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.
In the context of Jesus speaking to His Royal Steward, it means to rule.
The context is Jesus healing a broken man.
Again, Jesus says “shepherd my sheep”. No one can rule sheep, they can only be led.
Poimaino
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
poy-mah’-ee-no Verb

Definition
to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
to rule, govern
of rulers
to furnish pasture for food
to nourish
to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
to supply the requisites for the soul’s need
When “poimaino” is in the context of the nations it means “rule”. In the context of sheep, it means “shepherd”.
 
The context is Jesus healing a broken man.
Again, Jesus says “shepherd my sheep”. No one can rule sheep, they can only be led.
Did Peter literally shepherd a flock of four-legged animals?
When “poimaino” is in the context of the nations it means “rule”. In the context of sheep, it means “shepherd”.
Exactly. So, when Peter leads the Church commissioned to make disciples of all nations, he rules.

:dancing:
 
The context is Jesus healing a broken man.
Again, Jesus says “shepherd my sheep”. No one can rule sheep, they can only be led.

When “poimaino” is in the context of the nations it means “rule”. In the context of sheep, it means “shepherd”.
Words can really cause problems.
If you object to a shepherd “ruling” his sheep, do you at least agree that he must have competence and authority to serve them in a unique way that, for instance, a non-shepherd cannot do, because he is not gifted in that way?

Can any random person call the sheep?

Can any random person be united with the flock in the same way a shepherd is, yet be unique in his leadership? Note that sheep “listen to” only the shepherd’s voice.

If that is not unique leadership, what is? This is the whole point of Christ’s analogy: the sheep do not listen to any random person’s voice. Even today, if you can find a flock of sheep, they acknowledge THE shepherd’s voice, and no other.

Can you get past the negative connotations contained in the word “rule”?
 
They may have any number of concerns about Catholicism, but Peter being the rock of Mt. 16:18-19 is not one of them.

:dancing:
Apparently they have so many concerns that even though you say they believe Peter was the rock on which Christ built His Church, they still don’t submit to Peter’s/Christ’s Church.
 
Isaiah45_9;12464672]The President analogy works to what I’m presenting.
And this the whole problem with your presentation, forcing the Church to become your democracy which She never is. She is a hierarchy with a King and His Vicar on earth Peter.

Until you accept this first century divine revelation, your democratic view contradicts the first four hundred years of the Persecuted Catholic Church with an age the Church is set free from persecution laws, It is here the church councils to settle internal matters infecting the Eastern Church when the Western Church never has such internal problems with the Apostolic faith or Apostolic Authority.
The President can be removed, whereas the Pope cannot.
If the Catholic Church was ruled under a secular power as her leader, the Emperor could depose his popes. But Jesus is our King and Lord, and only Jesus has the power to remove Peter, because only Jesus gives His keys and authority to Peter. Your democratic view of the church never works here.

Now if Peter suspects a wolf in the flock, Peter alone has the divine authority to bind and loose that wolf on the earth and expose the wolf. A Pope never has the power to remove a Bishop from his valid holy orders. You give to much power to the Pope here, because the Pope never has any powers to put asunder whatever God has joined together.

Do you know how difficult it is for a valid Bishop to be deposed or excommunicated? The Pope never operates on the whim. Your view once again contradicts Jesus. If you knew how difficult it is to depose a valid Bishop, when Peter is commissioned by Jesus to bring back his brethren when they fall away. There are reasons for why certain Church documents are written the way they are, and you have not presented any of them here.

The Pope is commissioned to tend and feed Jesus flock, if it means removing wolves from the flock and exposing them at the cost of the Pope’s life. History proves the Popes have faithfully protected Jesus flock from such wolves. Yet your view would suffer the flock, to wait for a democratic vote. When a wolf enters the flock, the wolf wastes no time in consuming these little ones.
The Conciliar model of Church government is seen in Scriptures and in the Living Tradition of Church history. Where a Bishop is amenable to be deposed or excommunicated by the Church as a Whole. Whereas that is no longer possible for the Pope (After the Great Schism).
How do you think Peter excommunicated wolves from the flock prior the East Conciliar Church canons were invented after the persecution of the Church was lifted? I will give you a clue, your cannons never existed yet.

That Apostolic model Jesus places upon Peter has never left the Popes even while under persecution and the cost of their martyrdom.

Poster’s here have presented a marvelous amount of Catholic faith expressed from sacred scripture and sacred Tradition that supports a living Tradition of recognizing Jesus as our King and Peter as His Vicar on earth.

The Catholic faith hopes and lives on God’s never failing providence over Peter and the Church. The Popes authority over the flock that; Jesus gives him to feed and tend, relates to the Apostolic deposit of faith and morals practiced unchanged in the body of Christ. Peter does not reach into secular governing powers or usurping other apostolic sees’ authority to himself as it is falsely claimed by a misinterpretation of Church canons.

If you read a Church canon and it places fear in you; then you are misinterpreting Church’s canon’s. Time appears to be your precedence to refute later Church canon’s. These canons address their present events to tend the sheep (bishops) and protect the lambs so that their feeding does not get changed or infected.

Please look into the current events to which these canons reveal themselves first, before you start making false claims to the Whole of the Church.

Have you really read the Catholic posters post’s here, without reservation, on what they present by their faith in Jesus Christ made Peter the head of the Church. Who are holding to scripture and sacred Tradition for 2000 years of Catholic faith unchanged, not just a recorded history from the 5th century to the 11th century. When the Bishop of Rome is present in the beginning of this history when others are not and who is present in every age to the present.

No one really addresses your thousand year theory, so I post by introducing you to a reality which your view misses. I take it when ask for sources on this subject you are not read here? So I tread lightly here so as to hand you the Rock humbly and not with any negative recourse.

Peace be with you
 
Apparently they have so many concerns that even though you say they believe Peter was the rock on which Christ built His Church, they still don’t submit to Peter’s/Christ’s Church.
Correct.

So, we address those concerns one by one and voila
 
The context is Jesus healing a broken man.
Again, Jesus says “shepherd my sheep”. No one can rule sheep, they can only be led.
I think we can go just so far with analogies. Especially considering sheep.
p:
When “poimaino” is in the context of the nations it means “rule”. In the context of sheep, it means “shepherd”.
.ποίμαινε

Since humans are made to the image and likeness of God, I think the analogies to sheep goes just so far.
 
Are you saying that Rome has taught heresy?

Could you be more specific?

Second, we had a big group discussion about this last year, didn’t we? :yup:

You may recall that I cited Mark Bonocore, Dave Armstrong and others who have documented the fact that the East was in heresy for hundreds of years. That was true, wasn’t it?

And Rome? Not so much.

However, I don’t want to suggest that ONLY Rome pulled them out of the mess they were in.
I am not saying that the see of Rome taught heresy. However, I am saying that the West has its own history of heresy. Sabellianism, Novatianism, Donatism, Pelagianism, and the medieval eucharistic heresies, etc. Also, Arianism plagued the West long past the time it was extinguished in the East (due largely to the work of Eastern bishops).

I would also say that Rome had very little to do with “saving” the East from Arianism, Apollinarianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, or even Monophysitism.
 
I am not saying that the see of Rome taught heresy. However, I am saying that the West has its own history of heresy. Sabellianism, Novatianism, Donatism, Pelagianism, and the medieval eucharistic heresies, etc. Also, Arianism plagued the West long past the time it was extinguished in the East (due largely to the work of Eastern bishops).

I would also say that Rome had very little to do with “saving” the East from Arianism, Apollinarianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, or even Monophysitism.
One wonders if the fact that the Bishop of Rome held out against all those heresies that plagued the east may have helped like a lighthouse helps a ship caught in a storm, but okay.

I was wrong. Rome never helped the east recover from heresy.
 
In the passage there are two words translated from the Greek for rock. Petros is the word used for Peter. Wherever you see the word Peter in the bible it is translated Petros. The other word is petra. This word is never used as Peter’s name. It is used here though.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual **Rock **(petrah) that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

and here

1Peter2
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petrah) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Jesus sent all the disciples to preach the good news to the world.

Matt.28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Also Paul

Acts18:6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
Daddy… It is Good that you pointed out the rock which represents Christ in the scriptures but what you haven’t done is point out that rock is used many times in reference to other things/persons in scripture. The scripture is full of words that can be used to represent things. This rock or that rock. The rock which the Church was built on is Peter. The Rock being the metaphor for something solid that is built upon like a Rock.

Here’s some examples where the rock was used to represent someone other than Christ.

Deuteronomy 32:37 Then he will say, ‘Where are their gods, the rock in which they took refuge,

Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

1 Samuel 2:2 “There is none holy like the Lord, there is none besides thee; there is no rock like our God.

1 Samuel 23:28 So Saul returned from pursuing after David, and went against the Philistines; therefore that place was called the Rock of Escape.

Isaiah 31:9 His rock shall pass away in terror, and his officers desert the standard in panic,” says the Lord, whose fire is in Zion, and whose furnace is in Jerusalem.

Deuteronomy 32:30 How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had given them up?

Now if the rock represents Christ in Matthew 16:18 it would not make any sense grammatically.

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock (JESUS) I will build my (JESUS) church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Jesus rather would say something like. This is my church and I want it built on me. It just doesn’t make sense that Jesus would make such a statement known to Peter. Jesus made the statement to Peter because He wanted Peter to lead the Church (on earth). Jesus confirms this by telling Peter to Feed His Sheep.
 
I am not saying that the see of Rome taught heresy. However, I am saying that the West has its own history of heresy. Sabellianism, Novatianism, Donatism, Pelagianism, and the medieval eucharistic heresies, etc. Also, Arianism plagued the West long past the time it was extinguished in the East (due largely to the work of Eastern bishops).

I would also say that Rome had very little to do with “saving” the East from Arianism, Apollinarianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, or even Monophysitism.
I hate to admit it, but perhaps the biggest heresy of all is from the West… it’s called Protestantism. 😊
 
One wonders if the fact that the Bishop of Rome held out against all those heresies that plagued the east may have helped like a lighthouse helps a ship caught in a storm, but okay.

I was wrong. Rome never helped the east recover from heresy.
The historical facts show that the Eastern heresies were dealt with at councils that were held in the East, with attendance that was overwhelmingly Eastern, and in the case of at least once council, entirely Eastern.

I would not say that Rome never helped the East recover from heresy. I would say that it is a gross mischaracterization to say that Rome came in and constantly “saved” the East from heresy. I’m not aware of St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers relying on Rome to refute Arianism. I’m not aware of St. Gregory of Nazianzus relying on Rome to refute Apollinarianism or Macedonianism. I’m not aware of St. Cyril of Alexandria relying on Rome to refute Nestorianism. I also don’t think they thought “Rome doesn’t accept these strange teachings, so neither should we.” Rather, they recognized them as heresies and refuted them–largely through their own efforts.
 
The context is Jesus healing a broken man.
Again, Jesus says “shepherd my sheep”. No one can rule sheep, they can only be led.
Good Catholics are “sheep” which look to Christ as their ruler.
Their King. Their Savior. Their Judge. Their Lord.
 
If the Catholic Church was ruled under a secular power as her leader, the Emperor could depose his popes. But Jesus is our King and Lord, and only Jesus has the power to remove Peter, because only Jesus gives His keys and authority to Peter. Your democratic view of the church never works here.
First - Keep analogies to analogies. Not outside the context of the conversation.

Second - Stop using the name of our Lord in vain. You don’t get to determine what Jesus meant or not. The Church does that for us. You just happen to be in **one **of the Churches that has Apostolic Succession. That your See is in Rome doesn’t mean you are right.

Third - Your view is absent for more than 1,000 years of Church history. No amount of words you type presenting empty facts will take away from that. The Vatican is aware of this fact. Get on the bus.
No one really addresses your thousand year theory, so I post by introducing you to a reality which your view misses. I take it when ask for sources on this subject you are not read here? So I tread lightly here so as to hand you the Rock humbly and not with any negative recourse.
Covering your eyes from the sun does not make the sun go away. It just gives you the impression that it’s not there anymore.

I don’t have a view. I have facts, whereas you have none. That is glaringly obvious. Your view was developed after the 11th century. Only 5 centuries before the Reformation. That’s it. There was no supreme, absolute, immediate, and ordinary jurisdiction for the Whole Catholic Church for the first 1,000 years of Church history, that is a fact. If you think it’s not, then prove it.

After all your posts you have presented nothing at all that refutes the facts.
 
From the early Church records at The Council of Jerusalem:

Acts 15: 6-7 Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers.’

Also… 2 Timothy 2: 14 Remind them of this, and warn them before God that they are to avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening.
 
Third - Your view is absent for more than 1,000 years of Church history. No amount of words you type presenting empty facts will take away from that. The Vatican is aware of this fact. Get on the bus.
So the Vatican has accepted your facts, and is now ready to join the Orthodox Church?
 
So the Vatican has accepted your facts, and is now ready to join the Orthodox Church?
Did you read the Ravenna document? Did you read the part where the Vatican developed the doctrine and the dogma of the Papacy?

If not, can you please go read them and then come back and ask the same questions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top