Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If he had the office of Royal steward with universal jurisdiction, he didn’t mention it at all, nor did any pope for hundreds of years.
JESUS DID! He very clearly mentioned it. He gave Peter the keys. That makes him the Royal Steward. Why would he have to mention it? Would you feel the office of Royal Steward would have more validity if Peter had stood up and claimed it? He had no authority to claim it just as no bishop has the authority to claim the Chair of Peter. It has to be given. This is really not that difficult.
 
Yes I really think I answered it well enough to present an alternative belief on a non Catholic forum.
Thank you for your further answer. Am I correct in that you are saying Jesus changed Peter’s name because he shared that Jesus was the Christ? Jesus changed it to rock to signify …:confused:
 
In the “keys to the kingdom” quote, it reads to me as though he is talking to all of them when he says that, not just Peter.

.
Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
How can you say it reads as if the keys are given to all of them - that totally defies the grammatical sense of the passage - like those who say that Jesus is the Rock or that it is Peter’s confession - that would mean that Jesus would be giving the keys to Himself or giving the keys to spoken word … neither of which makes sense.

In the passage where authority is given to Peter and then the passage where authority is given to all the disciples - while they seem similar - appearing similar in wording and similar in authority - and like you are taken as being interchangeable by many - the fact is they are not the same.

Not only is the authority granted different - the process by which the authority is granted and manifested upon the two [Peter first - then the Disciples] is different.

Look at it, read them in context - ask yourself … What is the difference in the authority granted and in how this authority is bestowed?

Peter is given a greater - general authority - unlimited in scope … Jesus says to Peter … "Whatever you [Peter] bind … " and “Whatever you [Peter] loose …” This is open … it leaves the subject of what is to become bound or loosed to Peter’s discretion …

Then - in addition to this unrestricted - undefined authority to bind and loose on Earth what will be held bound and loosed in Heaven Peter is also given the Keys of the Heavenly Kingdom … this is what Randy has posted here - the “Office” of the Royal Steward - held by a single occupant - for if there were two such “offices” they could work in opposition to each other … Offices are filled when they become vacant - the Office is perpetual the office holder is not - especially this on - Jesus’ Kingdom will have no end!

The authority granted to all the disciples was a specific authority - they were given the authority to forgive and to bind sins - Not ‘whatever’ they bind and loose - only sins …

Now - this is a very great authority - the ability to forgive or bind another’s sins is a tremendous responsibility … its huge … it reaches from earth into the heavenly realm

But in truth - this authority did not come with the “Keys” to the Kingdom of Heaven and the full authority to act on behalf of the King - as His Steward - the Steward that is known and called by the people “Abba” [which is Father] It is an authority that is concrete - outlined - the authority is to bind and loose sin.

Also - this authority was not manifested with the reception of authoritative ‘keys’ but through reception of the Holy Spirit …“he breathed on them [the disciples] and said to them ‘Receive the holy Spirit’.”

John Chapter 20:19- 23
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples* were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you. When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side.* The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.
So as you can see - Peter’s authority was not limited to sins and sins alone … Peter’s authority was “Whatever” and this office and authority was marked with the bestowing of the “Keys of the kingdom of heaven” … not the Earthly Kingdom - the Heavenly Kingdom … “I will give you [Peter] the keys to the kingdom of heaven”
 
Matthew 16:13-19

How can you say it reads as if the keys are given to all of them - that totally defies the grammatical sense of the passage - like those who say that Jesus is the Rock or that it is Peter’s confession - that would mean that Jesus would be giving the keys to Himself or giving the keys to spoken word … neither of which makes sense.

In the passage where authority is given to Peter and then the passage where authority is given to all the disciples - while they seem similar - appearing similar in wording and similar in authority - and like you are taken as being interchangeable by many - the fact is they are not the same.

Not only is the authority granted different - the process by which the authority is granted and manifested upon the two [Peter first - then the Disciples] is different.

Look at it, read them in context - ask yourself … What is the difference in the authority granted and in how this authority is bestowed?

Peter is given a greater - general authority - unlimited in scope … Jesus says to Peter … "Whatever you [Peter] bind … " and “Whatever you [Peter] loose …” This is open … it leaves the subject of what is to become bound or loosed to Peter’s discretion …

Then - in addition to this unrestricted - undefined authority to bind and loose on Earth what will be held bound and loosed in Heaven Peter is also given the Keys of the Heavenly Kingdom … this is what Randy has posted here - the “Office” of the Royal Steward - held by a single occupant - for if there were two such “offices” they could work in opposition to each other … Offices are filled when they become vacant - the Office is perpetual the office holder is not - especially this on - Jesus’ Kingdom will have no end!

The authority granted to all the disciples was a specific authority - they were given the authority to forgive and to bind sins - Not ‘whatever’ they bind and loose - only sins …

Now - this is a very great authority - the ability to forgive or bind another’s sins is a tremendous responsibility … its huge … it reaches from earth into the heavenly realm

But in truth - this authority did not come with the “Keys” to the Kingdom of Heaven and the full authority to act on behalf of the King - as His Steward - the Steward that is known and called by the people “Abba” [which is Father] It is an authority that is concrete - outlined - the authority is to bind and loose sin.

Also - this authority was not manifested with the reception of authoritative ‘keys’ but through reception of the Holy Spirit …“he breathed on them [the disciples] and said to them ‘Receive the holy Spirit’.”

John Chapter 20:19- 23

So as you can see - Peter’s authority was not limited to sins and sins alone … Peter’s authority was “Whatever” and this office and authority was marked with the bestowing of the “Keys of the kingdom of heaven” … not the Earthly Kingdom - the Heavenly Kingdom … “I will give you [Peter] the keys to the kingdom of heaven”
Excellent. Many miss the distinction between binding and loosing, and the forgiveness of sins. 👍
 
To denominate means to give a name to.

Did someone ever give a name to the RC denomination?
The CC is not “Roman”. THe Latin Rite is the largest and most common in the West.

The use of the name for the Church was in popular use by 107 AD when Ignatius used it in his epistle to the Smyrneans:

“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself or by some person authorized by him [that is, a duly ordained priest]. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church” (8:1, 2). “The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself or by some person authorized by him [that is, a duly ordained priest]. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is present,** there is the Catholic Church**” (8:1, 2).

The CC did not denominate, or take it’s name from anyone else.
Christ Jesus is always and will always be the head of the Church.
👍

And as such, can appoint any authority He desires. He gave the Apostles “all authority” and they passed this on to their successors, the Bishops.
Peter doesn’t demonstrate in the NT that he has authority over any other apostle. Nor does he act as the “Royal steward” or any other fanciful title.
It would certainly behoove you to deny such things, otherwise it would be impossible to justify your abandonment of the authority appointed by Christ. Have you read the Royal Steward thread?
They accepted Leo’s statement because it was orthodox, not because they were bound to whatever he told them or that he was a “Royal Steward”.
Yes, but both things are true. When the Royal Steward is orthodox it carries a lot more weight. 😃
No matter how many times I read them there still won’t be any reference to Peter declaring that he has any greater authority than any other apostle, nor acting with the authority that modern day popes claim to possess.

No. He acted as a prominent apostle, and was held accountable by another apostle.
You seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that the Pope is not accountable to anyone. This is a fallacy. The pope never acts “unilaterally”. He is the servant of the servants of God.

Peter did not need to speak of his own authority because everyone recognized it and deferred to it.
Code:
So,  because neither him nor any other apostle make mention of this special office that is necessary to submit to for salvation, that silence MUST mean that it was absolutely true?
No, but your refusal to accept what is written does not unwrite it, or make it false for anyone but yourself.
First amongst equals. No problem with that. That was the teaching of the early church and scripture.
Actually it does seem that you have a problem with this.
You’ll either read this and question why you left or you’ll ignore it and carry on.
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

He left for more emotional reasons.
 
Neither Linus nor Clement claimed any universal jurisdiction over the other bishops. And no pope did for hundreds of years.
This sure looks like a Papal letter to me…

Here is St.Clements letter to the Corinthians calling them to order.

newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

The Second epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians.

.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter.
 
I’m just expressing a little here. IMO the path one person takes doesn’t give that person the duty to try and make others follow their same path. It’s all right to question things but doubt can get so powerful it keeps a person from seeing what they ought to see when in fact it’s plain as day to those who believe. Jesus could not do any miracles in His own home town because of doubt. “Epthatha!”

I’ve been studying the book of Mark and found it very helpful in responding on this thread.

Jesus Begins His Ministry
Mark 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

After the boy was healed…

Mark 9:24 Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”
 
=Tomyris;12445171]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.
TWO points
  1. WHY is it in an absolute sense necessary for Protestants to make this claim {which they can’t prove.
Its because without doing so, they cannot lessen, or ignore the authority of the Pope & the Catholic Church.

READ Mt.16:15-19 and take careful note of the singular tense terms that Christ, our Perfect God choose to use.

Douay-Rheims Bible
.
[13] And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? [14] But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. [15] Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and** upon this rock** {YOU PETER} I will build my churhc{SIngular!}, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19]** And I will give to thee** {ALL OF} *** the keys of the kingdom of heaven***. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [20] Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

**Douay bible explanations **

******[18] Thou art Peter: As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

[18] Upon this rock: The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.

[18] The gates of hell: That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

[19] Loose upon earth: The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted****.

**
  1. It is not necessary to enter into a “Peter discussion here”; no. merely point out that Christ said “MY CHURCH” singular and as God cannot, and did not wait until the Reformation to make what MUST be singular faith-truths known. Such a position is untnable and illogical, and can’t be proven. PERIOD:)
 
So, because neither him nor any other apostle make mention of this special office that is necessary to submit to for salvation, that silence MUST mean that it was absolutely true?
Once again, you have the exact opposite meaning.

I’m showing that YOUR argument from silence has no weight.
 
In the “keys to the kingdom” quote, it reads to me as though he is talking to all of them when he says that, not just Peter.

.
Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 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.”

Notice how many times Jesus used the word “you” in this statement: SEVEN times!
You … you … you … you … you … you … you …

And very importantly for your observation, in Greek there are different words for “you”: plural and singular.
In all of these, the SINGULAR is used.
 
Neither Linus nor Clement claimed any universal jurisdiction over the other bishops. And no pope did for hundreds of years.
Nor was there any need to do so, since it was an accepted norm. This is clear from Irenaeus’ work against Heresies.
If he had the office of Royal steward with universal jurisdiction, he didn’t mention it at all, nor did any pope for hundreds of years.
Much like the word “Trinity” was not used for hundreds of years, and that the 27 book canon was not defined until the fourth century. 😉
 
Neither Linus nor Clement claimed any universal jurisdiction over the other bishops. And no pope did for hundreds of years.
Why did the church at Corinth write a letter to Clement, Bishop of Rome, about a problem in their midst when the Apostle John was still alive and much closer?

Why did Clement feel he had the authority to intervene in the affairs of a local church?

Why did the Corinthians accept Clement’s decision?

Why is it that no independent, Bible-believing congregation from East Pinochle came running over to tell the Corinthians that Rome had no jurisdiction? Why was there was no outry at all? Why did NO ONE questioned Clement’s authority over Corinth?

Why was Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians revered as scripture for many years thereafter?

What do these facts say about the early Church’s view of Rome’s universal jurisdiction?
 
So the original creator of this thread just stopped his involvement? I have not seen him post in a while.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by House Harkonnen View Post
Neither Linus nor Clement claimed any universal jurisdiction over the other bishops. And no pope did for hundreds of years.
That is what I was going to point out…but you mentioned it first.

Indeed, the Epistle of Clement to Corinth was read in church at Corinth, and some other places I believe, and considered “Scripture”…or fit to be read in Church during the Mass/Divine Liturgy.
 
Why did the church at Corinth write a letter to Clement, Bishop of Rome, about a problem in their midst when the Apostle John was still alive and much closer?
As I mentioned in the other thread, the Apostle Paul was the common link which bound these two Churches, plus the fact that Corinth was a Roman colony in the middle of Greece, plus distance is relative to the transport available. Corinth was the major trade hub between Italy and Asia so correspondence between Rome and Corinth was relatively fast and reliable.
Why did Clement feel he had the authority to intervene in the affairs of a local church?
  1. Clement was a close companion of Paul, the founder of the Church in Corinth.
  2. The people of the Church in Corinth asked him to.
Why did the Corinthians accept Clement’s decision?
Same reason they asked him to help in the first place. He was highly respected because of his association with Paul.
Why is it that no independent, Bible-believing congregation from East Pinochle came running over to tell the Corinthians that Rome had no jurisdiction? Why was there was no outry at all? Why did NO ONE questioned Clement’s authority over Corinth?
Jurisdictional boundaries were not established until the councils.
Why was Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians revered as scripture for many years thereafter?
Because of the close association of Clement and Paul, it was as if the letter had been written by Paul.
What do these facts say about the early Church’s view of Rome’s universal jurisdiction?
Nothing at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top