Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[multitude]

Another thing that came to mind concerning authority in the church, I have recently read statements from more than a couple different Protestant pastors that they wish that the Protestant church had an authoritative body similar to the Catholic church, who could interpret scriptures in a way to remove much of the differences and finalize doctrine in the hope that there would not be so much division in their church’s. Can you imagine that, what a novel idea? Seems sometimes things have to go in full circle to open people’s eyes.

On the other hand, I knew Protestants who seemed almost proud of the division, because to them any sort of authority or hierarchy seemed Pharisaical. As if they are freer to worship Christ how they please? Well there is no convincing people sometimes.

 

[adamhovey1988]

On the other hand, I knew Protestants who seemed almost proud of the division, because to them any sort of authority or hierarchy seemed Pharisaical. As if they are freer to worship Christ how they please? Well there is no convincing people sometimes.

That’s a slippery slope. Because if each is to decide his or her own conscience with regards to these types of things they are free to resist belief in the Deity of Christ. (Jehovah’s Witnesses come to mind)

 

[KathleenGee]

Peter continued to fail the Lord…after the Holy Spirit spoke through him at his election verifying his consecration…as head of Christ’s Church…

Peter and most of the apostles were in hiding in the Upper Room…resumed with Christ on the day of the Resurrection…in the evening…being given the power to forgive sins…again…extending the face of God…in Christ…to His ministers…On the Road to Emmaus…the Lord came where they did not recognize Him…and He spoke of Scripture to them and its deepest meaning…and He said, ‘You still don’t understand?’

Then at the Breaking of the Bread…they recognized Him and he disappeared…and then through the Breaking of the Bread…Word Made Flesh…they recognized Him and they understood Scripture.

Still Peter and the apostles were afraid and weak.

It is Pentecost and the Holy Spirit Who filled them and led them out…not on their own appointments as chosen by Christ as His apostles…but the Holy Spirit.

One hundred percent of Tradition affirms Peter was in Rome, which he called ‘Babylon’ and he and his son who assisted him, founded the Church of Rome although Jewish Christians were already meeting in private homes.

They all saw themselves as the one Church of Rome.

I gave a reference to Called to Communion regarding the Bible being politicized. I see the breakdown of Christian unity also due to nationalism…not just reaction to clericalism. Likewise…as the Crusades are being talked about…it is the peasants…against the pope and bishops who committed atrocities against the Jews in the Danube and Rheinland. I wonder if their mindset in being willfully defiant of true Christianity led to clericalism…which in turn led to the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Zachary]

There are WAY too many topics in this thread. Some need their own, new thread.

How can one expect to read 64 pages of this?

 

[maklavan]

If saint Peter were to come back today,

1. Hew would run away in terror when saw the grandiose and imperial church with his name attached,so different from the humble abodes of Peter and the Master.
2. Read the “Acts of the Apostles” again, carefully. It’s title is misnomer. It only features two Apostles. in fact ,it only mentions Peter offhandedly. Its real name should be,“The Acts of the Apostle” self appointed.
3. Peter was an illiterate fisherman. His books were dictated to Mark and Sylvanus.It is doubtful if he had the clout to hold the early Christians together.
4. The leader of the Christians in Jerusalem was not Peter,but James. He was the dominant force in the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[rinnie]

I am not the one who called him Satan. If you insist he is the rock you have to insist he is the devil, too.

I am not going to call him names, though.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion. Jesus never said that Peter was the devil, he said the devil entered into him.

But Jesus also said that he would pray for Peter that the devil wanted him. But do you believe that the prayers of Jesus are more powerful then the powers of the devil? We of the RCC do.

So getting back to the devil, you are saying then, that when we are tempted by the devil, and his spirit enters us and tempts us, we are indeed the devil himself? Is that what you are saying?

 

[rinnie]

If saint Peter were to come back today,

1. Hew would run away in terror when saw the grandiose and imperial church with his name attached,so different from the humble abodes of Peter and the Master.
2. Read the “Acts of the Apostles” again, carefully. It’s title is misnomer. It only features two Apostles. in fact ,it only mentions Peter offhandedly. Its real name should be,“The Acts of the Apostle” self appointed.
3. Peter was an illiterate fisherman. His books were dictated to Mark and Sylvanus.It is doubtful if he had the clout to hold the early Christians together.
4. The leader of the Christians in Jerusalem was not Peter,but James. He was the dominant force in the Council of Jerusalem.

If Peter came back today I do not believe he would run away from anything, He would so as he did when he was in this world before, Stay and preach the truth of God.

Ironic isn’t it, St Paul was quite educated was he not, and yet he went to that illiterate fisherman to teach him the word of God.

Peter never claimed nor has the Church ever claim Peter was a Scholar. What Peter had taught and what Jesus taught us is this, These words he said to Peter, I will give you the words. No one ever claimed they did not come from God. Especially the RCC.

 

[JMM1957]

If saint Peter were to come back today,

1. Hew would run away in terror when saw the grandiose and imperial church with his name attached,so different from the humble abodes of Peter and the Master.
2. Read the “Acts of the Apostles” again, carefully. It’s title is misnomer. It only features two Apostles. in fact ,it only mentions Peter offhandedly. Its real name should be,“The Acts of the Apostle” self appointed.
3. Peter was an illiterate fisherman. His books were dictated to Mark and Sylvanus.It is doubtful if he had the clout to hold the early Christians together.
4. The leader of the Christians in Jerusalem was not Peter,but James. He was the dominant force in the Council of Jerusalem.

I don’t think there has been any pope that could hold the whole church together all the time, even though Peter’s early church was nothing like today’s church. People are going to do what they want, why do think we had the Reformation.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Ironic isn’t it, St Paul was quite educated was he not, and yet he went to that illiterate fisherman to teach him the word of God.

When did Peter do this, rinnie? Paul is emphatic in his epistles that the only one who revealed anything to him was Christ and Christ alone.

 

[Abu]

maklavan #977
Peter was an illiterate fisherman. His books were dictated to Mark and Sylvanus.It is doubtful if he had the clout to hold the early Christians together.

How warped. As Christ’s chosen one to lead His Church, who knows better than Christ?

Peter leads the apostles in choosing a replacement for Judas – Matthias is chosen. [Acts 1:15-26].

Peter speaks so well after the dissent of the Holy Spirit that some 3000 Jews are remorseful, converted and baptised! [Acts 2:14-41].

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

The leader of the Christians in Jerusalem was not Peter,but James. He was the dominant force in the Council of Jerusalem.

Such a strange idea fails to face the fact that Peter settled the discussion.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12).

Per Crucem #981
Paul is emphatic in his epistles that the only one who revealed anything to him was Christ and Christ alone.

Then face reality.

Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by Peter (Gal 1:I8).

**Jesus made four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]

**Jesus gave Peter sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

 

[KathleenGee]

Likewise it reflects there is no authority outside of the Church that can be recognized as counter authority…people can use the bible alone as their authority but then disagree among each other.

It gets down to God giving people authority to administrate His Church…

And then is it visible or invisible church…

The dilemna was answered when Christ founded His Church on Peter in communion with the other apostles…they having authority from Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Peter’s own character is also a sign of transformation to always the main apostle, mentioned over 180 times vs other apostles…and he always the dominant. After all, S. Paul recognized that when after his conversion, he first went to St. Peter to make sure what he understood was correct…15 days worth.

It all gets down to authority…whether there is actually any.

 

[JMM1957]

Jesus said “all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18), and when Jesus established his church on earth through Peter and the Apostles (Matt.16:17-19), he gave authority to them also. He also promised the help of the Advocate (John 14:26). Note that here it says the Holy Spirit will not only “remind” you of what I have told you, but to “teach” you everything. This is why we must do this “contend for the faith once for all handed down to the holy ones” (Jude 3).

 

[KathleenGee]

It gets down to people simply and willfully not wanting to accept the Church’s authority.

 

[wmscott]

Why then does every English translation capitalise “Satan” as a proper noun?

I hope this might help explain this verse for you

Matthew 16:23

From the Haydock’s Catholc Commentary, LINK

Ver. 23. Go after me, Satan.[4] The words may signify, begone from me; but out of respect due to the expositions of the ancient fathers, who would have these words to signify come after me, or follow me, I have put, with the Rheims translation, go after me. Satan is the same as an adversary: (Witham) and is here applied to Peter, because he opposed, out of mistaken zeal, Christ’s passion, without which the great work of man’s redemption could not be effected. Peter, however, unknowingly or innocently, raised an opposition against the will of God, against the glory of Jesus, against the redemption of mankind, and against the destruction of the devil’s kingdom. He did not understand that there was nothing more glorious than to make of one’s life a sacrifice to God. (Bible de Vence) — Thou dost not, i.e. thy judgment in this particular is not conformable with that of God. Hence our separated brethren conclude that Christ did not, in calling him the rock in the preceding verses, appoint him the solid and permanent foundation of his Church. This conclusion, however, is not true, because, as St. Augustine and theologians affirm, Peter could fall into error in points regarding morals and facts, though not in defining or deciding on points of faith. Moreover, St. Peter was not, as St. Jerome says, appointed the pillar of the Church till after Christ’s resurrection. (Tirinus) — And it was not till the night before Christ suffered that he said to Peter: Behold, Satan hath desired to have thee; but I have prayed for thee, that “thy faith fail not,” and thou being once converted confirm thy brethren. (Luke xxii. 31.) (Haydock)

 

[FathersKnowBest]

When did Peter do this, rinnie? Paul is emphatic in his epistles that the only one who revealed anything to him was Christ and Christ alone.

You mean where St. Paul says that he didn’t receive the gospel from men?
Ga 1:11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel.
12 For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Read on.

He goes on to say that he verified his teaching first with St. Peter, then with the Church leaders (Peter, John, & James):
Ga 1:15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,
16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood,
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

Ga 2:2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.

Which leaders? “those who were of repute”

He tells us who they were in a few verses:

Ga 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, …

Yes, he says in verse 6 that they “added nothing to me”, but that just means that Paul’s version of the Gospel had been vindicated by Peter, John, and James. In other words, St. Paul got the confirmation that he wanted, no needed, from the Apostles “lest somehow [he] should be running or had run in vain.”

 

[KathleenGee]

Good post, William.

Christ’s Church is founded on ‘treasures of clay’…from dust we came and to dust we go.

This passage of Sacred Scripture is likewise reminding us that our church leaders can fail and can appear to contradict the will of God…so we must be vigilant and pray for our Church leaders…which is done at every Mass…to pray for our pope, our bishops and all clergy…so they not be sifted as wheat.

Secondly, it is also calling us to really learn what it means to be Christian so we will not allow ourselves to be scandalized…because this shows we have pride and are looking too much at clay…and not fully comprehending our faith in Christ…to hold on to Him when it appears our leaders fail or are in error.

My pastor told us during the time of the Arian heresy, 90% of the bishops followed it…but the laity is the one who stood firm in the Lord…he gave no references…but a comment at a morning daily Mass…

We must learn our Catholic faith and be firm in our faith in the Lord and not man…even our pope, bishops and priests.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yes, he says in verse 6 that they “added nothing to me”, but that just means that Paul’s version of the Gospel had been vindicated by Peter, John, and James. In other words, St. Paul got the confirmation that he wanted, no needed, from the Apostles “lest somehow [he] should be running or had run in vain.”

Right… because it wasn’t good enough to receive it from Christ. He would also need Peter’s permission.

Nyet. The reason he had his gospel confirmed by the apostles in Jerusalem was to demonstrate that the apostle to Gentiles (him) and the apostles to the Jews (the rest) had the same gospel that didn’t contradict; so that the flock, esp. those being harassed by the Judaizers, knew that the Judaizers accusations against Paul (that he preached a different gospel) were false. This would be the “in vain” Paul refers to. If he were discredited among the Christians as being a false apostle, his work would have been in vain.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Comin’ round the last bend guys.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Right… because it wasn’t good enough to receive it from Christ. He would also need Peter’s permission.

Nyet.

You have a problem with scripture?

The reason he had his gospel confirmed by the apostles in Jerusalem was to demonstrate that the apostle to Gentiles (him) and the apostles to the Jews (the rest) had the same gospel that didn’t contradict;

That’s not what he says. He doesn’t say anything about demonstrating to anyone. What he DOES say is that, if his version didn’t jibe with St. Peter’s, he would “be running or had run in vain.”

so that the flock, esp. those being harassed by the Judaizers, knew that the Judaizers accusations against Paul (that he preached a different gospel) were false. This would be the “in vain” Paul refers to. If he were discredited among the Christians as being a false apostle, his work would have been in vain.

Then why did he meet in private [2:2]?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Right… because it wasn’t good enough to receive it from Christ. He would also need Peter’s permission.

Nyet. The reason he had his gospel confirmed by the apostles in Jerusalem was to demonstrate that the apostle to Gentiles (him) and the apostles to the Jews (the rest) had the same gospel that didn’t contradict; so that the flock, esp. those being harassed by the Judaizers, knew that the Judaizers accusations against Paul (that he preached a different gospel) were false. This would be the “in vain” Paul refers to. If he were discredited among the Christians as being a false apostle, his work would have been in vain.

Nope.

You’ve missed the point of Paul’s trip to Jerusalem entirely.

Galatians 2:2
I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Doubt had crept into Paul’s mind. He was sure…well, pretty sure…but he wanted to be completely sure. He went to Peter, and Peter “strengthened” his brother, Paul, just as Jesus had commanded him to do many years earlier. (cf. Lk 22:32)

That’s what popes do.