Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[guanophore]

Ok, so what was the monumental shift of identity and mission when Jesus renamed James and John “Sons of thunder”?

This is a very interesting question, worthy of it’s own thread.

James and John possessed some truly thunder-like qualities. Jesus and His disciples were traveling through Samaria on their way to Jerusalem when they ran into trouble. Jesus attempted to find accommodations for the night in one place but was met with opposition from the villagers, simply because His destination was Jerusalem—a result of Jew-Samaritan prejudice. “When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, ‘Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?’” (Luke 9:54). Jesus rebuked the brothers, and they all went to another village. James and John’s response to the Samaritans reveals a fervency, impetuosity, and anger that could properly be called “thunderous”—and we can be sure that there were other times when James and John lived up to their nickname.

In meditating on that passage, I have always been convinced that the Boanerges were capable of doing what they proposed, ,by the grace of God.

 

[guanophore]

My goal is truth, not to not offend anybody.

I find the RC reluctance to call themselves a denomination simply posturing and equivocation.

From whom do you imagine the CC denominated?

 

[Picky_Picky]

From whom do you imagine the CC denominated?

Can you denominate from someone? Doesn’t denominate simply mean “name”? Isn’t a Christian denomination simply a group of Christians with a name?

 

[clem456]

Can you denominate from someone? Doesn’t denominate simply mean “name”? Isn’t a Christian denomination simply a group of Christians with a name?

de·nom·i·na·tion
/dəˌnäməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: denomination; plural noun: denominations
1.
a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.

The Church is the body of Christ.
There is no division in Christ.
Christ is the unity of all things.

So,
There can be no denominations in Christ.
One is either
1)united to his Body
or
2) not united to his Body

(and sure enough the Church recognizes degrees of unity with the Church, but it is not because of denominations, it is despite them.)

 

[Picky_Picky]

So does that mean you think the verb “to denominate” doesn’t mean “to name”?

 

[jediliz]

If Saint Peter had not been made leader, there would have been problems in the early church (more than there were). The Church needed a strong leader, the first one was appointed by CHRIST HIMSELF, despite Peter’s big denial during the events of the Passion.

why are there 1000s of protestant denominations? why is there not just one? they keep splitting because of the lack of unification.

 

[spina1953]

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…

Hi Kathleen Gee: I could not agree with you more!

 

[daddyd]

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 32:30 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?.
Deuteronomy 32:37 Then he will say, ‘Where are their gods, the rock in which they took refuge,
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.

You are right with these. Rock is used to as a symbol of other gods.

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.

Here it is used as the name of a place

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

These two however are used to represent the God of Israel. And that Rock is Jesus.

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).

Well, maybe if you take verse 18 out of context, but if you keep it in context with the rest of the exchange with Jesus, it makes perfect sense.

Matt16
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 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.

First of all Jesus is inquiring of His disciples 1.who do people and 2. who do you say that I (not Peter) am. Then Peter, who usually sticks his foot in his mouth says exactly the right thing, that Jesus is the messiah, but He doesn’t allow him to get a big head. He points out that this observation doesn’t come from Peter, but from the Father. Then we get to the controversial verse 18. And here Matt under the guidance of the Holy Spirit choses two words for rock. Petros for Peter and Petrah for the rock upon which Christ builds His church, Himself. I believe this was done purposely so that the distinction would be apparent. I believe this was a masterful technique and left no doubt who Jesus was talking about. Especially since in verse 18 Jesus says that the gates of hell will not prevail against it and in vs.21-23 Satan does prevail against Peter.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Jesus confirms this by telling Peter to Feed His Sheep.

Jesus is telling this to all of us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Nope. Just your interpretation of what they mean and how they should be applied.

I’ll stick with the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the theologians and the canon lawyers of the Catholic Church because ultimately, that means sticking with Jesus who built and maintains the one, true Church that He founded upon the rock, Peter.

Out.

 

[daddyd]

The Church is the body of Christ.
There is no division in Christ.
Christ is the unity of all things.

So,
There can be no denominations in Christ.
One is either
1)united to his Body
or
2) not united to his Body

(and sure enough the Church recognizes degrees of unity with the Church, but it is not because of denominations, it is despite them.)

John 10:16

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

 

[Randy_Carson]

…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.

Perhaps. However, the classic dodge is to say, “Yes, we admit that Peter was the rock, but we deny apostolic succession.” And thus, the chain of logic ends.

Now, Catholics and Orthodox AGREE on apostolic succession, so that’s not YOUR issue, but it is big to them.

And btw, just note that we are talking about a handful of Protestant scholars (who would have lost their income if they had converted). OTOH, boatloads of Protestant pastors, making the same connection between Peter and the rock, HAVE been converting.

In fact, the Coming Home Network exists to assist those men who are facing the very real issues of being unemployed after resigning their positions in Protestant churches in order to follow their consciences. And yes, you probably have some of that going on within the Orthodox community, also.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Nope. Just your interpretation of what they mean and how they should be applied.

Can you point to said interpretations?

The Councils, Letter, Bulls, documents I have presented have no need to be interpreted. They speak by themselves. In fact, they are Catholic documents.

I’ll stick with the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the theologians and the canon lawyers of the Catholic Church because ultimately, that means sticking with Jesus who built and maintains the one, true Church that He founded upon the rock, Peter.

That is your personal choice after all, isn’t it?

Out.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

**The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus”: **
**“If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema.” **“If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. — let him be anathema” (Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion”, nn. 1823, 1825).

This right here, along with other post-schismatic documents are the biggest obstacle to unification of the Whole Church.

In regards to the other quotes you presented. It is significant that regardless of the many heroes of the faith that sat in the Chair of Peter, no exception/waiver was provided by the Whole Church as demonstrated in over 14 centuries later. That the Church as Whole did not make it a requirement for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Again,

What do you think St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles would say to such a travesty?

Do you think that St. Peter would say such a thing? If anything, His own life, letters and testimony are living witness of the contrary.

You are welcome to bring your arguments to the Primacy and Supremacy thread. After all, I’m not arguing primacy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can think of many reasons. Peter was assigned to care for the whole flock, not only those who are listening to his voice.

Okay.

Jesus prayed for unity, so clearly it is of great importance to him. We are obligated to work toward unity.

Fair enough.

To say that any of God’s creation "doesn’t count"is an insult to human dignity.

That’s stretching way beyond what I actually said.

An unwillingness to listen to the causes of disunity only perpetuates it. The Church sets the model we are to follow in seeking amicable dialogue and finding areas of agreement.

G, Isaiah has been posting in these forums for three years. The same arguments over and over. Now, if you want to say that I’m not really interested in listening at this point, you’d be right. But hasn’t Isaiah had the opportunity to listen, as well? And to what effect?

Actually it is an excellent approach, just as using Scripture to refute the errors of “bible based” Christians is very effective. Finding refutation within your opponents support base is a powerful tool in any debate.

True enough. So, are you conceding that Isaiah has found a valid argument against the Catholic Church? Should we all become Orthodox now?

Not everyone is called to the ministry of ecumenism.

I agree. I’m certainly not.

You have presented some very powerful arguments, but are limited by the attitude in this post that is apparently lacking in charity, and by a lack of familiarity with the scholarly base of your opponents.

True enough, I suppose. I have tried to bow out of multiple threads with Isaiah, and I have acknowledged that I have NOT studied the councils so I have nothing significant to offer. I have made that clear on more than one occasion, also.

But here’s the thing: numerous Catholics who ARE knowledgeable on these points have engaged Isaiah and other Orthodox posters whose names you are familiar with at length on multiple occasions over the past few years.

Where’s the fruit, G? Is there really any wonder why these Catholics do not bother engaging in these discussion in these forums any longer? And, to be fair, Orthodox posters point out the exact same frustrations from their perspective.

So, where are we? Well, I’m not sure. However, I don’t recall ever having been called out by you before, so that’s a bit disconcerting. I’ll certainly consider your thoughts as brotherly correction…but I’ll also remind you that private messaging is available if you think you need to speak with me about something like this.

 

[StevenFrancis]

He didn’t? I Couldn’t tell that from scripture, the Fathers, Church history, etc. They all seemed fairly clear to me.
So, my apologies.
I can’t believe I missed this one.
Never too late.
So, if I buy into this, am I a Lutheran, a Methodist, an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, or something else?
I need to know by Sunday.
Thanks and God bless

 

[clem456]

John 10:16

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Since you are quoting my post…
Are you disagreeing with it, or reinforcing it?

The passage reinforces that in Christ there are no denominations, because he is unity.
Those who leave the fold must be brought back to the fold, to be one fold, obviously.

 

[sudy]

Well done, Randy. ‘The time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.’ 2 Timothy 4: 3

‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.’ Proverbs 3: 4

 

[clem456]

So does that mean you think the verb “to denominate” doesn’t mean “to name”?

Yes that’s fine.
de-nomine
No problem.

But the word means much more than that.
Using the standard dictionary definition “an autonomous branch” is trouble.

You must ask yourself…
Is there such thing as an autonomous branch in Christ?
No. That’s a rejection of Christianity at it’s core, starting with the Trinity.
Our very being is in the image of the Trinity. The Trinity is not three automatons, it is three persons who are a unity.

“I am the vine, you are the branches”
Does the branch exist in autonomous fashion without being united to Christ?
No. It dies. We must be “in Christ” to live.

The idea of denominations rejects the core of Christianity.

But it’s important to remember that Christ came to reconcile all people to himself. The Catholic Church recognizes that all can be one, that all should be one, that all who seek him will be one, even if they are “denominated” now. In heaven there is only one Church.

That being said, one separates himself from unity (Christ), by definition, when one embraces denominations.

Why would anyone want to make their own salvation difficult?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

G, Isaiah has been posting in these forums for three years. The same arguments over and over. Now, if you want to say that I’m not really interested in listening at this point, you’d be right. But hasn’t Isaiah had the opportunity to listen, as well? And to what effect?

True enough. So, are you conceding that Isaiah has found a valid argument against the Catholic Church? Should we all become Orthodox now?

True enough, I suppose. I have tried to bow out of multiple threads with Isaiah, and I have acknowledged that I have NOT studied the councils so I have nothing significant to offer. I have made that clear on more than one occasion, also.

You really don’t think I listen? Seriously?

Did I not come back to the Catholic Church? Talk to several Priests, fellow Catholics? Did I not give it my all to embrace the doctrines and dogmas of Catholicism?

Does it sound like I am on an emotional rampage?

Not at all. I am presenting serious arguments that I can’t reconcile and what you and others have presented have not addressed those arguments but my person. This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with several inconsistencies in the development of doctrine.

The things is that for you, Gabriel, Josie and other Catholic posters - these inconsistencies were resolved by the Western Church. You have not acknowledged the Catholic position in regards to the Orthodox and other communions. Further, because you look at those inconsistencies as resolved, you fail to see that these inconsistencies are real. Not once have I said that these are my opinions and/or interpretations, all that has been presented are the documents themselves and questions about them.

I am not using Catholic documents to refute Catholicism at all. Not once have I said anything of the like. If anything I love the Catholic Church. I love Her so much, that I don’t dare be dishonest and a hypocrite. I am not going to “pretend” to embrace doctrines that are inconsistent with Church history. I can honestly say, I tried.

I respect many posters on this board and because of that respect I bring questions and make inquiries.

Now, would you please stop addressing the poster? The PM feature is a 2-way street you know.

 

[clem456]

You really don’t think I listen? Seriously?

Did I not come back to the Catholic Church? Talk to several Priests, fellow Catholics? Did I not give it my all to embrace the doctrines and dogmas of Catholicism?

Does it sound like I am on an emotional rampage?

Not at all. I am presenting serious arguments that I can’t reconcile and what you and others have presented have not addressed those arguments but my person. This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with several inconsistencies in the development of doctrine.

The things is that for you, Gabriel, Josie and other Catholic posters - these inconsistencies were resolved by the Western Church. You have not acknowledged the Catholic position in regards to the Orthodox and other communions. Further, because you look at those inconsistencies as resolved, you fail to see that these inconsistencies are real. Not once have I said that these are my opinions and/or interpretations, all that has been presented are the documents themselves and questions about them.

I am not using Catholic documents to refute Catholicism at all. Not once have I said anything of the like. If anything I love the Catholic Church. I love Her so much, that I don’t dare be dishonest and a hypocrite. I am not going to “pretend” to embrace doctrines that are inconsistent with Church history. I can honestly say, I tried.

I respect many posters on this board and because of that respect I bring questions and make inquiries.

Now, would you please stop addressing the poster? The PM feature is a 2-way street you know.

As I see it, without rehashing pages of apologetics,

You are **looking for **inconsistencies. If you go looking for inconsistencies, you will always find them. Christianity asks for the benefit of the doubt. We use that phrase a lot: benefit of the doubt. What does that phrase mean?

It is the assent of faith. Even with your doubts (we all have 'em), you give the “yes” of your faith to something.other than your doubts. Hopefully that something becomes a someone. The assent of faith requires trust in things you can’t understand. The assent of faith asks you to lay aside your demand for pat answers and enter a relationship with Christ and his united body. (You can’t have one without the other.)

There will never be sufficient answers to pages of questions if you place your own doubts above trust.