Help with a fallen away catholic

[danandirma]

need a really good come back. here is his e-mail.

Having grown up in the catholic church I am much familiar with its many teachings. I had lots of questions and problems with it during my teens and young adulthood which caused me do a lot of research and Scripture study and eventually I left. I am now Evangelical with no particular denominational affiliation. Perhaps we can talk about the concerns I have and the questions.

What was the christian church like in the first century? It was scattered throughout the world, sometimes visible through house churches. Sometimes through individuals. It started out in homes. It was not a denomination, organization, nor a building. The Bible tells us that the Church of Christ was believers everywhere. The word “church” means “called out ones”. Soon Christianity was illegal and was forced to go underground. It started out invisible in the sense that nobody knows who is a Christian and who isn’t.

When I look at church history, I don’t see the Christian church in one denomination led by a Pope. I don’t see cardinals, clerical robes/vestments, relics, baptism by sprinkling, etc.

What I do see is elders, pastors/bishops and teachers, I see Jesus being fully immersed in water as were all of John’s followers, and later those who were baptized by the Apostles.There was no Pope during the earliest generations of Christianity. I see the church more in individuals. Many of these individuals opposed hierarchy and power and wealth in order to defend the simple teachings of Jesus and the apostles. The early church was “catholic” in the meaning of being “universal”, but Dan, in all honesty I don’t see much resemblance between the NT church and the roman catholic church today.

I can’t find any evidence via the Holy Bible that Peter was ever pope. In fact the papacy was unknown in the 1st century. Peter did not even think of himself as the “vicar of Christ”. (Acts 10:25,26.) Matt 18:18, John 20:23 tells us that the binding and loosing applied to all of the apostles.
Yes, Jesus gave Peter an assignment, a mission, but it was a one time mission. To lay the foundation of His (Christ’s) Church.

Regarding Matt. 16:16-19, we need to understand what “kingdom of heaven” means. Some people have suggested that it refers to heaven itself, and thus, they have represented Peter as the one who allows or prevents access into the eternal reward. But this interpretation is inconceivable since it finds itself in clear opposition to the context of this passage. By reading Matthew 16:18, we understand that the subject under discussion is not heaven itself, but the church. Jesus was in the throes of building His church which the Apostles were the foundation and Christ being the chief cornerstone which is the strongest piece that keeps the entire structure together. It wasn’t Peter’s church, but the Lord’s. Therefore, Jesus spoke of the church as being the kingdom of heaven. This is shown not only in the context of Matthew 16:18, but it also is taught in many other passages: (Mark 9:1; Col 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Hebrews 12:28).

Further, we need to understand the nature of the “keys” given to Peter. H. Leo Boles wrote:

“To use the keys was to open the door or give the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God.”
In other words, because of Peter’s confession about Jesus (Matt 16:16), Jesus gave him the privilege of being the first man to tell lost souls how to become Christians and thus become part of the Lord’s church. Barnes put it this way:

When the Saviour says, therefore, He will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world—the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.

On one occasion, the apostles of the Lord were arguing about who was the greatest among them. (Luke 22:24) Jesus never said Peter was above any of them.

You mentioned Peter always coming first, etc. but by the same rule we could also apply it to John. It could be said that John was the “greatest” of the apostles because: (1) in the Bible he is referred to as the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 21:20,24); (2) he rested on Jesus’ bosom just before His arrest (John 13:25; 21:20)—certainly a posture that suggests a close relationship; and (3) Jesus charged him with the responsibility of caring for His mother (John 19:26-27). Does this mean that we also should consider John as a pope?

Look at what Paul wrote: "For in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing” (2 Corinthians 12:11). From this verse, we conclude that Paul was inferior to none of the apostles, and that Peter was neither lesser nor greater than Paul.

One last note: If Peter was the first pope whereby all subsequent popes were to follow his example, then why was Peter married? Clement of Alexandria wrote that Peter had fathered children.

My aim is not to argue nor disrespect your faith (or the faith of anyone else) But these issues are too important to dismiss or cast aside. They need to be looked at and addressed.

 

[Orchanian]

I can’t respond to everything, but here’s a little something to help.

In the early church, it’s true that there was no physical church (as a building), but there also was no temple in the early parts of the Old Testament. You can read the writings of Justin Martyr (died @ 150AD, I think) who describes how the Christians worshipped (Romans worried about their practices) and it sounds so much like a Catholic Mass. What it doesn’t sound like in any way is a protestant service.

Regarding Peter, Jesus told him he was to strengthen his brethren after Christ died. This indicates some type of leadership. And given that all lists of the apostles begins with Peter, we can assume that the writers (inspired by God) thought of him as first among equals (not better).

The Keys given to Peter are symbolic of the keys of the kingdoms in the Old Testament. The person who held the keys in David’s kingdom was able to speak in the king’s name. He was the Prime Minister who spoke for the king.

If there was not to be succession, why did the apostles replace Judas? They could have gone forward with only 11 apostles and the 70 additional disciples. But in Acts, they understand that they must replace Judas, and they do.

There’s a lot of additional information available. One useful book is Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid.

It is important to pray for guidance and clarity whenever dealing with someone who challenges the teachings the church. Logic will take us just so far. We have to let God do the rest.

 

[shoewindow3000]

You can always read the writings of the early church fathers, particularly those of the first century, such as Ignatius of Antioch(35-108), or Polycarp(69-155).

They talk about things like apostolic succession, role of bishops, the sacraments, how Christ truly is truly present in the Eucharist. etc.

Oh, and Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp were both bishops and both disciples of John the Apostle(6-100).

One more thing:

Protestants say “Scripture only.” Well, what about the first couple decades when there was no New Testament! New converts only had the Old Testament and the Apostles to learn from. As a matter of fact, the NT canon wasn’t even fully decided until a few centuries later!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It sounds like your dealing with a variety of “born again christian.” They are like crabgrass; everywhere, and very difficult to control. It is good that he is willing to debate with you however! That stage doesn’t last very long. My reaction is always to point out that they are completely under the influence of a non-scriptural doctrine first, which then in turn colors their entire view of Scripture and Church history. Trying to convince a “bac” that he is under the influence of a non-Scriptural doctrine is very difficult, as they usually disown any particular church allegiance. Nonetheless, there is a consistent bac doctrine that never fails to show itself, and is promoted in countless “Christian” i.e. “bac” books, tapes, videos and preachers. They are all convinced that their doctrine comes from the Bible, but it doesn’t. That is what makes talking to them so difficult. They are unable to see the Truth at the most basic level. Good Luck!

 

[NHInsider]

Your friend believes that he has done a good research job and that his current faith is based on that investigation. I wonder what his sources are?

What was the christian church like in the first century?

[snip]

When I look at church history, I don’t see the Christian church in one denomination led by a Pope. I don’t see cardinals, clerical robes/vestments, relics, baptism by sprinkling, etc.

What I do see is elders, pastors/bishops and teachers, I see Jesus being fully immersed in water as were all of John’s followers, and later those who were baptized by the Apostles.

Ask him to read the Didache.

There was no Pope during the earliest generations of Christianity.

Ask him to read the letters of Clement.

I see the church more in individuals. Many of these individuals opposed hierarchy and power and wealth in order to defend the simple teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Ask him to cite a source for this! And to tell you which individuals who opposed the hierarchy he thinks were truly Christian? Does he want to claim the gnostics as his spiritual ancestors?

These non-denominational Protestant churches like to proclaim that they are just like the New Testament Church but if you read the Didache and Justin Martyr it’s the Mass you see, not the synagogue service that evangelical worship most resembles. And if they want to say that by the time of Justin Martyr the church had already lost its way, then how can they trust the Bible? (don’t go there, because sola-scripturas are completely convinced that they can infallibly discern the authenticity of the written word and that the work of the bishops and ECF is superfluous. . . .)

 

[Peter_Dawson]

When I look at church history, I don’t see … relics …

See Acts 19:11-12:

11 So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul
12 that when face cloths or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.

 

[shoewindow3000]

You also have to take into consideration the two types of tradition: human tradition and divine tradition.

Divine tradition is what Christ instituted, like the seven sacraments-they don’t change.
Human tradition is what changes over time.
If you go to Catholic churches in different Rites (and even the Orthodox church), you will see different human tradition, but the divine tradition is always the same.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Further, we need to understand the nature of the “keys” given to Peter. H. Leo Boles wrote:

“To use the keys was to open the door or give the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God.”
In other words, because of Peter’s confession about Jesus (Matt 16:16), Jesus gave him the privilege of being the first man to tell lost souls how to become Christians and thus become part of the Lord’s church. Barnes put it this way:

When the Saviour says, therefore, He will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world—the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.

Baloney.

Peter – The Rock and the Keeper of the Keys

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-19)

1. Peter’s understanding that Jesus was the Son of God did not come from working it out on his own. Instead, God the Father infused this revelation into Peter’s mind thus imprinting His seal of approval upon this humble fisherman. Jesus recognized that Simon had already been anointed by His Father in this way and declared, “Blessed are you.” The Father had blessed Simon with knowledge of the Son.
2. Jesus gave him the name, “Kepha”, an Aramaic word that means “rock”. In the original, the passage would read, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus also announces the establishment of His Church, and clearly delineates Kepha as its leader. Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was written in Greek, and “Kepha” would have been translated into the Greek words for “rock” which are “petra” or “petros”. “Petra” is the feminine form of the masculine word, “petros”. Petros is more suitable for a man. Therefore, from “petros” we derive the English name, “Peter”. For us modern readers then, Jesus’ pronouncement reads, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.” What is it about Peter’s character that caused Jesus to compare him to something as solid as rock? Isn’t this the same Peter who Jesus called “Satan” just a few verses later? (cf. Mt 16:23) Isn’t this the same Peter who would deny the Lord three times after his arrest? (cf. Lk 22:34) Surely this unstable character is anything but solid rock upon which a Church could be built; yet, Jesus sees something deeper in Peter’s character, and His choice would be vindicated when Peter ultimately received a martyr’s crown via crucifixion.
3. The Church to be built was not of human origin. Jesus did not say, “You are Peter, and upon this rock you must build a church.” He said, “I will build my church.” Inaugurated by the Father, built by the Son and led by the Holy Spirit, the Church is a human institution of divine origin.
4. For this reason, “the gates of Hell will not overcome” the Church, and for over 2,000 years the Church, lead by the Apostolic Successors of Peter, has faithfully borne witness to the gospel.
5. Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads, "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22) In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
6. Finally, Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this passage mean? There are two possible interpretations. First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing of Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put himself in the impossible situation of affirming that which is not true. A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)

On one occasion, the apostles of the Lord were arguing about who was the greatest among them. (Luke 22:24) Jesus never said Peter was above any of them.

Notice carefully that Jesus never says that there will be NO leader…He simply describes the character of a good leader.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You mentioned Peter always coming first, etc. but by the same rule we could also apply it to John. It could be said that John was the “greatest” of the apostles because: (1) in the Bible he is referred to as the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 21:20,24); (2) he rested on Jesus’ bosom just before His arrest (John 13:25; 21:20)—certainly a posture that suggests a close relationship; and (3) Jesus charged him with the responsibility of caring for His mother (John 19:26-27). Does this mean that we also should consider John as a pope?

Of course not. But these three passages pale in comparison to the 195 references to Peter. It’s not even close.

One last note: If Peter was the first pope whereby all subsequent popes were to follow his example, then why was Peter married? Clement of Alexandria wrote that Peter had fathered children.

So what? Priestly celibacy is a church discipline - not a doctrine. Paul remained unmarried and many Protestants believe that Paul was the greatest Apostle…do they follow his example and remain celibate? This argument is absurd. Peter was married but that has no bearing on whether the papacy was instituted by Christ.

My aim is not to argue nor disrespect your faith (or the faith of anyone else) But these issues are too important to dismiss or cast aside. They need to be looked at and addressed.

True! The misunderstandings that your friend presents DO need to be addressed…go get 'em!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can’t find any evidence via the Holy Bible that Peter was ever pope. In fact the papacy was unknown in the 1st century. Peter did not even think of himself as the “vicar of Christ”. (Acts 10:25,26.) Matt 18:18, John 20:23 tells us that the binding and loosing applied to all of the apostles.
Yes, Jesus gave Peter an assignment, a mission, but it was a one time mission. To lay the foundation of His (Christ’s) Church.

Oh? Where does the Bible state that it was a one-time mission? Yeah, it WAS one-time, alright…one-time for all-time. That’s why the papacy has existed for 2,000 years while other human institutions have come and gone.

So, did Peter think of himself as pope? Not as we understand the term today…much has changed just as an acorn becomes a mighty oak over the years. However, Peter knew that he was responsible for the Church as we see when he declared that Judas must be replaced and when he preached on the day of Pentecost. Peter took the lead with regard to the Gentile believers and settled the question of circumcision in Acts 15.

But regarding the “Vicar of Christ” thing:

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko)* my* lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter receives this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus take great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle receives this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

 

[danandirma]

I really want to thank all who chipped in to help me. God bless you all. here is his second e-mail… my comments are underlined.
Yes Dan, I’ve read Polycarp, Ignatius, and many others. I have many of their quotes in an 800 page book. However, The Bible is church history. Without it, how does one know Truth? Straight from the bible. 1Tim 3:15 - The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The truth is found by Sacred Scripture and Scared Tradtion (the Apostles teachings). John 21:25 - Not all the things Jesus said and did were writen down. What is the Christian’s standard for Truth? How does one recognize error or heresy? By using both Sacred Scripture and Scared Tradtion.

If a Catholic doctrine appears in the writings of a third century church father, but doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible, what do we do with that doctrine? Name one Catholic Doctrine that is not in scripture. Can we make a doctrine from silence? Conjectures? Again priestly celibacy is a church discipline - not a doctrine. Paul remained unmarried and many Protestants believe that Paul was the greatest Apostle…do they follow his example and remain celibate? This argument is absurd. Peter was married but that has no bearing on whether the papacy was instituted by Christ. If Jesus nor the Apostles ever taught it, what does it become? It becomes a man-made tradition and can NEVER take precedent over the Word of God. Erik, where did you get the idea that tradition takes precedence over scripture? This is not a Catholic teaching. All Catholic doctrine rests on a three pillar foundation. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (the teachings of the Pope and all the Bishops) I would go as far as saying, there would be no bible if it wasn’t for Sacred Tradition. I am getting a feeling we need to cover your knowledge of the Catholic faith. Do you have a copy of the new catechism? scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Firmilian,a 3rd century bishop wrote: “…it is sufficient to read the epistle itself, and to gather from the apostle himself what the apostle said.”

Cyril of Jerusalem, a bishop, wrote:

“For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark WITHOUT the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (Lecture 4:17)

Some of the later church fathers advocated baptismal regeneration, but the earliest church fathers didn’t. .

Clement of Rome and Mathetes discussed salvation without mentioning baptism, It’s true that baptismal regeneration was a widely held belief from the middle of the second century onward. It’s not true that every church father accepted it.

Among the church fathers who did advocate the doctrine, we find a lot of bad arguments and inconsistency.

Tertullian acknowledges that Abraham was saved through faith alone but he dismisses Abraham as an exception to the rule. The apostle Paul, however, says that Abraham is the rule (Romans 4:13-16). Paul also denies that Christians are under a “law of baptizing” or any law of works (Romans 3:27, Galatians 3:21-25). As we might expect, Tertullian goes on, later in his treatise, to add other works to the gospel. He says that people preparing for baptism should “pray with repeated prayers, fasts, and bendings of the knee, and vigils all the night through, and with the confession of all by gone sins”. As we would expect, adding works to the gospel becomes a slippery slope. Those who add baptism often add other works as well. We can’t believe BOTH Tertullian and Paul, since they contradict each other. Other church fathers were inconsistent, to less or more of a degree than Tertullian and in different ways.

John Chrysostom wrote that, “by faith alone He saved us” (Homilies on Ephesians, 5), and he repeatedly affirmed salvation through faith alone elsewhere (Commentary on Galatians, 3; Homilies on Second Corinthians, 2). But he was inconsistent, referring to the “water” of John 3:5 as baptism, for example (Homilies on the Gospel of John, 25).:

For these reasons, I don’t give the early church writers the same authority as I do the Holy Scriptures. One cannot give these church fathers the final word on anything. Like the noble Bereans in Thessalonica in the Book of Acts, one must search the Scriptures to see if what was taught or written agrees with the Word of God. Anything preached that contradicts what God has already revealed in the Holy Scriptures must be rejected.

The bottom line is: what gospel did Jesus and the apostles preach?

 

[shoewindow3000]

The early church fathers only referred to the Old Testament as Sacred Scripture.

Let’s say, for example, you were part of the Church in Galatia in the first century, and you just received the letter from Paul. Would you consider that letter Sacred Scripture, to be held in the same regard as the Books of Isaiah or Jeremiah? Probably not.

New Testament writings weren’t even seen as Sacred Scripture until much later.
(And not only that, but different churches had slightly different canons of the New Testament until the 4th century.)

It wasn’t like Jesus gave us a copy of the New Testament. For the first couple decades of Christianity, all we had was the Old Testament and the Church. There simply was no New Testament!

The earliest books of the new Testament were written around the late 50s AD.

Also, in 2 Peter, he writes that no Sacred Scripture is for private interpretation.

And not only that, but for Christ to not leave the church with authority to interpret scripture would be to leave it in open contradiction. (Look at how many protestant churches there are…almost one for every interpretation. How do you know which has the true interpretation? Is it the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Or maybe the KKK? Since there is no God-given authority according to Protestants, then who is to say?!)

And hey…if you can’t accept the idea of the Pope, you can always join the Orthodox Church! At least they are Apostolic and valid.

One more thing…

Baptism is necessary for salvation (Either by water, by blood, or by explicit/implicit desire), as through it you are reborn. Yes, faith is necessary of course. When they say that you are saved by faith, they mean that in order to be baptized, you must first believe-hence, faith is necessary for salvation.
You claim Paul says baptism isn’t necessary-then why do he get baptized? What about the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts? He gets baptized! He asks Philip, “What prevents me from being baptized, now that I believe?” (He also says that he can’t understand scripture unless “someone helps him.”)
Didn’t Jesus say to “baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I would try very hard to listen to what he is asking. Sometimes his questions sound sincere: e.g. *However, The Bible is church history. Without it, how does one know Truth? *

If he values the Bible as the source of truth, then how much more does he implicitly value the authority of the Church which has canonized the Bible. Proving therefore that the Church teaches Truth.

or; If a Catholic doctrine appears in the writings of a third century church father, but doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible, what do we do with that doctrine?

ECF’s can only be understood in the light of their church and their context. It does no good to take statements out of context, any more than it does to prove this or that doctrine from Scriptural verses taken out of context. That is precisely what fuels these endless debates. The ECFs can only be understood in the light of the Catholic Faith, as it was the Catholic Faith they fought and died for.

Instead of countering his questions with declamatory statements of Catholic teaching try and see through to the actual question and pursue that. Turn his questions around on him, and have him explain where the difficulties lie in his mind. Unless he is arguing because he likes to hear himself sound intelligent, which I don’t think he is. He seems to value your opinion.

 

[MercyMia]

Well your friend at least seems charitable and respectful when talking to you.

Everyone here has given great advice!
On the most basic level, ask him why he believes the bible to be the Word of God. Explain to him that there was no bible for close to 400 years after Christ. There were hundreds of scattered writings that claimed to be inspired, but it was not until the Catholic Church chose the books of the New Testament from among these that we got a the bible as we know it. The bible, contrary to popular evangelical beliefs, did not fall down from the sky complete with a table of contents. IF the Catholic Church was inspirited by the Holy Spirit to choose these books, we know it was the Church of Jesus. Jesus promised us the “gates of hell will never prevail” over his Church - so if it was the Church then, its the Church now. Unless your friend thinks Jesus was a liar?
Most Christians who were martyred never laid eyes on these texts or knew they existed. Even if they did, they were probably illiterate anyways. If every man has to read the gospel in order to be saved, then God is cruel because this was simply impossible for these people to do. The Church survived because of oral tradition and the organization of its members, including the Pope. St. Peter knew he was a marked man and that he would be persecuted at any time, don’t you think he would logically tell friends and followers NOT to pick a successor for him? Think about it. As far as a Pope being an invention of the Church years later - being Pope was not a luxurious job - all of our Pope’s were martyred for the first two hundred years or so. Obviously the Roman authorities knew who the Pope was at the time, there was no question. Tell him to read the early Church fathers, the people who actually knew the apostles. They certainly saw the importance of having a clear authoritative leader of the Church.

Most importantly pray for him – you will never be able to convince your friend but God can!

Some authors you may want to look up:
Scott Hahn
Patrick Madrid
Mark Shea
Marcus Grodi
Steve Ray

 

[JRKH]

need a really good come back. here is his e-mail.

(I don’t have a great deal of time, but I’ll try to address a couple of things and then get back to you later if I can.

What was the christian church like in the first century? It was scattered throughout the world, sometimes visible through house churches. Sometimes through individuals. It started out in homes. It was not a denomination, organization, nor a building. The Bible tells us that the Church of Christ was believers everywhere. The word “church” means “called out ones”. Soon Christianity was illegal and was forced to go underground. It started out invisible in the sense that nobody knows who is a Christian and who isn’t.

Actually this is a pretty good description about how the Church looked in those early days. The thing that is missing is to note in the Bible how Paul admonishes the various groups (churches) in his letters to be “Of One Mind” and to reject any “Different Gospel”. So obviously the infant Church was united in it’s beliefs as set forth by the Apostles and other Bishops of the Church.

When I look at church history, I don’t see the Christian church in one denomination led by a Pope. I don’t see cardinals, clerical robes/vestments, relics, baptism by sprinkling, etc.

You are asking about what the Church was like in the early centuries but then you limit yourself to a book that was not compiled until the end of the 4th Century. If you wish to learn what teh Church was like in the first.second and third centuries, I suggest you spend some time, not just with the Bible, but also with the ECF’s who were, much closer to the Apostles and see how they viewed the Church.

What I do see is elders, pastors/bishops and teachers, I see Jesus being fully immersed in water as were all of John’s followers, and later those who were baptized by the Apostles.There was no Pope during the earliest generations of Christianity. I see the church more in individuals. Many of these individuals opposed hierarchy and power and wealth in order to defend the simple teachings of Jesus and the apostles. The early church was “catholic” in the meaning of being “universal”, but Dan, in all honesty I don’t see much resemblance between the NT church and the roman catholic church today.

Would you concede that the company we know today as “Apple Computers” looked a lot different when it was being started in the founders garage? My point here is a simple one. Movements, companies, faiths, etc. all start out as fairly simple ideas and with simple organizational structures. As these things grow into larger and larger entities the structures supporting them must also grow.

I can’t find any evidence via the Holy Bible that Peter was ever pope. In fact the papacy was unknown in the 1st century. Peter did not even think of himself as the “vicar of Christ”. (Acts 10:25,26.) Matt 18:18, John 20:23 tells us that the binding and loosing applied to all of the apostles.
Yes, Jesus gave Peter an assignment, a mission, but it was a one time mission. To lay the foundation of His (Christ’s) Church.

You are aright, binding and loosing did apply to all of the Apostles. BUT and this is the big one - Do you believe that the Apostles would go their different ways and “Bind and Loose” conflicting doctrines? Would Peter teach “Faith alone” while James preached Faith plus works? Would Paul espouse the “Real Presence” while John taught the “Symbolic Presence”?
In other words, where is your biblical evidence, not just that the Churches were shysically seperate, but that they taught differing doctrines AND that they “Agreed to disagree” with each other?
It is easy to say that things were not as organiozed then as they became later, but what you cannot show is that there was dissention among the apostles about beliefs, and when issues did come up they came together to resolve them. (Acts 15) Thus maintaining Unity of Mind in the Church. Remember that, in all likelyhood there were people at these meetings who had to submit their won wills and beliefs to that of “The Church”, just as Christ commanded in Mt 18:15-18

Regarding Matt. 16:16-19, we need to understand what “kingdom of heaven” means.

(snip)

My aim is not to argue nor disrespect your faith (or the faith of anyone else) But these issues are too important to dismiss or cast aside. They need to be looked at and addressed.

There is a great deal in this to deal with and I am sure others here will be able to better address specific points. I will simply close with the idea that, if this person wishes to understand how the Church understood it’s role in the “Anti-Nicene” period, he should not limit himself to the Bible Alone, but rather to All of the available writings from the time.
We know that the Apostles were passing on what Jesus told them, and were protected by the Holy Spirit. We also know that when the Apostles ordained others they did so by the laying on of hands and the invoking of the HS on the “Next Generation”. Since the Apostles had the power to bind and loose, it follows that when they call upon the Holy Spirit to Fill the next Generation, that it will be so. Thus we find the root for apostolic succession.
As the second generation taught it did so from the vangage point of 1) Having Known the Apostles personally and 2) Having had the Holy Spirit invoked upon them by these same Apostles who the Bible says had teh power to Bind and Loose.

Hope some of this helps.

Peace
James

 

[danandirma]

his third e-mail… Ambrose… I will take your advice. thank you!!!
In order not to cover too many different issues I will talk about Peter in this email and send you another later and discuss the other things. The roman catholic church justifies their papacy by claiming Peter was pope. That he had special privileges that none of the other Apostles had. That Christ had elevated him above the others. For me to believe this, I need to go to the Scriptures.

Did Peter ever claim to be pope or “vicar” of Christ? No. Did he ever say to the other apostles that they must take orders from him? No. He never once claimed primacy. In fact, the apostles had sent Peter on an assignment. In the Book of Acts we read about Philip who went to Samaria and preached Christ. Then follows an account of God’s blessing upon His word and we read: “Now the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John.” Think of it: The apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter. Peter was not sitting in Jerusalem upon some “throne” reigning a church. No, he was commissioned by the church! If Peter was pope, for the other disciples to send him on an assignment would be like your parish priest sending pope Benedict somewhere on assignment. It isn’t done.

Concerning Matt. 16 we need to determine what the Apostles and early Christian disciples believed concerning the rock foundation of the church. If Jesus referred to Peter as the “rock,” it is logical to think that this was the “Truth” that those closest to Him understood and believed, and not the “truth” that some religious people “discovered” centuries later. The inspired apostle Paul told the Corinthians that the Israelites in the wilderness “all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and that Rock (petra) was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). Since the Old Testament, the rock referred to Christ, not Peter. In Ephesians 2:20, Paul stated, “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. If you know anything about architecture, you will know that the chief cornerstone is the strongest piece that holds the entire (building) foundation together. All of the apostles were foundation stones of the church, and Peter himself said all believers in Christ are living stones as well. 1 Peter 2:9 “You too are living stones, built as an edifice of spirit, into a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”.

Jesus never said: Peter YOU are the rock. What did Jesus promise Peter? That he would be the blessed person to open the doors of Christianity (the church), but Peter (petros) would not be the rock (petra) of the church. The church is Christ’s church. Christ built His church, using the first 12 apostles as the first stones in this one time mission. We Christians are living stones also who do not build another foundation but the one that Christ built. Look at Luke’s account. Jesus had predicted that Peter would open the doors of the church and that the church would be built on his confession. (Matt 16:16-18)
What was Peter’s confession? That Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. In Acts 2:36, Peter not only opened the doors of Christianity, but he also confessed once more that Jesus was the Lord and the Christ (the rock on which the church would be built).Therefore, it was on this exact day that the words of Jesus were fulfilled.

Peter was the preacher on the day of Pentecost. He preached, but he stood up with the the eleven. It was natural that Peter should preach for he had a very outspoken personality and was a man of initiatives. Someone has to be appointed to speak for a group. When the apostles were asked: “What shall we do?” Peter never said be a member of my church or submit to my authority. Nor did he say submission to a particular human authority was a requisite for salvation. What he said was be baptized everyone of you in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins.

Is it just Peter who has the keys and the privilege of binding and loosing? Look again. Matthew 18:18 tells us that ALL of the disciples had the privilege to bind and loose, the implication is that all of them have the keys. What’s even more startling is that all true Christians have this privilege too. Please read Matt 18:19. “That if 2 shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my father which is in heaven.”

Origen said that all Christians possess the keys (Commentary on Matthew, 10-14). John Chrysostom said that the apostle John possessed the keys (Homilies on the Gospel of John, 1:2). Other church fathers also denied the papal interpretation (Matt 16) in various ways.
If all of the apostles are foundation stones of the church (Eph 2:20), and all of the disciples (believers of Christ) have the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 18:18), then what does that tell us about the papal interpretation of Matthew 16? Church fathers for hundreds of years not only weren’t aware of the papal interpretation of the keys of Matthew 16, but even contradicted that interpretation.

Was Peter the only one who had the power of healing? In Matt 17:14-21 we read the account of an epileptic boy who was brought to the disciples of Jesus (including Peter), but they could not heal him. If Peter had a power that was “more effective” than the other apostles’ power, he should have been able to perform this miracle. However, the boy was healed only after he was taken to Jesus. Jesus then reprimanded all the apostles for their lack of faith.
Near the end of His ministry, Jesus promised all of His disciples that “he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do” (John 14:12). In Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit came with power, He empowered not only Peter, but also the rest of the apostles. This is confirmed when we read that “fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles” (Acts 2:43). There is no doubt that the Peter was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, but that power also was manifested in the rest of the apostles and was never grounds for considering one apostle as being superior to another.

When Jesus told Peter 3 times to feed His sheep, we see here a lesson for Peter. The number 3 is significant because Peter had denied Christ 3 times. Feeding the sheep means sharing the gospel, witnessing to the lost and caring for the spiritual needs of other Christians.(Something all the apostles did) Was Peter exalted when the Lord asked him to feed His sheep? No. Peter was grieved. He was humiliated. Why? Because Jesus was reminding him of his failures. It was a painful lesson.

 

[JRKH]

his third e-mail… Ambrose… I will take your advice. thank you!!!

WOW this guy does shovel a lot on there doesn’t he?
I wonder though if this is actually all his work or if he is cutting and pasting.

In order not to cover too many different issues I will talk about Peter in this email and send you another later and discuss the other things. The roman catholic church justifies their papacy by claiming Peter was pope. That he had special privileges that none of the other Apostles had. That Christ had elevated him above the others. For me to believe this, I need to go to the Scriptures.

Scripture is certainly a good place to go, but why limit yourself to the Bible Scriptures? As before you are trying to discern what the early Church looked like but only by using the narrowest of lenses. The books contained in the Bible are not the only ones surviving from the early Church, and while other writings may not be included in the bible they certainly add a great deal to our understanding of how the early Church understood the Gospels and the structure or the Church.

Did Peter ever claim to be pope or “vicar” of Christ? No. Did he ever say to the other apostles that they must take orders from him? No. He never once claimed primacy. In fact, the apostles had sent Peter on an assignment. In the Book of Acts we read about Philip who went to Samaria and preached Christ. Then follows an account of God’s blessing upon His word and we read: “Now the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John.” Think of it: The apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter. Peter was not sitting in Jerusalem upon some “throne” reigning a church. No, he was commissioned by the church! If Peter was pope, for the other disciples to send him on an assignment would be like your parish priest sending pope Benedict somewhere on assignment. It isn’t done.

Your analogy is flawed in that a “Presbyter” of that time would not “Send” and Apostle on a mission. Rather the Bishops of the Church, meeting in council, decided to send Peter and John on this mission - And in viewing it from this perspective it is not at all unlike what happens today.
Do you think that Pope Benedict just gets up in the morning and decides to fly off on some mission or other? I can assure you he does not. Such missions are carefully determined, planned and executed through the efforts of many within the Church. The Pope certainly has a large say in such matters, but not the only say.

Concerning Matt. 16 we need to determine what the Apostles and early Christian disciples believed concerning the rock foundation of the church. If Jesus referred to Peter as the “rock,” it is logical to think that this was the “Truth” that those closest to Him understood and believed, and not the “truth” that some religious people “discovered” centuries later.

Quite logical and true. And since Simon is refered to as “Simon Peter”, or just “Peter” in most cases in the NT we can surmise that the Early Church did indeed understand Jesus to have given him this name.

The inspired apostle Paul told the Corinthians that the Israelites in the wilderness “all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and that Rock (petra) was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). Since the Old Testament, the rock referred to Christ, not Peter. In Ephesians 2:20, Paul stated, “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. If you know anything about architecture, you will know that the chief cornerstone is the strongest piece that holds the entire (building) foundation together. All of the apostles were foundation stones of the church, and Peter himself said all believers in Christ are living stones as well. 1 Peter 2:9 “You too are living stones, built as an edifice of spirit, into a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”.

This is just so much smoke in my opinion. The passage in Mt 16 that is refered to is as simple and straighforward as can be. Jesus names Simon “Rock” (Kepha in Aramaic Petros in Greek) and upon this “Rock/Kepha” (The renamed Simon) He would build His Church. He then goes on to say that He will give to Simon/Peter the Keys and the Power to Bind and loose. Jesus then later uses the term Bind and Loose in the context of Church authority in Mt 18. I would also note that the word “Church” appears only twice in the Gospels, both times by Jesus and both times in the context of granting authority.
Read the Church fathers for further clarification on how they read and understood this verse.

Jesus never said: Peter YOU are the rock.

Of course Jesus never said that since He was talking to “Simon Bar Jonah” whom he was about to rename “Kepha” (Kephas) or Peter as it is rendered in English.
However it can clearly be seen that He does indeed say that Simon is “Rock”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that** you are Peter (Kepha/Rock), and on this rock(Kepha) I will build My church**, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

What did Jesus promise Peter? That he would be the blessed person to open the doors of Christianity (the church), but Peter (petros) would not be the rock (petra) of the church.

Ahh the old Petros/Petra rears it’s head. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic we can be pretty sure that Jesus named Simon Kepha which means Rock and makes no distinction between large or small rock. The Petros/Petra distinction is simply a gramatical issue in Greek that was never seen as an issue by the Church Fathers.

The church is Christ’s church. Christ built His church, using the first 12 apostles as the first stones in this one time mission. We Christians are living stones also who do not build another foundation but the one that Christ built.

I’m not sure what you mean by “One time mission”.
You say that you do not build another foundation but this is not true. You say that all Christians are living stones yet you deny the “stones” of pevious generations. You choose to “Build” directly upon the foundation of Christ, but in so doing you tear out the other “Living stones” of the Early Church Fathers and others down through the Centuries. In so doing, you tear down Christ’s Church instead of building it up.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

Look at Luke’s account. Jesus had predicted that Peter would open the doors of the church and that the church would be built on his confession. (Matt 16:16-18)
What was Peter’s confession? That Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. In Acts 2:36, Peter not only opened the doors of Christianity, but he also confessed once more that Jesus was the Lord and the Christ (the rock on which the church would be built).Therefore, it was on this exact day that the words of Jesus were fulfilled.
Peter was the preacher on the day of Pentecost. He preached, but he stood up with the the eleven. It was natural that Peter should preach for he had a very outspoken personality and was a man of initiatives. Someone has to be appointed to speak for a group.

I love your statement here, “someone had to be appointed to speak for the group”, it is a very wise and important thing to understand. Someone needed to speak for the group not just on Pentecost, but at other times as well. This does not mean "personally or Dictatorially, but rather one person speaks the will of the Spirit as revealed to the Whole group. This is what the Papal office does. He is the one who Speaks for the Group. Simon/Peter is the One whom God Chose to Speak for the Group on Pentecost and Benedict XVI is teh one God has chosen to speak for the group today.

When the apostles were asked: “What shall we do?” Peter never said be a member of my church or submit to my authority. Nor did he say submission to a particular human authority was a requisite for salvation. What he said was be baptized everyone of you in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins.

Neither does the Pope today tell people to join his Church or submit to his authority.
We are required however to submit to the Authority of Christ who is present in His Church and speaks One Truth. When those who believed and were baptzed wanted instruction who did they go to? The apostles. Did one apostle teach one thing and another Apostle teach a contrary thing? No - They all taught the same Doctrine. Why? because they belong to one Church with one Invisible King and One visible teaching Authority that acted in concert with each other.
The message of the Church today is the same as on Pentacost.

Is it just Peter who has the keys and the privilege of binding and loosing? Look again. Matthew 18:18 tells us that ALL of the disciples had the privilege to bind and loose, the implication is that all of them have the keys. What’s even more startling is that all true Christians have this privilege too. Please read Matt 18:19. “That if 2 shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my father which is in heaven.”

So If I bind a that you are wrong in your interpretation then you are wrong since by you rinterpretation here I have the right to “Bind and Loose”. That does not make much sense does it?
To understand Mt 18:15-19 look at the whole. Mt 18:18 says that we are to “Tell it To The Church, and then abide by the Church’s decision”. How does such authority work if ALL can individually “Bind and Loose”. It makes no sense.

Origen said that all Christians possess the keys (Commentary on Matthew, 10-14). John Chrysostom said that the apostle John possessed the keys (Homilies on the Gospel of John, 1:2). Other church fathers also denied the papal interpretation (Matt 16) in various ways.
If all of the apostles are foundation stones of the church (Eph 2:20), and all of the disciples (believers of Christ) have the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 18:18), then what does that tell us about the papal interpretation of Matthew 16? Church fathers for hundreds of years not only weren’t aware of the papal interpretation of the keys of Matthew 16, but even contradicted that interpretation.

This is an area that I am not well enough aquainted with and will let others comment on.

Was Peter the only one who had the power of healing? In Matt 17:14-21 we read the account of an epileptic boy who was brought to the disciples of Jesus (including Peter), but they could not heal him. If Peter had a power that was “more effective” than the other apostles’ power, he should have been able to perform this miracle. However, the boy was healed only after he was taken to Jesus. Jesus then reprimanded all the apostles for their lack of faith.
Near the end of His ministry, Jesus promised all of His disciples that “he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do” (John 14:12). In Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit came with power, He empowered not only Peter, but also the rest of the apostles. This is confirmed when we read that “fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles” (Acts 2:43). There is no doubt that the Peter was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, but that power also was manifested in the rest of the apostles and was never grounds for considering one apostle as being superior to another.

Yes that power was manifest thoughout the Apostles and many others. All through History we can see people granted remarkable powers through their faith. However the fact that this or that pope does not display such power does not negate the authority of His office in acting in Christ’s name on matters of faith and morals.

When Jesus told Peter 3 times to feed His sheep, we see here a lesson for Peter. The number 3 is significant because Peter had denied Christ 3 times. Feeding the sheep means sharing the gospel, witnessing to the lost and caring for the spiritual needs of other Christians.(Something all the apostles did) Was Peter exalted when the Lord asked him to feed His sheep? No. Peter was grieved. He was humiliated. Why? Because Jesus was reminding him of his failures. It was a painful lesson.

Painful? Yes - As all truly useful lessons are. Humiliating? Yes - For humility is one of the greatest needs of any leader within the Church. It is when we loose sight of humility that we begin to have problems.
Peter learned many lessons after Mt 16. He learned to Trust Christ, He learned that Christ would forgive him even his denials and entrust him with His Flock. Yes Peter learned many Lessons the hard way.

Overall I have to say that you have some very nice insights into the Bible. However these are gravely damaged by your need to deny the Authority of The Church. This is seen by the lengths you will go to to find other explanations for otherwise plain texts, and also that you do not take into account how the Church grew and how the unity of doctrine was maintained for the 400 years before the canon of the Bible was assembled.
I do hope that you will continue to study. I am sure that you will find your way back home to The Church in due time.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

In order not to cover too many different issues I will talk about Peter

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko)* my* lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter receives this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus take great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle receives this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.