(Edited Title): Peter's primacy & why it matters

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeFide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DeFide

Guest
Out of respect for myfavoritmartin’s wishes, I’m posing this question to him in this new thread:

Do you accept or deny that Peter had a real primacy over the Church?

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend [govern] my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people of the church, even the apostles.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys

Matt. 16:18 - Christ bestows the name Kepha/Rock/Peter on Simon bar Jona, and says he will build his Church on this rock.
 
we can’t forget:

**ISAIAH 22: 20-22 **
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I** will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open**.
Click to expand...
Peter, being the Prime Minister, while the King, Jesus, is away.

**
REVELATIONS 3:7**
To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write this: " 'The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this…
Click to expand...
 
Isn’t this only of concern because of Fundamentalist restorationists?? I mean, we are where we are. We only have to go through this process because Christian history is called into question by people who made up a whole other Christian history in the late 19th century don’t we?
 
Another good reason for the Papacy is that it provides Christianity with a voice that is lacking in both Protestantism and Orthodoxy. I don’t see any other Christian leader that has spoken out on issues of faith and morals the way the Popes have.
 
FightingFat said:
Isn’t this only of concern because of Fundamentalist restorationists?? I mean, we are where we are. We only have to go through this process because Christian history is called into question by people who made up a whole other Christian history in the late 19th century don’t we?
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the Orthodox reject the idea of Papal primacy.
 
I have book, Early Christian Writings, published by Penguin and translated by Maxwell Staniforth, an Anglican. The first writing in the book is Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians. In the intro to the epistle, Staniforth writes:
Why the Church of Rome felt called upon to involve itself in the affairs of the Church of Corinth we do not know, but Clement’s tone does not falter an his authority seems assured.
Click to expand...
and a couple sentences later:
Although Clement does not write like a Pope exercising his extraordinary jursidiction, perhaps a step had already been taken in that direction.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that Clement may have been more than a primus inter pares…
 
FightingFat said:
It’s a good point, but isn’t it a completely different argument???
Click to expand...
You had asked if this was of concern because of Fundamentalist restorationists. I was just pointing out that Fundamentalists weren’t the only ones who had problems with the Pope.
 
DeFide said:
Out of respect for myfavoritmartin’s wishes, I’m posing this question to him in this new thread:

Do you accept or deny that Peter had a real primacy over the Church?

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend [govern] my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people of the church, even the apostles.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys

Matt. 16:18 - Christ bestows the name Kepha/Rock/Peter on Simon bar Jona, and says he will build his Church on this rock.
Click to expand...
At work now, I’ll respond tonight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top