Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Peter_J]

Tomyris;12445194:

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.

Well infallibility hadn’t been declared yet !?

Oh you. shaw:

 

[Peter_J]

When they argued about who was the greatest among them, did Jesus say Peter? No. It was a perfect opportunity.

Perhaps it would have been too prone to misunderstanding if he did.

 

[shelby_sun]

Does it really matter who was head of the Church 200 years ago? The Catholic Church as evolved into a very different entity from 2000 years ago. It has clarified teaching and doctrine over time. We have had some wonderful Popes leading the Church and some not so wonderful, but through it ll God keeps revealing Himself. Although knowing the Church’s history, it seems, IMO, that people too often focusing on 2000 years ago instead of trying to see God in the present world.

 

[KathleenGee]

Many do not believe in the one universal Church because of the issue of authority.

It was always there, beginning with Peter being given the keys, this action most readily understood by the Jewish people in those days, as there was one person who held the keys of authority, and wore even a large key on his person, going back to Isaiah.

So when Peter was given the keys to heaven, the Jews all knew his authority was given to him, to his person as the primary apostle, the most referred to in the Gospels.

So today, you can point out all sorts of facts and references but people will not believe because they would then have to recognize the Church, instituted by Christ, was given His authority.

It is about authority and the consistency of faith and practice, our communion binding and not to be broken.

If people could only accept the authority given to Peter and his successors because we enjoy much communion and peace in the Church, and experience the universality of faith in mankind.

 

[sudy]

I’d like to ask my questions again, please, as I didn’t see any answers to them.

1 If the succession of Peter was not important, why did the Apostles appoint Linus?

2 Considering that Paul did most of the evangelizing to the Gentiles in the Bible, why did Jesus appoint Peter to feed His sheep?

3 What purpose did it serve Jesus to give the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter?

4 Why did Peter declare at the Council of Jerusalem that God had made a choice among us, that Peter should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers?

I haven’t come here to look for an argument, I’m just curious about all of your differing views. Thanks.

Thank you all for your answers it’s interesting to read the differing views… regardless of what our own opinions are. Although it’s probably pretty clear already, I’m Roman Catholic; everything in the Bible steers (me) in this direction. I’m certainly not looking to discredit our Orthodox brothers and sisters who are also Catholic and have done everything in their power to remain true to the faith, and I know that the Holy Father is taking great steps in the attempt towards unity.

The Catechism clearly states (818-819) that one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these other faith communities and that there are many elements of sanctification and of truth found outside the Catholic Church as well as gifts of the Holy Spirit.

If any of you are interested, there are some statements and dates on this webpage americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm of what the Early Church Fathers had to say on and around this subject. I imagine it should be easy enough to check the veracity of these… although I personally haven’t.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Isaiah: Were Timothy and the others you are thinking of in Rome when both Peter and Paul were executed? Seems to me that they weren’t. besides peter was in Rome long before St. Paul came to Rome.

The point is that Peter is nothing without the others inasmuch the others are nothing without Peter.

Just like the others are nothing without Paul inasmuch Paul is nothing without the others.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Many do not believe in the one universal Church because of the issue of authority.

It was always there, beginning with Peter being given the keys, this action most readily understood by the Jewish people in those days, as there was one person who held the keys of authority, and wore even a large key on his person, going back to Isaiah.

So when Peter was given the keys to heaven, the Jews all knew his authority was given to him, to his person as the primary apostle, the most referred to in the Gospels.

So today, you can point out all sorts of facts and references but people will not believe because they would then have to recognize the Church, instituted by Christ, was given His authority.

It is about authority and the consistency of faith and practice, our communion binding and not to be broken.

If people could only accept the authority given to Peter and his successors because we enjoy much communion and peace in the Church, and experience the universality of faith in mankind.

:nope:

Sigh… Why don’t we just ignore everything and go along with the Catholic crowd?

Because there are not enough cafeterias in the world to hold us.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I see I should have been clearer

When you asked for what started the seperation #632 , I gave 2 links as an pverview in post #642.
Then Card Ratzinger, looking back on 2000 years of history, notes the patriarchal system that focused on equalizing sees, as in making 5 sees equal in authority with Rome only being 1st among equals was never accepted by any Roman pontiff. The thought of creating such a system which began in the East, was laying the seeds for a train wreck. That argument on a much smaller scale already took place in the upper room after the last supper. Jesus settled the argument the apostles were having over who is the greatest among THEM. Satan is behind that kind of argument as Jesus tells them. (Lk 22:24…] But as one can see, it’s Peter AGAIN that gets the nod from Jesus as the greatest among the apostles.

The 2nd link I provided in post 642 was from The Melkite Bp John. His history of his Church in Antioch was 1st Catholic, then Orthodox, then back to Catholic.

I thought he made his point extremely well in discussing this issue of supreme authority in the Church.

Stevie B!

My favorite formatting poster!

Well… Bp John makes a very compelling argument.

But it’s still not an invention

 

[spina1953]

The point is that Peter is nothing without the others inasmuch the others are nothing without Peter.

Just like the others are nothing without Paul inasmuch Paul is nothing without the others.

Hi Isaiah’ True enough, but still it does not answer the question, I asked were the Timothy others in Rome electing Peter, IOW’s how many Bishops did Paul elect in Rome?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Isaiah’ True enough, but still it does not answer the question, I asked were the Timothy others in Rome electing Peter, IOW’s how many Bishops did Paul elect in Rome?

The same as Peter.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So you admit it!

Yes, that is not a full list

 

[Peter_J]

The point is that Peter is nothing without the others inasmuch the others are nothing without Peter.

Upon reading ^^ this I was going to say “I’m surprised you’d make that much of a concession.”

Then after reading,

Just like the others are nothing without Paul inasmuch Paul is nothing without the others.

now I guess I’m just puzzled.

 

[joe371]

guanophore;12476396]It is precisely this idea of supremacy that was “developed” in the West. There is no evidence in the first millenia of the universal, immediate jurisdiction that was later claimed by the Papal office.

I simply meant that Peter would not have believed that he was supreme over any other man. That, however, does not deny the Petrine office which began with Peter, and recognized by those leaders in the east.

No, the Eastern Church has not “changed”. They do not engage in the development of doctrine the way we do in the West. For the other Sees, the Primacy and the Keys never meant what the Latin Patriarch later determined that they meant.

They never engaged in the development of doctrine e.g. the trinity? The Catholic church was one back then…Yes, they were involved in the development of the Trinity…

Further, decisions about interpreting the meaning of the Once for All divine deposit of faith, in the first millenia, were always made with the participation of the other Sees.

Catholics agree.

That means that the West departed from the practices and beliefs of the other Sees, in order to expand and expound upon the role of the successor of Peter.

It is not fair now, to accuse THEM of departing!

Let’s just say: they separated. We have all read church history, and I do not see what you are claiming. Let’s just use scripture since quoting ECFs gets us nowhere fast. Scripture is real clear about the church in Matthew vis-a-vis Peter, in Matthew 16.

Statement 1 - “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Statement 2 - and I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Statement 3 - I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The exegetical structure of the passage demands that Peter be the rock: Statements 1 and 3 have Peter as their principal subject -agreed? Therefore statement 2 does as well - agreed?

Statements 1 and 3 are blessings on Peter, therefore statement 2 is as well - agreed? The elaborations in statements 1 and 3 develop the meaning of the assertions in those statement, therefore the elaborations in statement 2 develop the meaning of statement 2.

It does not seem logical for any Christian to conclude that Jesus would bless Peter for what the Father had revealed; bless him again after telling him **(you are rock and on this rock I will build my church) **by saying - "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And then conclude that Jesus was speaking disparagingly by renaming Simon a little/insignificant pebble (the verse in between those two awesome blessings). Moreover, everyone knew back then, and knows now, that Jesus, as per every Christian, is the Divine Rock and Cornerstone that ineffably holds the Church together, therefore Jesus would not state the obvious. The point here is you really cannot deny Peter as the rock while embracing only Peter’s confession, something the CC claims as well. Your thoughts my friend?

 

[joe371]

Is the Church in one Apostle or in all the Apostles and the Prophets?

Can’t have both, Joe.

More than a thousand years of the Church’s Sacred Tradition holds to this very same passage you just quoted.

Well, that’s your interpretation of those thousand years of Christianity. Prove it?

Peter cannot be the one symbolic rock (who was given the keys, which Jesus builds his church on, promising that the gates of hell will never prevail, again against the church built on Peter) - if the foundation of the church also consist of other people? Makes no sense to me. Jesus is the rock on which His church is built, and yet we see Jesus naming Peter the rock on which His church is built. One does not negate the other, in either instance.

 

[YADA]

This has to do with what you determine.

Rome was first in honor in accordance with the Church Councils. Not supreme.

No this has to do with what Jesus determined … Simon is the one whom Jesus changed his name to Peter … Jesus built His Church on Peter [not on a group of equals] … Jesus gave the “Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven” to Peter not to all the disciples … Jesus prayed specially for Peter and gave Peter the responsibility for all the disciples - to care for them, strengthen them … it was to Peter and Peter alone that Jesus said to care and feed His Sheep and the Lambs.

The ECF recognized Rome as the Chair of Peter … having a special place.

IMHO you read the Holy Scriptures, ECF and councils through a lens that requires too many gymnastics - like the concept of a primacy of honor and first among equals … Primacy is defined how? - What is the role of that ‘primacy’? How does that ‘primacy’ function?

What is the real concrete difference between primacy and supremacy?

Primacy:

1. the state of being first (as in importance, order, or rank) : preeminence <the primacy of intellectual and esthetic over materialistic values — T. R. McConnell>
2. the office, rank, or preeminence of an ecclesiastical primate

Supremacy:

1. controlling power or influence over others
2. exceptionally high quality
3. the fact or state of being above others in rank or importance <England’s maritime supremacy in the 18th century>

Synonyms with Supremacy - distinction, dominance, noteworthiness, paramountcy, preeminence, preponderance, preponderancy, prepotency, prestigiousness, primacy, superiority, transcendence

 

[benhur]

You are right Ben, the basis for the gift of infallibility is in God, not man.

Nor is it in an office, even church, unless God be in them (conditional).

I fail to see the conditionallity of God. The gifts and the call of God are irevocable.

This does not relate to riches, honor even ministerial giftings. A kingdom can be taken away. A kingly crown taken away. A talent can be taken away. A "lampstick’’ can be taken away. The inner effectual call to the believer, to mankind (gentiles), and in specific here, to the seed of Abraham, “Israel” is irrevocable.

Not entirely. Although we do see that everyone took Him literally in that passage, and he made no effort to correct them (as He did Nicodemus who took “born again” literally), the meaning harmonizes better with the other Scriptures that refer to Eucharist. In addition, we see that all the Churches founded by Aposltes held this understanding of the Teaching, and that those who did not were considered “heretics”.

You can not say exactly how the apostles took it nor can you say exactly how the non-believers took it literally, cannibalistically in John 6. The early church showed a range from pure symbolic to pure "trans’ and in between view of eucharist

That being said, I certainly support your point that Jesus’ teaching on leadership was clearly that of servant leadership.

and more “examplary”.

 

[steve_b]

Thank you all for your answers it’s interesting to read the differing views… regardless of what our own opinions are. Although it’s probably pretty clear already, I’m Roman Catholic; everything in the Bible steers (me) in this direction. I’m certainly not looking to discredit our Orthodox brothers and sisters -]who are also Catholic /-]and have done everything in their power to remain true to the faith, and I know that the Holy Father is taking great steps in the attempt towards unity.

just a few comments

The Orthodox are not Catholic nor are they the Catholic Church. we pray they will return to Catholic unity.
s:

The Catechism clearly states (818-819) that one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these other faith communities and that there are many elements of sanctification and of truth found outside the Catholic Church as well as gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The CCC also mentions caveots to that. For esample,

When a person takes little care in educating themselves for what is correct, their ignorance is no longer innocent and they then become culpable for what they do . 1791
s:

If any of you are interested, there are some statements and dates on this webpage americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm of what the Early Church Fathers had to say on and around this subject. I imagine it should be easy enough to check the veracity of these… although I personally haven’t.

 

[steve_b]

Does it really matter who was head of the Church 200 years ago? The Catholic Church as evolved into a very different entity from 2000 years ago. It has clarified teaching and doctrine over time. We have had some wonderful Popes leading the Church and some not so wonderful, but through it ll God keeps revealing Himself. Although knowing the Church’s history, it seems, IMO, that people too often focusing on 2000 years ago instead of trying to see God in the present world.

God is the same 2000 years ago as He is today and forever. What He established 2000 years ago (the Catholic Church with Peter as the head) is here today with Pope Francis 267th successor to St Peter…

 

[spina1953]

The same as Peter.

Hi Isaiah: So, just how many were made Bishops in Rome; so if I understand what you are implying is that there was a whole bunch of Bishops that both Peter and Paul made and they just picked one out of all of them to take Pater’s place or Paul’s?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Isaiah: So, just how many were made Bishops in Rome; so if I understand what you are implying is that there was a whole bunch of Bishops that both Peter and Paul made and they just picked one out of all of them to take Pater’s place or Paul’s?

Is there any record of Peter and or Paul naming a Bishop in Rome?