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.
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.
  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.
Same reason they asked him to help in the first place. He was highly respected because of his association with Paul.

Jurisdictional boundaries were not established until the councils.

Because of the close association of Clement and Paul, it was as if the letter had been written by Paul.

Nothing at all.
You also said that Paul founded the Church at Rome. I see you have backed off of that now.

Additionally, while you have reason (and motivation) to tie Clement to Paul, there is more to the story.

According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (Illustrious Men 15). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope.

Thus, Clement had close ties to Peter and held the seat once occupied by the head of the Church. I think the situation speaks for itself.
 
Yes…and Peter was the most prominent of all apostles, Paul had to meet with Peter before starting his ministry, spending 15 days with him to make sure he was correct in the understanding of his faith.

Peter was led to Rome, referred to it as ‘Babylon’ and died there in 64 AD.

The greatest testimony that both Peter and Paul were the founders of the Church of Rome is that they were martyrs and died there.

Likewise in dealing with issues with the Eastern church outside of Antioch and Alexandria, the Byzantine Church was also imperial in nature, whereas Peter and Paul came to Rome only for the Church and not for Imperial Rome.
 
You also said that Paul founded the Church at Rome. I see you have backed off of that now.
Irenaeus made the same mistake, so I guess I’m in good company.
Additionally, while you have reason (and motivation) to tie Clement to Paul, there is more to the story.
What exactly would my motivation be, pray tell? It says a lot that you so quickly fall back on ad homenims in your arguments.
 
Irenaeus made the same mistake, so I guess I’m in good company.

What exactly would my motivation be, pray tell? It says a lot that you so quickly fall back on ad homenims in your arguments.
How exactly does that fit the definition of an ad hominem?

Yes, I believe that Orthodox are motivated to diminish the role of Peter in the Early Church as often as possible to the point that you may not even be conscious of doing it since you may be handing on what the priests have told you.

And yes, it also works the other way, so I have the same issues.

Now that we have acknowledged that we both view things with our respective glasses on, let’s move on.
 
How exactly does that fit the definition of an ad hominem?
Instead of addressing the arguments, you try to discredit them by suggesting I am deliberately seeking a link you wish to imply isn’t there. That is addressing my person, not my arguments, “ad homenim”.
Yes, I believe that Orthodox are motivated to diminish the role of Peter in the Early Church as often as possible to the point that you may not even be conscious of doing it since you may be handing on what the priests have told you.
You believe falsely of Orthodox then. The problem you have is you have bound the papacy so tightly to Peter, you see any argument diminishing the papacy as an argument diminishing Peter.
We revere Saint Peter very highly in the Orthodox Church. The papacy, not so much 🤷
 
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

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."
20 THEN he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Seems to me vs. 20 is where He turns to the others.

God Bless
 
Instead of addressing the arguments, you try to discredit them by suggesting I am deliberately seeking a link you wish to imply isn’t there. That is addressing my person, not my arguments, “ad homenim”.
Okay. You’re right. And so was I. :dancing:
You believe falsely of Orthodox then. The problem you have is you have bound the papacy so tightly to Peter, you see any argument diminishing the papacy as an argument diminishing Peter.
Wait, aren’t you now addressing MY person…:rolleyes:
We revere Saint Peter very highly in the Orthodox Church. The papacy, not so much 🤷
Thus, you dishonor him because you diminish the office he held.
 
Thus, you dishonor him because you diminish the office he held.
This is the sort of comment that makes it very difficult for Orthodox to engage Roman Catholics.

You associate St. Peter with the See of Rome EXCLUSIVELY…we do not.

All Bishops are Peter, and thus the reverance and respect we hold for Bishops is to honor St. Peter and ALL the Apostles, who Christ called.

Catholic Apologists interpret every quote about Peter to be about the See of Rome alone, which was not the understanding of the First Millenium Church.

I see that you also discount the Early Church Fathers and consider appeals to them irrelevant, because you adhere to the idea that the Church has “evolved.”

It is this sort of thinking that has caused more than a few Orthodox to feel that the Latin Church has strayed very far from the Faith of Our Fathers, by embracing novelty.
 
It is this sort of thinking that has caused more than a few Orthodox to feel that the Latin Church has strayed very far from the Faith of Our Fathers, by embracing novelty.
Embracing novelty? Jesus and His people matter. I oppose the idea that the Church is ‘novelty’ but love love love for people and for God!!! … Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and Jesus loves us for being ourselves by being human and being real… Jesus had emotions, we have emotions… Those aren’t failings they are part of who we are…We’re human and want to know God in our language and in our minds… We want God to speak to our hearts… We wish to pursue the love of God and Gods people, not a unchanging look of the Church…! Those are externals to what God is about! Jesus made the decision of passing authority to make decisions for the good of the Church and it is up to the Church and a responsibility of the Church to exercise that as it sees fit… I believe the Church has got it right and is headed in the right direction and nothing will hold it back! The Holy Spirit will not disappoint us!
 
Embracing novelty? Jesus and His people matter. I oppose the idea that the Church is ‘novelty’ but love love love for people and for God!!! … Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and Jesus loves us for being ourselves by being human and being real… Jesus had emotions, we have emotions… Those aren’t failings they are part of who we are…We’re human and want to know God in our language and in our minds… We want God to speak to our hearts… We wish to pursue the love of God and Gods people, not a unchanging look of the Church…! Those are externals to what God is about! Jesus made the decision of passing authority to make decisions for the good of the Church and it is up to the Church and a responsibility of the Church to exercise that as it sees fit… I believe the Church has got it right and is headed in the right direction and nothing will hold it back! The Holy Spirit will not disappoint us!
I don’t disagree. In the end, Christ is the center of it all.

I also believe the Church got it right, which is why the Bishops shepherd the Church together in brotherhood…The Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church…of this, I heartily agree.
 
A Lurker, yes all the Christians in the various churches acknowledged and venerated Peter.

From what I have been recently studying, there was this concept of great love for the other Churches by Rome based on the founder Peter, head apostle, along with St. Paul.

Also, when a pope did make a pronouncement from Rome, the rest of Christiandom accepted it, with no dissension.
 
A Lurker, yes all the Christians in the various churches acknowledged and venerated Peter.

From what I have been recently studying, there was this concept of great love for the other Churches by Rome based on the founder Peter, head apostle, along with St. Paul.

Also, when a pope did make a pronouncement from Rome, the rest of Christiandom accepted it, with no dissension.
St. Peter is highly venerated in the Orthodox Church.

There have been several great Popes who defended Orthodoxy. Pope St. Leo the Great is one such Pope who is still venerated and greatly regarded in Orthodoxy. BUT, if you look at Chalcedon, his Tome was accepted NOT because he was the Roman Pope, but because it was found to be Orthodox.

When the Pope made a statement that was Orthodox, his brother bishops could heartily agree with it.

When it wasn’t, it was disregarded.
 
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.)
Where’s the like button? :thumbsup:Thanks a million Randy for your insightful and educational posts to this thread. They have helped to formulate my own thoughts during similar discussions I have with my Mom – a former Catholic, now born-again Evangelical Christian.
 
I don’t disagree. In the end, Christ is the center of it all.

I also believe the Church got it right, which is why the Bishops shepherd the Church together in brotherhood…The Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church…of this, I heartily agree.
I respect that but I believe that there has to be more than just shepherding the Church, we must not stop in reaching out to the rest of the world by spreading the good news of Christ. and that is best done by having our Pope who acts as Voice of the Jesus Christ and His Church in the world. I haven’t a clue the names of all the Bishops, but I believe everyone inside and outside of the Church keeps their eyes on the Pope who speaks as Vicar of Christ. That is truly Gods wisdom at work!

Romans 15: 5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
This is the sort of comment that makes it very difficult for Orthodox to engage Roman Catholics.

You associate St. Peter with the See of Rome EXCLUSIVELY…we do not.

All Bishops are Peter, and thus the reverance and respect we hold for Bishops is to honor St. Peter and ALL the Apostles, who Christ called.

Catholic Apologists interpret every quote about Peter to be about the See of Rome alone, which was not the understanding of the First Millenium Church.

I see that you also discount the Early Church Fathers and consider appeals to them irrelevant, because you adhere to the idea that the Church has “evolved.”

It is this sort of thinking that has caused more than a few Orthodox to feel that the Latin Church has strayed very far from the Faith of Our Fathers, by embracing novelty.
Welcome to CAF!

Once you have been here awhile and have gotten to know some of the regular posters, you’ll find that I am actually one who tends to quote the ECF’s more than most in defense of Catholic doctrine.
 
Where’s the like button? :thumbsup:Thanks a million Randy for your insightful and educational posts to this thread. They have helped to formulate my own thoughts during similar discussions I have with my Mom – a former Catholic, now born-again Evangelical Christian.
:tiphat:
 
Welcome to CAF!

Once you have been here awhile and have gotten to know some of the regular posters, you’ll find that I am actually one who tends to quote the ECF’s more than most in defense of Catholic doctrine.
Thank you.

Using quotes as proof texts is one thing, but having a Patristic mindset is something else. We think with the Fathers, as they themselves received the Faith and have passed it down to us…What more is there beyond what has been revealed?
 
Irenaeus made the same mistake, so I guess I’m in good company.
Citation?

Or are you telling a half-truth here?
(Since Irenaeus did say “universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” in Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 3, para 2)
 
I see that you also discount the Early Church Fathers and consider appeals to them irrelevant, because you adhere to the idea that the Church has “evolved.”
Huh?

:whacky:

:confused:

OK, some of the other things in this post are questionable, but this is downright calumny.
Sorry.

Where did you “see” this discounting?
 
A_Lurker;12453342]This is the sort of comment that makes it very difficult for Orthodox to engage Roman Catholics
.

This appears to be the wood that flames the schism between our communion. Remove your Emperors and Emperor appointed Patriarchs from Constantinople, and we have no schism, or any Caesars trying to divide what God has joined together in Peter and the flock of Jesus Christ,who commissions Peter to tend and feed. This is the universal Church, not the domestic Church of all Bishops who have equality with Peter in their respected apostolic sees.
You associate St. Peter with the See of Rome EXCLUSIVELY…we do not.
Your above statement is a novelty view, compared to Jesus giving Peter the keys exclusively in the presence of all the other apostles, and commissioned Peter exclusively to feed and tend His flock in the presence of all the apostles.

Pagan Rome recognized Peter’s Successors in Rome, when the next 30+ Popes who succeed Peter in Rome are all martyred for the One Holy Catholic Apostolic faith. While it was pagan Rome’s motto towards a declared enemy of the state to “chop the head off the head of the snake” the body dies. Yet Peter still remains today, while all those who came against her remain in history.

For all other apostolic sees to take on Peter’s office, introduces contradictions to divine teaching and revelation. Not to mention; a denial of other apostolic sees, having direct apostolic succession to it’s original apostles, which raises doubt and questions the authenticity of each Orthodox Church as dispossessing itself from any direct apostolic succession, while trying to falsely claim the Chair of Peter, to all Bishops?

Your view does not stand up to the scrutiny of any official Church council or Christian Emperor from Constantinople, that reverences the Chair of Peter exclusively apart from all others for example, when she declares; “Peter has spoken”. Although those heretical Emperors and Patriarchs who vied to usurp the authority from the Popes in Rome from recorded history only proves your view wrong and in support of these historical anti-pope sentiments.
All Bishops are Peter, and thus the reverance and respect we hold for Bishops is to honor St. Peter and ALL the Apostles, who Christ called
.

NO scriptural and NO Sacred Tradition support for your above view. All Bishops are not Peter.
All Bishops in communion with Peter is one body united to our head Christ Jesus. Is supported by Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Catholic Apologists interpret every quote about Peter to be about the See of Rome alone, which was not the understanding of the First Millenium Church.
Every quote that Jesus quotes speaking exclusively to Peter in the presence of the Apostles. All other quotes are for those in union with Peter.

Peace be with you
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top