Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Randy_Carson]

Did you read the Ravenna document? Did you read the part where the Vatican developed the doctrine and the dogma of the Papacy?

Did you read Cardinal Newman and Fr. Fortescue? Did you understand the part where doctrine develops naturally and the papacy has expanded as the needs of the Church it serves has expanded?

If not, can you please go read them and then come back and ask the same questions?

If not, can you please go read them and then come back with with the understanding of why it really doesn’t matter what the papacy looked like in the first 1,000 years.

 

[steve_b]

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.

To be fair, only one see is the see of Peter. It’s Rome. And obviously by your approach, you aren’t in union with that see.
I:

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.

Again, to be fair, looking at this historically, could you give me the first time IN WRITING, that we see “Orthodox Church”? Please give the reference(s) properly referenced of course.

Thanks in advance
I:

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.

Again to be fair, to this day there is no “Orthodox Church”. There are many individual autonomous “Orthodox Churches”, with no ONE speaking for the whole. The EP doesn’t speak for the whole, and his authority is in doubt especially with the biggest of the Orthodox Churches , the ROC. That has not been the experience of the Catholic Church going back to the beginning. Here’s a quick 400 yr history from Jesus to Augustine #34 fully documented in all the internal links

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Did you read Cardinal Newman and Fr. Fortescue? Did you understand the part where doctrine develops naturally and the papacy has expanded as the needs of the Church it serves has expanded?

I have. Their understanding of naturally is exclusive to the West.

If not, can you please go read them and then come back with with the understanding of why it really doesn’t matter what the papacy looked like in the first 1,000 years.

I already did. The only people that believe it doesn’t matter are those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Have you read all the documents I have presented and the history of the Church Councils and the Councils themselves?

That seem to be the biggest difference, does it not? I’ve read most of the documents and history and have seen both sides of the story. Can you say the same?

 

[MartinJordan]

Really? Let hear it!

More…

Matthew 17 1 And after six days Jesus taketh unto him Peter and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a *high mountain *apart:

2 And he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow.

3 And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him.

4 And Peter answering, said to Jesus: Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

and Gen 1:25b, 26a and 31

Gen 1:25b, 26a:

25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 And he said: **Let us make **man to our image and likeness:

31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

Thus after Peter said that Jesus was the Christ (in Matthew 16 - see post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12465647&postcount=496 ) - every time Peter speaks, God the Father is also instrumental in declaring the Glory of his Son!

One is during the Creation days, and Next during the** New Creation days**.

Apologies if I don’t seem to make the proper grammar and sentence structure. But I hope the point is taken.

MJ

 

[Isaiah45_9]

To be fair, only one see is the see of Peter. It’s Rome. And obviously by your approach, you aren’t in union with that see.

That’s incorrect. Antioch is also the See of Peter, where Evodius and Ignatius succeeded him.

Also incorrect, I am united to the Church Universal by virtue of Baptism. The union is imperfect but it is union nonetheless.

Again, to be fair, looking at this historically, could you give me the first time IN WRITING, that we see “Orthodox Church”? Please give the reference(s) properly referenced of course.

Thanks in advance

2 Timothy 4:3

But still a Non-Sequitur and irrelevant to the facts I’m presenting.

Again to be fair, to this day there is no “Orthodox Church”. There are many individual autonomous “Orthodox Churches”, with no ONE speaking for the whole. The EP doesn’t speak for the whole, and his authority is in doubt especially with the biggest of the Orthodox Churches , the ROC. That has not been the experience of the Catholic Church going back to the beginning. Here’s a quick 400 yr history from Jesus to Augustine #34 fully documented in all the internal links

None of it proves supremacy, immediate, universal and ordinary jurisdiction for any one Bishop. Nor is it above the first 7 Ecumenical Church Councils of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Matthew 16: 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 ******I will ****build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And…

Matthew 17: 4 And Peter answering, said to Jesus: Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

5 And as he was yet speaking, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them. And lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him.

Do you see the connection Randy?

Paralleling Matthew 16:18 with Matthew 17:4

and Matthew 16:17 with Matthew 17:5



MJ

I’m less clear on this one…walk me through it more carefully. Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have. Their understanding of naturally is exclusive to the West.

I already did. The only people that believe it doesn’t matter are those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

And, frankly, those are the only people that count. Why should I care what those who have wandered away from the fold think about the shepherd that they refuse to follow?

They may be nice folks, they may have interesting things to say on some topics, but on this…nope.

Have you read all the documents I have presented and the history of the Church Councils and the Councils themselves?

That seem to be the biggest difference, does it not? I’ve read most of the documents and history and have seen both sides of the story. Can you say the same?

Nope. :yawn:

The idea of using Catholic documents to disprove a core belief of Catholicism is ludicrous.

But hey, if your argument has any merit, I’m sure the anti-Catholic crowd will eventually pick up on it, and then some professional Catholic apologists will address it. If not, it will die with these threads.

Either way, I don’t think it’s a good use of my time to read reams of documents in a vain effort to convince you that you’re wrong. There’s not much likelihood of a return on that, is there?

FWIW, I have gone back, however, to review some of your earliest posts here at CAF. You’ve been saying the same things for three years. At some point, we just have to shake the dust from our feet and move on. I’m doing that now.

As before, you may have the last word.

 

[MartinJordan]

I’m less clear on this one…walk me through it more carefully. Thanks.

Ok. I will try.

In Matthew 16 Jesus calls Peter the “rock” and that he will build His Church on it. But that was AFTER Peter proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.

Now going to Matthew 17, Peter after seeing that Moses and Elijah in the midst of Jesus is amazed the awesome light and scenario, immediately and cheerfully asking Jesus’ Will if he would like him and James and John to make three Tabernacles (which is found Temple or Church if you will) for the three. (and remember the Transfiguration is just before the feast of the Tabernacles!).

This is when at the same time God the Father proclaims his Son! But this time the voice of the Father is heard proclaiming it!

Thus it is in juxtopostion to Matthew 16 when Jesus reveals that it was his Father in Heaven that told Peter when no one heard the Father’s voice EXCEPT Peter proclaiming it!

And Peter says in Matthew 17 to **make or build (If you will) **Tabernacles while in Matthew 16 Jesus says he will build His Church on Peter! Thus another juxtaposition

Do you see it now?

MJ

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ok. I will try.

In Matthew 16 Jesus calls Peter the “rock” and that he will build His Church on it. But that was AFTER Peter proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.

Now going to Matthew 17, Peter after seeing that Moses and Elijah in the midst of Jesus is amazed the awesome light and scenario, immediately and cheerfully asking Jesus’ Will if he would like him and James and John to make three Tabernacles (which is found Temple or Church if you will) for the three. (and remember the Transfiguration is just before the feast of the Tabenacles!)

This is when at the same time God the Father proclaims his Son! But this time the voice of the Father is heard proclaiming it!

Thus it is in juxtopostion to Matthew 16 when Jesus reveals that it was his Father in Heaven that told Peter when no one heard the Father’s voice EXCEPT Peter proclaiming it!

Do you see it now?

MJ

Yes, but I’m unclear as to whether you are making a connection between the “building” of the Church in Mt. 16 and the “building” of the three booths in Mt. 17.

Or I overthinking that?

 

[KathleenGee]

People really need to pray here…I mean, really pray…the Church is a social institution and has the same kind of people running it who are no different than you and I. Without Christ, we are all losers.

Christ chose the weak…He instituted One Church with Peter as its founding head…we all need each other.

The entire Christian world needs to be reunited…as one Church, one Faith and One Baptism. There is valid points on all sides…but we must be in the Lord, One Head…

pray to renounce your way of looking at things and ask the Lord to illuminate you in this …

We need to be one again…so the world may believe…it is so terrible what is happening out there to people suffering in many places…

 

[Randy_Carson]

People really need to pray here…I mean, really pray…the Church is a social institution and has the same kind of people running it who are no different than you and I. Without Christ, we are all losers.

Christ chose the weak…He instituted One Church with Peter as its founding head…we all need each other.

The entire Christian world needs to be reunited…as one Church, one Faith and One Baptism. There is valid points on all sides…but we must be in the Lord, One Head…

pray to renounce your way of looking at things and ask the Lord to illuminate you in this …

We need to be one again…so the world may believe…it is so terrible what is happening out there to people suffering in many places…

My sentiments exactly.

 

[MartinJordan]

Yes, but I’m unclear as to whether you are making a connection between the “building” of the Church in Mt. 16 and the “building” of the three booths in Mt. 17.

Or I overthinking that?

Yes, Im saying that. I just made an amendment to the earlier post to clarify that.

Plus notice that Peter is speaking for James and John that if Jesus wills it, they will build the Tabernacles. Peter is the boss.

MJ

 

[Isaiah45_9]

FWIW, I have gone back, however, to review some of your earliest posts here at CAF. You’ve been saying the same things for three years. At some point, we just have to shake the dust from our feet and move on. I’m doing that now.

As before, you may have the last word.

Don’t be a stalker now. Treat the argument not the poster.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The idea of using Catholic documents to disprove a core belief of Catholicism is ludicrous.

What is ludicrous is the ignorance about these documents by some Catholics.

These are Catholic authoritative documents. Not opinions, theories, ideas, etc.

Do you deny them?

 

[Peter_J]

I didn’t expect you to understand.

To quote an insurance commercial, “Well, maybe you should.”

 

[guanophore]

What I am interested in is what the bible says on the subject and in particular what Peter says.

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.

Here Peter himself says that Jesus is the rock (petrah). The word used in Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petrah) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter also refers to Isaiah 8:
13 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

Can there be any doubt that Peter himself is telling us that it is Christ who is the rock (petrah) upon which He builds His church?

No. Jesus is THE rock.

Peter makes a “rocky” statement of faith.

Jesus renames Simon to Peter (Rock). How many times has God renamed people? Each time He has, there was a monumental shift of identity and mission.

I don’t see how anyone can see that Jesus is not also talking about the person of Peter, since He changes his name.

Later, St. Paul relates that we are all, like living stones, being built into the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.

 

[A_Lurker]

Despite my earlier misgivings, I did want to follow this discussion to it’s conclusion (which seems to be approaching).****

This overall exchange has only reinforced my belief that there is still a lot of misunderstanding/ignorance regarding us.

Isaiah (who is not Orthodox) has presented Orthodox objections eloquently, and his focus on the primary sources themselves was refreshing as it goes with internet discussions.

Isaiah’s points have been answered in the following ways-----

1.) Re-hashing of the Roman Catholic position on the Papacy, despite the fact that:
-There is more than one way to interpret the scriptural proof texts provided
-The Early Church Fathers certainly did not view the Papacy or Papal Perogatives the way modern Latin apologists claim
-Those same Church Fathers are often taken out of context
-Ecumenical Councils and Canons do not say what Catholic Apologists say they say, which an examination of the Primary Sources (in their entirety) will reveal
-That the above points have been answered by others in past posts…Catholic posters ignore our rebuttals and circle the wagons.

2.) Disregarding the Early Church Fathers: The history and Church Fathers do not support your arguments, therefore the Church Fathers “Don’t Matter” because that was the past and the Church has “evolved” to meet the needs of the present day Church. The Papacy developed to address issues that the Church Fathers may not have foreseen. There is just one problem with this argument----We Orthodox, by our existence and history are a living rebuttal of this argument. We have maintained our unity of Faith despite what has gone on (unity of adminstration is not required, which is something Latins have a hard time grasping). We have preserved the Faith and continue to do so. The fact that we have not collapsed into Protestant factionalism counters any such arguments.

3.) Disregarding Non-Catholic Sources: Isaiah has used Catholic sources to present his arguments and was met with bluster and dismissal. To ignore Non-Catholic sources is ludicrous, because Orthodox have no problem reading and citing Roman Catholic stuff. If there is something wrong with our position, surely you can highlight some of the things our guys have been saying. To quote another exchange—

“Why do you refuse to try?”

4.) Emotional appeals to Unity: The implication here is that it is our “hardness of heart” that has lead to the fracturing of Christendom, nevermind that this argument can just as easily be turned around on you. The call for reconciliation flows both ways…

---

This is just a summary of what I have gotten out of these discussions.

Catholic apologists seem to be very uncomfortable dialoguing with the Orthodox, because what happened all those centuries ago was not so cut and dry, from either side.

This will be my last post here, and anybody can have any last word or no last word. Dialogues between us inevitably turn to these issues…

I can see now why so few Orthodox seem to post here.

 

[guanophore]

Ok, let’s stick with Matt.16. I pointed this out before but you seem to ignore it. The word for Peter is petros. Wherever you see the word Peter in the bible it is translated from the word petros. Matthew however does not use this word in verse 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock(petrah) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. That is the same word used in 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.

Now Matthew could have used petros in both cases. He could have used the word Kepha which is Aramaic for rock, the language that Jesus spoke. He did not. He used petros and petrah and it is my contention that he did this so that there would be no mistaking what he is talking about. So I’m not assuming anything. I’m simply reading the passage as Matthew intended it to be read.

You probably have not yet been able to catch up on all the posts, but you are right, Jesus spoke to Simon in Aramaic, and used the word “Kepha”. We know this because Matthew wrote his gospel in his native tongue first.

It is less clear in the Greek, since in Greek, the word “rock” is a feminie word. To make it a proper name it would actually have to be misspelled.

If this renamig did not occur in Aramaic first, we would not have the two version of the name (Peter/Cephas)

 

[Sy_Noe]

Correct.

So, we address those concerns one by one and voila…

…and where your argument that Protestants believe Peter was the rock upon which Christ built His Church begins to breakdown is here: If they truly believed this, they wouldn’t have so many concerns about the CC. If they fully believed this, they’d submit themselves to Peter’s Church with less concerns. They wouldn’t need you to address them one by one. They’d submit to Peter and Rome. But they don’t.

 

[joe371]

Good point. Catholics don’t assert that Peter’s leadership supercedes Jesus’. Rather, Peter is the temporal leader of the Church (as is each subsequent pope); not as a successor of Christ, but only as His Vicar…

And yet after that Jesus still said: Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Luke 22