rude. I don’t and I won’t read posts that long. I just consider it trash you threw on the thread and it is not worth responding to.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Five Presbyterian theologians have acknowledged that Peter is the rock.

Do you plan on interacting with that material?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I explained above: post-Scriptural material that advocates that Peter was the head of the church is suspect, for the purpose of this thread.

We need to look at Scripture alone for this one.

I already proved this to you back in post #75.

Do you plan on interacting with that material?

 

[Denise1957]

1. There is no indication here of any sort of position over the others.
2. Keep reading (as I said earlier in the thread). v22ff was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say something along the lines of “there’s a good shepherd, Peter”. Instead Jesus chews him out for what seems to be Peter trying to do pastoral ministry. “What about this man?” Jesus essentially tells him that what happens to John is none of Peter’s business - just about the exact opposite of what you would expect of Jesus was putting Peter in a position over John. It is clear from this passage that Jesus was denying Peter such a place as it seems he coveted.

If this is true, then the papacy is a result of Peter’s carnal lust for power, not the will of God. I am surprised that Catholics are not tamely and docilely going along with this theory. I mean, it would overthrow much of what is regarded as Sacred Tradition and the church structure and hierarchy, so I expect you would take it calmly. Not much at stake.

Wow. So you believe that it is clear that Jesus was denying Peter; therefore you believe that the Papacy is the result of Peter’s carnal lust for power. Is that what your view is?

As a non-Catholic, you are allowed to question or disagree with Church teaching here, but you are not allowed to put forth such an extreme anti-Catholic viewpoint such as the one above.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I explained above: post-Scriptural material that advocates that Peter was the head of the church is suspect, for the purpose of this thread.

We need to look at Scripture alone for this one.

Scripture alone will support Peter a lot more.

 

[spina1953]

I explained above: post-Scriptural material that advocates that Peter was the head of the church is suspect, for the purpose of this thread.

We need to look at Scripture alone for this one.

It seems to me that it is the manor and way in which wants to interpret Scripture. Many interpret Scripture to make it mean what they want it to mean instead of what the author of a book of Scripture had in mind and what he was imparting to the readers. The intend and the meaning of the authors is the more important and one should never put idea’s into it that the author did not intend, but interpret it in the same way that brings the same understanding that the author wants his readers to understand.

Whenever the modern person interprets Scripture with modern thinking as opposed to how the ancient reader or hearer thought and understood it brings misunderstandings and misinterpretations of what was originally understood, and leads to even with good intentions down a path different from what was taught since the beginning. This is way we need the CC to help us to understand as they pass what the Apostles taught having been taught by Christ Himself.

 

[guanophore]

Well, that is what a lot of Protestants believe, but since it probably is of no interest to anyone around here, I will just let this little thread die a lonely,miserable death. Sigh.

He did not, since the Church can only have One Head.

He did, however, appoint Peter as Royal Steward, as discussed on another thread currently.

I must say, in the last few months of reading threads at CAF I have more and more appreciated the role of the successor of Peter as the visible sign of unity on earth.

 

[guanophore]

Well, verse 23 follows pretty quickly, does it not? That’s where Jesus called him Satan. Right after Peter does something that sounds authoritative. Sounds to me like Peter was being presumptuous and got strongly rebuked for thinking he was in charge.

On the contrary, his lack of understanding and support of Christ’s last pilgrimmage to Jerusalem did not relieve him of the office Jesus appointed for him.

He was not rebuked over exercising authority wrongly, but because he was looking from the wrong perspective on the big picture. The passage is excellent as demonstration that no matter the failings of Peter (and his successors) there will always be Christ to make him stand, and to lead him into all Truth.

The authority given to Peter is to feed and care for the flock. He was not given authority to feed his own ego.

 

[guanophore]

That’s not what Peter, nor the bishops in the early church taught. That doctrine would take hundreds of years to show up.

Well, we read it differently, obviously. I do not see anyone in the Early Church acting apart from unity with Peter.

However I do agree that our understanding of the role of the successor Peter has developed over time. Now more than ever, with such huge fragmentation of the Body, we need a visible sign of unity.

Warren Carroll also advocated that folks like me be tortured and killed by the RC denomination. I am thinking he wasn’t serious but it left a foul taste in my mouth.

Yes, I read that. I didnt think it was a case of “advocating” as much as noting it was no longer an option. I hought it was funny at the time, but I can see why you would be sensitve to it.

Anyway, the bishops of the early church accepted that the Petrine ministry is for ALL the bishops.

The apostles taught that Holy Ordination was to be taken up into the priestly ministry of Christ. For that reason, all the ordained, whether Deacons, Priests, or Bishops are part of the task of feeding and care for the flock. All this is to be done in unity with the Head, and with the authority He appointed. The other Bishops do not fulfill their duties to feed and care for the flock in isolation from, or opposition to Peter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We need to look at Scripture alone for this one.

SPAM-FREE POST

Peter – The Rock, Keeper of the Keys and Royal Steward
Proved From Scripture

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-19)

Peter’s understanding that Jesus was the Son of God did not come from working it out on his own; God the Father infused this revelation into Peter’s mind thus imprinting His seal of approval upon the humble fisherman. In turn, Jesus recognized that Simon had already been anointed by His Father in this way, and He declared, “Blessed are you” because the Father had already blessed Simon with knowledge of the Son. Speaking in His native tongue, Aramaic, Jesus gave Simon a new name, “Kepha”, the Aramaic word that means “rock”. Jesus declared, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.”

Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was written in Greek, and “Kepha” would have been translated into the Greek words for “rock” which are “petra” or “petros”. “Petra” is the feminine form of the masculine word, “petros”, and obviously, “petros” is the more suitable form for a man’s name. From “petros” we derive the English name, “Peter”. For us modern readers then, Jesus’ pronouncement reads, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”, but we must never lose sight of the fact that in the original language used by Jesus, Simon is clearly identified as the rock upon which the Church would be built by Jesus. Jesus announced His intention to establish His Church (singular – not “churches” plural) and His choice of Peter as its leader.

What is it about Peter’s character that caused Jesus to compare him to something as solid as rock? Isn’t this the same Peter who Jesus called “Satan” just a few verses later? (cf. Mt 16:23) Isn’t this the same Peter who would deny the Lord three times after his arrest? (cf. Lk 22:34) Surely this unstable character is anything but solid rock upon which a Church could be built; yet, Jesus sees something deeper in Peter’s character, and His choice would be vindicated when Peter ultimately received a martyr’s crown via crucifixion.

Matthew also tells us that Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”. In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else.

How does this relate to what we have learned from Matthew? In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

Thus, we know that Jesus is a king who will reign forever. Matthew tells us that that King Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Although Peter died as a martyr (as Jesus foretold), the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office of royal steward that Jesus established in His royal court.

(cont.)