Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[rfournier103]

Has the OP checked in lately?

1. Why would Jesus single out Peter to feed and tend His sheep and lambs in John 21:15-17?
2. Or have him walk on water in Matthew 14:33?
3. Or select Peter as the first Apostle in Mark 3:16 and Luke 6:14?

Is it any coincidence that Peter was selected first and Judas was picked LAST? The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost do not “do” coincidences.

 

[Karen107]

Do you honestly believe this?

Is God so lacking in the ability to keep His promises that He is unable to put the bible together even though it was illegal?

.

I believe that nothing happens by chance when it comes to God. The bible was planned to come into being by God though His Church in a legal manner so yes that is what I believe. Starting with God picking St. Paul who had the wisdom to know it was important to evangelize the center of power, Rome, in order for evangelization of Christianity to become successful. So we see St. Paul visiting Rome and writing letters to the Romans…Well St Paul is probably up in heaven rejoicing being fully amazed at the fruit of his labor! Rome was eventually converted and paved the way towards the rapid spread of Christianity. The Roman roads helped, the universal Latin language of the Church was something that was understood so Christianity could be spread in one voice, etc, same with the culture such as art and music, all of which helped build Christianity… This all by Gods providence…

Before Christianity became legal it wasn’t even legal to build a Christian Church to spread the news through. The way the bible was put together was through Gods providence. The road paved may have been difficult for the early Christians but as Jesus said it wouldn’t be easy. Not to mention the struggles the Christians had with the Romans, there were also heresies like Arianism that were growing so there needed to be a collective voice of the Church to defend against such heresies so the message of the Gospels would live on. In the end it did. That’s what I believe. I believe often people don’t look at the bigger picture or sees the forest for the trees, the way God looks at things.

catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10148

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

prodromos;12458840]You’ve got that all backwards. There can be no words spoken without breath, which essentially requires that the word proceed from the breath according to your logic.

Hello prodromos
No, you have it all backwards, When it is the Spirit (the Breath of God) who makes the Word known… Who has spoken through the prophets. The Father sends the Word and the Spirit proceeds from both to make them known.

Human breathe is nothing, God’s breath is a person, living and being One God in presence.

A human Son knows his human father’s voice because the father’s spirit proceeds from his voice and word, when the father speaks the word “I love you”, the father’s spirit proceeds to the hearing of the son and the son receives his father’s love.

If a stranger spoke those identical words to the same son, the son would not receive the love the stranger sends from his words " I love you", because the son does not recognize the spirit which proceeds from the stranger’s word In the “I love you”.

That is my analogy which means nothing compared to the doctrine of the filioque.

“your god is dead”? So you think the uncreated God, who is unknowable in His essence, can be accurately described in terms of our created humanity? Wow!

Never do I subscribe to such a thought. FAITH is what I subscribe to here.
My faith expression does not conflict with what is professed from within the Nicene Creed.

Do you have human words to which supersedes faith, that can define the procession of God’s revelation to man?

Light from light, True God from True God, begotten not made. Of one essence with the Father", through whom all things were made."
Do tell us, how does Arianism get around the above clauses of the Nicene creed?

Sure; First of all, I am not an Arian. The Son is consubstantial with the Father = Of one essence with the Father.

You failed to mention the procession of the holy spirit, when the Nicene creed only states the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and allows faith to be suspended, when Arians declared the Son is not God, when the creed only has the Spirit proceeding from the Father. The filioque fills the void and removes all doubt that Jesus is God.

The Light from light, True God from True God, begotten not made does not reference the Holy Spirit proceeding.

Peace be with you

 

[Randy_Carson]

Had the empire of Rome not taken the Church under it’s wing as the State religion **perhaps **Christianity would have died because there would have been no legal way to put the bible together, the Church would still be under persecution and although the Roman empire was not at all that holy, it did pave the way for evangelization of the world much better than the Church could on it’s own had it continued to be illegal to be a Christian. Now looking back the Roman Empire died but the Church lives on… All this part of Gods providence…

Karen-

The word “perhaps” which I hightlighted in your post above provides an “out”; otherwise, the assertion that would remain without it would be problematic.

Did the people of Israel need Pharaoh to take them under his wing when they were in Egypt? :nope:

I think it’s safe to assume that God used Constantine and the Roman Empire to further His kingdom, but the Edict of Milan was required for Christianity to succeed.

 

[savedbygrace71]

I’ve read through this thread with great interest- I’ve learned a lot from Randy and some other posters.

I do have a question- for the OP and for the other former Catholic who is strenuously arguing that Peter is not the Rock.

Why does it matter to you? If you are not Catholic, why do you and your churches care about the Pope and his apostolic line? How is it relevant to you? It’s relevant to us, and we hold it to be fact. If you don’t, that’s your business. Why bother trying to argue it? What do you have to gain? Do you have some idea that it would be nice to discredit 2000 years of the papacy? Because I don’t think you’re going to be able to do that today…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel,

I will address your responses tomorrow as time permits. But just so you are aware:

I am not contesting primacy but supremacy.

If you see my posts in other threads this will be clearly the case.

Peace be with you as well.

Thank you; looking forward,

For clarity;

Primacy relates to the local Bishop of Rome with the keys to bind and loose at the local level, all bishops are equal here, except the Bishop of Rome, who is first among equals.

Here the Bishop of Rome does not dictate to my local Bishop, Rome has made this clear to the U.S conference of Bishops who operate at the local level.

Supremacy relates to the Chair of Peter of whom Jesus gives the keys to Peter with the authority to bind and loose on EARTH., to which the Bishop of Rome has unbroken Apostolic succession to Peter the Apostle.

Here all Bishops united to the Pope = Peter, is when the Pope speaks for and behalf of all Christians.

Peace be with you

 

[Karen107]

Karen-

The word “perhaps” which I hightlighted in your post above provides an “out”; otherwise, the assertion that would remain without it would be problematic.

Wow you drew on that assumption because I said ‘perhaps’? and never read anything else. These are our beliefs and I would not safely assume anything for God I’ll leave that up to God, as others should as well, however I can look back and reflect on what has happened and say it happened because of Gods providence. Peace…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wow you drew on that assumption because I said ‘perhaps’? and never read anything else. These are our beliefs and I would not safely assume anything for God I’ll leave that up to God, as others should as well, however I can look back and reflect on what has happened and say it happened because of Gods providence. Peace…

Here is what happens if you remove the word “perhaps”:

Had the empire of Rome not taken the Church under it’s wing as the State religion, Christianity would have died.

This says that Christianity would have died if not for Constantine. I reject that idea.

Your original statement says, in effect, that Christianity MIGHT have died if not for Constantine.

I reject that, too.

See the book of Exodus for more details.

 

[Karen107]

Here is what happens if you remove the word “perhaps”:

Had the empire of Rome not taken the Church under it’s wing as the State religion, Christianity would have died.

This says that Christianity would have died if not for Constantine. I reject that idea.

Your original statement says, in effect, that Christianity MIGHT have died if not for Constantine.

I reject that, too.

See the book of Exodus for more details.

Here’s what would have happened if Mary said No to God or Joseph did who was protecting her and Jesus… Jesus might not have been born or could have died in infancy… Our obedience to God means everything don’t you think? The choices we make can mean life or death to anyone… Read the book of Genesis starting with the story of Adam and Eve.

 

[rfournier103]

I do have a question- for the OP and for the other former Catholic who is strenuously arguing that Peter is not the Rock.

Why does it matter to you? If you are not Catholic, why do you and your churches care about the Pope and his apostolic line? How is it relevant to you? It’s relevant to us, and we hold it to be fact. If you don’t, that’s your business. Why bother trying to argue it? What do you have to gain? Do you have some idea that it would be nice to discredit 2000 years of the papacy? Because I don’t think you’re going to be able to do that today…

Arguably the best post of the entire thread.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here’s what would have happened if Mary said No to God or Joseph did who was protecting her and Jesus… Jesus might not have been born or could have died in infancy…

God knew her response before the angel left heaven. But let’s assume for a moment that Mary surprised God by saying no. Do you think it would have been so difficult for God to wait 16 years for another young girl to grow up?

Our obedience to God means everything don’t you think? The choices we make can mean life or death to anyone… Read the book of Genesis starting with the story of Adam and Eve.

Our choices do matter, but God would not have been deterred in His plans for the Incarnation if one young Jewish girl had turned Him down.

Like He wouldn’t have a backup plan?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Gabriel of 12:

Let’s keep it simple shall we? There are no councils which contest or reject the authority of the Popes presiding in Peter’s Chair period.

Just like there are no Councils that contest or reject the authority of the Bishop of Constantinople (Or any other Bishop for that matter).
In fact, when the Sees are mentioned in the council it is specifically mentioned in order of honor.
Gabriel of 12:

Those who oppose the authority of Peter, have not codified any official document, or council to date that contests or rejects the authority of Peter’s Chair.

There is no need to. There were no exceptions/waivers to any Bishop for the first 1,000+ years of Church history.
Gabriel of 12:

It remains an opinion from those who reject and oppose the authority of Peter’s Chair. This opinion is never supported by any Church council including the ones you provided.

No. It is the opinion of Rome alone that she is exempt of any and all rules and under the authority of the Whole Church. There is no provision whatsoever that excludes any of the Sees from the mandates of the entire Church. Until Rome claimed it for herself.
Gabriel of 12:

I can’t produce any because none exist. Show me one document from a Church council that rejects the Chair of Peter or contests’ the Bishop’s of Rome authority presiding as Vicar of Christ. All other views remain an opinion stemming from a political background that pretends to usurp, and object to the authority Jesus places upon Peter.

ANY BISHOP means any Bishop. No exceptions. The Church as a Whole has spoken. 1 Tim. 3:15.
Gabriel of 12:

I have only addressed the opinion which you take from the Orthodox who reject the authority of Peter’s Chair. Protestants take many different views of the Petrine primacy, which is not part of our discussion, I am not isolating the Orthodox here, while keeping within our view’s within it’s Context, context please. I don’t take you as the type who goes all over the board just to discuss one issue.

In my other thread regarding the “Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome”, the Vatican as well as the USCCB both agree with what I am presenting:
JOINT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE
BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
Ravenna, 13 October 2007

*40. During the first millennium, the universal communion of the Churches in the ordinary course of events was maintained through fraternal relations between the bishops. These relations, among the bishops themselves, between the bishops and their respective protoi, and also among the protoi themselves in the canonical order (taxis) witnessed by the ancient Church, nourished and consolidated ecclesial communion. History records the consultations, letters and appeals to major sees, especially to that of Rome, which vividly express the solidarity that koinonia creates. Canonical provisions such as the inclusion of the names of the bishops of the principal sees in the diptychs and the communication of the profession of faith to the other patriarchs on the occasion of elections, are concrete expressions of koinonia.

1. Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs.They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.

42.Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils.​

Continued

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Gabriel of 12:

I answered it already for you*Your view indicates no one can change the Nicene Creed. I answered no one has. I qualified this to show your view does not stand. Should your view take any precedence, then you would have to reject the Nicene Creed when it was changed over time from early Bishops, including the Trinity dogma.

If the filioque never changed then I am sure there are no issues between East and West regarding it, right?
Gabriel of 12:

Any Bishop applies to any Bishop in his domestic Church. This does not apply to the Petrine office, because the Petrine office is not included in any such document from which you take your opposition, when there never is an opposition to the Petrine office. Your own document you provide proves my case here.

The Bishop of Rome is equal to all his brethren as a Bishop of Rome, which the rule applies. When the Bishop of Rome presides in Peter’s Chair over the whole Church, your document does not address the Primacy of Peter, and no council document contests or objects to the Petrine Primacy. Only echo’s of opinion’s objecting to Peter’s Chair, or they want to claim Peter’s authority to themselves, which Jesus never does.

Why does it not apply to the Petrine Office(s)? Do you have anything other than silence to support this assertion during those first 1,000 years? Any Bishop means any Bishop unless there is an exception, which is absent
Gabriel of 12:

You already have; No Church document contest or reject the Petrine Primacy. If any thing the commentaries to the documents support the Petrine Primacy.

That’s correct. Is doesn’t contest primacy. It contests supremacy.
Gabriel of 12:

It is to your view that requires support from any church council that rejects or contest’s the Petrine Primacy. NO one gives credence to your objection of the Petrine Primacy of any official Church documents or councils. Your documents addresses specifically the local Bishops never the Primacy of Peter.

Not my view. Those are Church documents. I didn’t make any up, nor did I arrive to a new interpretation. This is what the Undivided Church believed.
Gabriel of 12:

When a Church council addresses the Primacy of Peter, she does so in support of my view which I presented in support of Jesus revelation and divine authority, Jesus places upon Peter alone.

Please produce a Church council, that rejects the Primacy of Peter. Maybe a Protestant can help you here, because after 1600 years of Catholic Christianity, protestants enter history and produced for themselves anti-Pope documents that reject the Primacy of Peter. But these don’t apply, not even for the Eastern Church’s.

How many times do I have to explain that I’m arguing supremacy and not primacy. It’s like the straw man that never dies…

Peace be with you as well, Gabriel

 

[savedbygrace71]

Arguably the best post of the entire thread.

Thank you

But I have a feeling I won’t get an answer.

 

[KathleenGee]

I have been reflecting on this thread…and Randy Carson provided us many Protestant theologians who have objectively affirmed that the correct understanding of Peter is the name for a person, not a symbol.

And yet all those Protestant theologians who affirm the Catholic position still do not believe the Catholic Church as instituted by Christ.

You can provide all the complete documents to verify that Christ did indeed institute one Church with One Head…albeit in communion with the patriarchs. But people will still not believe.

Not only does it take grace to have faith in Christ, it takes an additional step to believe that the Catholic Church is the one instituted by Christ, and in 107 it is St. Ignatius of Antioch, not Constantine as some evangelicals think…that called the Church Catholic.

Our original title was simply the Universal Church.

 

[spina1953]

I have been reflecting on this thread…and Randy Carson provided us many Protestant theologians who have objectively affirmed that the correct understanding of Peter is the name for a person, not a symbol.

And yet all those Protestant theologians who affirm the Catholic position still do not believe the Catholic Church as instituted by Christ.

You can provide all the complete documents to verify that Christ did indeed institute one Church with One Head…albeit in communion with the patriarchs. But people will still not believe.

Not only does it take grace to have faith in Christ, it takes an additional step to believe that the Catholic Church is the one instituted by Christ, and in 107 it is St. Ignatius of Antioch, not Constantine as some evangelicals think…that called the Church Catholic.

Our original title was simply the Universal Church.

Hi Kathleen Gee: I agree. And more to the point you made, in the end it what people are wiling to believe as people will believe what they want even if it not the truth.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Kathleen Gee: I agree. And more to the point you made, in the end it what people are wiling to believe as people will believe what they want even if it not the truth.

Right, because people are willing to believe not truth. Or maybe, I don’t know, they don’t see the truth according to some people.

Scriptures and the Church both attest to each other.

They both agree that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of truth. Not one single person, right?

 

[spina1953]

Right, because people are willing to believe not truth. Or maybe, I don’t know, they don’t see the truth according to some people.

Scriptures and the Church both attest to each other.

They both agree that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of truth. Not one single person, right?

Hi Iasiah 45: Truth is one of those things that either people believe or they don’t. There are truths people believe to be false and there are what is false what is believed to be true. Lies can travel the world several times before truth can tie its shoe laces.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

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

Cyprian:

The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).

**Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; **but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

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.

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.

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.

Could either of you provide a little more detail about Warren Carroll’s thought?

 

[guanophore]

Could either of you provide a little more detail about Warren Carroll’s thought?

biblelight.net/burn-heretics.htm