Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Nothing. Until more is revealed, of course. But we both agree that this will not happen until we reach heaven. Or Christ returns. But for now, the data set is fixed.

What you and I might disagree about is whether we can study that data, pray about it, and arrive at new insights about what God has revealed.

Catholics call this development of doctrine. Orthodox call this anathema.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here is an example of how I envision this:

Suppose you have three pieces of data, A, B & C, and everyone agrees with them.

A few decades pass, and after much discussion, it is agreed that A +B = D and A + C = E. D and E are defined as a new dogmas, and everyone agrees with them.

A few hundred years later, in response to some controversy, it is defined that B + C = F. Not everyone is happy, but at least the controversy is ended.

So, we have A, B, C, D, E & F. All is quiet. The Early Church Fathers have had their say and have passed from the scene.

Then, someone proposes that D + E = G.

All hell breaks loose, and the Church splits into two camps.

One group, the ABC’s, faithfully sticks to A, B, C, D, E & F. They know the sayings of the Church Fathers on those points intimately. They preserve the tradition of the Early Church at all costs.

The other group, known as the Alphabet Soup Group, agrees with A, B, C, D, E & F. They appreciate both the sayings of the ECF’s and the faithfulness of the ABC’s. But they also see that G is true. In fact, there is even discussion about the whether E + F = H!

This has the ABC’s outraged. G is a theological novelty unknown the the Fathers, and H is pure Heresy.

Sound familiar?

 

[guanophore]

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 think it is just some of that either/or thinking at work. It is ridiculous to assert that Ireneaeus did not know that there had not been an Apostle travel to Rome when he wrote, or do deny that he knew there was a Christian community there before the Apostles.

This does not detract from Peter and Paul building up the foundation of the Church there.

 

[prodromos]

Sound familiar?

No

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is a disingenuous allegation toward the Orthodox. Certainly politics has played a role in the function of the Church (or lack of it) no less in Constantinople than in Rome. But Rome has been equally, if not more so impacted by secular rulers and politics. In fact, had the Bishop of Rome not accepted the title and role of “Pontiff” from the emperor, the Reformation may have been avoided, since there would have been better distance between the Latin Church and Western politics.

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?

The line of Bishops from Antioch of Syria from Peter is older than the one in Rome. All the successors of the Apostles partake of teh Apostolic charge to feed and care for the flock. It was never intended for any of the successors of the Apostles to function apart from unity with one another in the care of the flock.

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.

 

[Duane1966]

I hear people say first among equals. How does first among equals work?

 

[spina1953]

I hear people say first among equals. How does first among equals work?

Hi Duane 1966: I was wondering the same thing? How is one equal but still first? Seems to me that if one is equal with the rest there is no first and if one id first than that one is not equal imo. So good question from you which made me think the way you did.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Duane 1966: I was wondering the same thing? How is one equal but still first? Seems to me that if one is equal with the rest there is no first and if one id first than that one is not equal imo. So good question from you which made me think the way you did.

These articles helped me with this question:

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

 

[Duane1966]

These articles helped me with this question:

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

Ty for your reply. But the tracts do NOT address how first among equals would work today. Is it an empty title?

 

[CarolNoel]

Because it is a definition created to describe churches that separated from the apostolic faith and differentiate Protestants. It is a term that we do not use on ourselves and a term that you are arbitrarily pushing onto us in an effort to chalk us up as just another Protestant like sect.

It is an effort to undermine the authority of the church by making it out to be “just another denomination”

Just because Protestantism is increasingly watered down do to rejection of authority and requires a term like “denomination” does not mean we need such a term not do we want one

I really like what you said and so much agree. Thanks for stating this so well.

 

[guanophore]

Ty for your reply. But the tracts do NOT address how first among equals would work today. Is it an empty title?

Oh, I see what you are saying. As far as I can tell, it does not really “work” today, since the other Patriarchs are not any longer in unity as equals.

The main thing I see is the Successor of Peter working hard to take the initiative to heal the wounds to unity, make reparations, and lead the way back to the model that Jesus intended.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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.

Jesus didn’t mention any such office of “Royal steward”. That is fanciful embellishment, and no pope claimed such a title for hundreds of years.

If Peter had the office he would have operated in that official capacity instead of an apostle equal to the others, and his sole successors for hundreds of years after.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

such as?

Sure. It’s filled with half truths.

For example he says something like how the church fathers from the first through third centuries were saying things that he was just learning, such as that Peter is the Rock and that rockhood was passed down to the bishop of Rome solely.

But honest readers of the church fathers know that even the ECFS were totally divided on this issue, much as theologians are today. But you wouldn’t get that impression reading his article.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

guanophore;12455087]This is a disingenuous allegation toward the Orthodox. Certainly politics has played a role in the function of the Church (or lack of it) no less in Constantinople than in Rome

.

I believe you jumped to a false conclusion here, that in no way relates to what you have assumed a false pretense from my post. Larker posted a view of Peter as being exclusive to Catholics only to Rome as a novel idea, which makes it difficult for Orthodox to have such a discussion, when they do not.

My post does not deal with the political arena, to which you suggested. My post points to the historical facts, from which the Orthodox take on a new novel opinion against the authority of Peter’s Chair in the Universal Church, which does not ever surface until Constantinople becomes the second Rome ruled by later heretical Emperor’s appointing Patriarch’s who usurped apostolic authority from Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and failed at attempting to usurp the authority from the Popes and declared themselves equal to the Popes. Which only disproves Larker’s view.

Before Constantinople; Peter’s authority is never questioned by the Early Church. It is only to this period (Constantinople) from which my post addresses to prove Larkers view as being novel.

But Rome has been equally, if not more so impacted by secular rulers and politics. In fact, had the Bishop of Rome not accepted the title and role of “Pontiff” from the emperor, the Reformation may have been avoided, since there would have been better distance between the Latin Church and Western politics

.

The above has nothing to do with my posts. Although, the Christian Emperor who removed himself from the title of Pontiff, released his authority to preside as Pontiff over pagan Rome religion. For clarification. The Christian Emperor never has authority to give anything to Peter other than what God had already given to Peter; the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If one can simplify this imperial action, the Christian Emperor has bowed it’s knee before Peter and surrendered his religious crown to Peter over his secular kingdom.

This Pontiff title the Emperor surrenders to the Bishop of Rome, should silence any Orthodox opinion of questioning or contesting the Chair of Peter’s authority over the whole Church, when the Emperor surrendered his religious authority over to the Bishop of Rome.

This action adds fuel to the flame for future Emperors and Patriarchs of 'Constantinople to being the power struggle over apostolic sees. As you know much more can be added here.

The line of Bishops from Antioch of Syria from Peter is older than the one in Rome. All the successors of the Apostles partake of teh Apostolic charge to feed and care for the flock. It was never intended for any of the successors of the Apostles to function apart from unity with one another in the care of the flock.

I understand your point, which I never address in my previous post. My post support the unity of the Apostles with Peter as being one.

What you introduce is Peter being equal with all other apostles. That is not discussed from my post.

The Pope’s who preside in Peter’s Chair are first among equals. Because the Pope’s are a Bishop equal to all other Bishop’s.

Peter’s apostolic successors are first, as scripture always list Peter first among all the apostles. Peter is first to publicly declare Jesus as the Son of God, Peter is first to be given the keys exclusively by Jesus. Peter is the first to call his brethren back… the list goes on. In short Peter is first over the Whole Universal Church with the commission from God to allow the Gentiles into the Church and to tend and feed the flock of Jesus Christ. Peter’s successor’s are equal to all his brethren bishop’s united to him, because all have an apostolic see to their respected domestic Church’s.

It is here, where the autocephalous (independent) Orthodox church’s today confuse themselves with the Universal Catholic Church as a whole, whom Peter possesses the Keys and authority to bind and loose ON EARTH. While those equal to Peter in their domestic Church’s possess the same keys and authority to bind and loose on the local level.

The Emperor’s and councils knew this divine commission of Peter, that is why every Emperor and Council sought the approval from the Popes in Rome, when religious issues affected the Whole Universal Church. When they addressed domestic issues, the Popes approval was rarely sought after, only when they began to excommunicate one another in the East, the Popes approval is sought.

For one to think that a Church council never addresses Peter’s authority. It needs to be noted that; no Church council dared to contest the authority of Peter, never the less question the Chair of Peter. To do so had to come from an Emperor and power the Emperor gives to his patriarch of Constantinople to question and contest the authority of Peter.

In summary, this contesting or questioning the Chair of Peter’s divine authority Jesus gives him, is a novel idea that is never questioned until Heretical Eastern Emperors’ and appointed Patriarch’s of Constantinople begin to attack the authority of the Popes from Rome, when they had the secular power to do so. Yet the gates of hell never prevailed over the Chair of Peter.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

guanophore;12455087]
The line of Bishops from Antioch of Syria from Peter is older than the one in Rome.

That’s true of Antioch who owes it’s Bishopric to Peter as does Alexandria who owes it’s prestige to St. Mark a disciple of Peter. The result of all this reveals that these have fallen into heresy, when the gates of hell prevailed over them, in fact all other apostolic sees, have fallen in and out of some form of heresy.

The only Apostolic see, that has never fallen into heresy is; the Bishop of Rome direct apostolic successor to Peter. This is not man or the Latin Church making this claim, it is **by divine providence and the warning and promise Jesus gives to Peter here; "the gates of hell will come against you, but **they will never prevail.

 

[A_Lurker]

.

I believe you jumped to a false conclusion here, that in no way relates to what you have assumed a false pretense from my post. Larker posted a view of Peter as being exclusive to Catholics only to Rome as a novel idea, which makes it difficult for Orthodox to have such a discussion, when they do not.

My post does not deal with the political arena, to which you suggested. My post points to the historical facts, from which the Orthodox take on a new novel opinion against the authority of Peter’s Chair in the Universal Church, which does not ever surface until Constantinople becomes the second Rome ruled by later heretical Emperor’s appointing Patriarch’s who usurped apostolic authority from Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and failed at attempting to usurp the authority from the Popes and declared themselves equal to the Popes. Which only disproves Larker’s view.

Before Constantinople; Peter’s authority is never questioned by the Early Church. It is only to this period (Constantinople) from which my post addresses to prove Larkers view as being novel.

.

The above has nothing to do with my posts. Although, the Christian Emperor who removed himself from the title of Pontiff, released his authority to preside as Pontiff over pagan Rome religion. For clarification. The Christian Emperor never has authority to give anything to Peter other than what God had already given to Peter; the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If one can simplify this imperial action, the Christian Emperor has bowed it’s knee before Peter and surrendered his religious crown to Peter over his secular kingdom.

This Pontiff title the Emperor surrenders to the Bishop of Rome, should silence any Orthodox opinion of questioning or contesting the Chair of Peter’s authority over the whole Church, when the Emperor surrendered his religious authority over to the Bishop of Rome.

This action adds fuel to the flame for future Emperors and Patriarchs of 'Constantinople to being the power struggle over apostolic sees. As you know much more can be added here.

I understand your point, which I never address in my previous post. My post support the unity of the Apostles with Peter as being one.

What you introduce is Peter being equal with all other apostles. That is not discussed from my post.

The Pope’s who preside in Peter’s Chair are first among equals. Because the Pope’s are a Bishop equal to all other Bishop’s.

Peter’s apostolic successors are first, as scripture always list Peter first among all the apostles. Peter is first to publicly declare Jesus as the Son of God, Peter is first to be given the keys exclusively by Jesus. Peter is the first to call his brethren back… the list goes on. In short Peter is first over the Whole Universal Church with the commission from God to allow the Gentiles into the Church and to tend and feed the flock of Jesus Christ. Peter’s successor’s are equal to all his brethren bishop’s united to him, because all have an apostolic see to their respected domestic Church’s.

It is here, where the autocephalous (independent) Orthodox church’s today confuse themselves with the Universal Catholic Church as a whole, whom Peter possesses the Keys and authority to bind and loose ON EARTH. While those equal to Peter in their domestic Church’s possess the same keys and authority to bind and loose on the local level.

The Emperor’s and councils knew this divine commission of Peter, that is why every Emperor and Council sought the approval from the Popes in Rome, when religious issues affected the Whole Universal Church. When they addressed domestic issues, the Popes approval was rarely sought after, only when they began to excommunicate one another in the East, the Popes approval is sought.

For one to think that a Church council never addresses Peter’s authority. It needs to be noted that; no Church council dared to contest the authority of Peter, never the less question the Chair of Peter. To do so had to come from an Emperor and power the Emperor gives to his patriarch of Constantinople to question and contest the authority of Peter.

In summary, this contesting or questioning the Chair of Peter’s divine authority Jesus gives him, is a novel idea that is never questioned until Heretical Eastern Emperors’ and appointed Patriarch’s of Constantinople begin to attack the authority of the Popes from Rome, when they had the secular power to do so. Yet the gates of hell never prevailed over the Chair of Peter.

Peace be with you

While it is true that politics factored in a lot of things back in those days, Rome was certainly not immune either. You talk about meddling Monarchs, The Imperial Veto was not abolished by the Latin Church until Pius X in the 20th Century. Let’s not go into the Borgias, the Papacy being bought and sold, manipulated, and tossed to Avignon, then tossed back to Rome…

Such attacks aren’t very nice, are they? Your grasp of the history is…one sided, to put it charitably.

The Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church…and it hasn’t. The See of Rome? well, that’s a different story.

 

[Alex_Swol]

****This topic brings me back to grammar school and what the
Sisters of St. Joseph taught me. Peter was a fisherman and his name was SIMON. When
Jesus changed his name to Peter, HE told him: “THOU ART PETER AND UPON THIS
ROCK I SHALL BUILD MY CHURCH.” Peter was an apostle of Christ who preached HIS
teachings to all those who were hungry for the word. If I remember what I was taught, Peter
was never the HEAD of the church, or the FIRST Pope as some have thought. He was a man
who knew Jesus and knew what HE wanted done. Simple way of putting it. Peter brought
the word of Jesus to us thru the Apostles and down thru the ages it has endured. It has not
been changed. It remains the most powerful message we could read or listen to. Peter DID
build HIS church. He did it by remembering the words of Jesus and relaying those words to
all who listened. He spoke those words to the Apostles so they could bring the message to
others. Thru centuries, thru wars, thru turmoil, HIS words have endured. PETER BUILT HIS
CHURCH BY SPREADING THE GOSPEL AND THE STORY OF THE LIFE OF A MAN WHO
CHANGED THE WORLD. Simple!!!

 

[OurLadysServant]

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.

‘You are Peter (Cephas which means =Rock) and on this rock I will build my church.’
‘I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be considered bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be considered loosed in Heaven.’

‘behold Peter, satan has asked that he may sift you like wheat , but when you have turned again, RETURN AND STRENGTHEN THE BRETHREN.’

Why is this saying repeated after the Crucifixion; ‘Peter and the other apostles’
He was set apart by them, when the Holy Spirit filled and came down as a rushing wind and tongues of fire and filled them Peter was the lead speaker

Jesus spent 40 days with the apostles after His resurrection before He ascended into Heaven. John writes, ‘Jesus did many other things among the apostles and if they were all to be written I do not suppose the books of the whole world could contain all that would be told.’

Jesus gave messages to a lot of his saints for individual popes.
Did not Our Lady of Fatima mention a Pope would be wounded (and later there was the assassination attempt on pope John Paul II, is Pope John Paul not now a canonised saint because of two scientifically proved miracles he worked healing two souls? One woman heard him tell her from a photo of him on a magazine, ‘Get up and walk.’ And she was healed. Another was a priest who blessed himself with a relic of the pope and was cured of cancer.
If God did not want popes would he not have told us through his countless saint mystics and apparitions of Our Lady such as at Fatima.? She told the seers at Fatima, 'Pray for the Holy Father (the Pope) because he suffers much.

The Pope is called ‘christ’s Vicar on earth.’ Jesus representative.
Ought we not have a leader? Or we’d all be doing our own thing, and bishops could anoint whoever they want to be bishop, make up their own rules, etc…

 

[guanophore]

While it is true that politics factored in a lot of things back in those days, Rome was certainly not immune either. You talk about meddling Monarchs, The Imperial Veto was not abolished by the Latin Church until Pius X in the 20th Century. Let’s not go into the Borgias, the Papacy being bought and sold, manipulated, and tossed to Avignon, then tossed back to Rome…

Such attacks aren’t very nice, are they? Your grasp of the history is…one sided, to put it charitably.

This is the point I was trying to make.

There is no need to open the debate again here about the successor of Peter falling into heresy. It has been discussed at length here at CAF.

The corrupted behavior of Popes such as the Borgias have had just as much a damaging impact as falling into heresy. If not for the successors of Peter, as well as the vast majoirty of Bishops and Cardinals becoming involved in secular matters/rulership the Reformation may have been avoided. So the fruit of heresy still plagues western Christianity, eliminating any display of triumphalism.

 

[Karen107]

Jesus didn’t mention any such office of “Royal steward”. That is fanciful embellishment, and no pope claimed such a title for hundreds of years.

If Peter had the office he would have operated in that official capacity instead of an apostle equal to the others, and his sole successors for hundreds of years after.

So here is Peter addressing the many in different areas (writing a Papal letter and acting of a Steward-servant) as leader of the Royal Priesthood, a Holy Nation .

Salutation
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado′cia, Asia, and Bithyn′ia,[a] 2 chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:

May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

And the Letter states they are all one nation.

The Living Stone and a Chosen People
1 Peter 2 So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation; 3 for you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

4 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7 To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe,

“The very stone which the builders rejected
has become the head of the corner,”
8 and

“A stone that will make men stumble,
a rock that will make them fall”;
for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

9 But you are a chosen race,** a royal priesthood,** a holy nation, God’s own people,[a] that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy.

This is all very scriptural to have One Universal Church with a Papal leader and St. Peter was the first.

Mark 3: 23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.