How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[Always_For_Him]

The majority of Church Fathers viewed the equal authority of all bishops.

I don’t believe that for one second. That is not what the ECF’s wrote, taught, explained over and over again.

It did not.

It did change for the EO, because it is not extinct from your belief.

It was not.

It was to. Every successor from Peter, the Magisterium, etc… lived that belief. I don’t believe any of them taught that Peter wasn’t the Supreme Head of Christ’s Church. I don’t believe any of them taught that all bishops were equal.

Can the Pope proclaim doctrine today–ex cathedra–apart from an Ecumenical Council? They invented doctrine–including papal infallibility.

No, they did not! That was the understanding of Peter and the Apostles when Jesus gave the power to Peter to bind and loose and gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom.

Jesus Christ is the Head of His Church.

What I was saying is that Jesus appointed Peter the head of His Church HERE ON EARTH. That should have been understood

 

[Always_For_Him]

The majority of Church Fathers viewed the equal authority of all bishops.

I don’t believe that for one second. That is not what the ECF’s wrote, taught, explained over and over again.

It did not.

It did change for the EO, because it is now extinct from your belief.

It was not.

It was to. Every successor from Peter, the Magisterium, etc… lived that belief. I don’t believe any of them taught that Peter wasn’t the Supreme Head of Christ’s Church. I don’t believe any of them taught that all bishops were equal.

Can the Pope proclaim doctrine today–ex cathedra–apart from an Ecumenical Council? They invented doctrine–including papal infallibility.

No, they did not! That was the understanding of Peter and the Apostles when Jesus gave the power to Peter to bind and loose and gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom.

Jesus Christ is the Head of His Church.

What I was saying is that Jesus appointed Peter the head of His Church HERE ON EARTH. That should have been understood.

 

[Mickey]

I don’t believe that for one second. That is not what the ECF’s wrote, taught, explained over and over again.

I can post quotes–but I am weary of the Church Father battles.

It did change for the EO, because it is now extinct from your belief.

It never existed as it appears today–my friend.

I don’t believe any of them taught that Peter wasn’t the Supreme Head of Christ’s Church. I don’t believe any of them taught that all bishops were equal.

You have free will to believe what you wish.

What I was saying is that Jesus appointed Peter the head of His Church HERE ON EARTH. That should have been understood.

I know what you meant. Jesus Christ is still with us. And He will be with us unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Peace and blessings to you.

 

[Mickey]

May we all join our prayers to one another that the Holy spirit will guide the Church

Amen my brother!

PS–My name is “Mickey” not “Mikey”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

As I understand the terms ‘bind and lose’ one has authority to make actual decisions over substantive matters. There is no recorded text where Christ told Peter he had the power to ‘negotiate and arbitrate’. When I read your response I had this mental image of Peter as some sort of lawyer getting disputing parties to come to the table to work out an agreement.

If we look at the Council of Jerusalem as an example as recorded in Acts 15 we see that the early Church was beset with a major problem. So, about in the year 50 a meeting of the Church’s senior members and interested parties discussed the matter and a decison was made. While there was some debate on the list as to the actual roles of James and Peter - the idea I have is that there was both a decision to ‘lose’ the requirement of circumcision and an accommodation to the Jews who turned to Christ that their sensibilities not be offended. Now, it did not have to turn out this way - but, ‘to bind and lose’ does not negate also listening to the views of others. The operative element though is that a decision was definitely made against the requirement for circumcision - and for not giving scandal to others. But, it is important to draw an important distinction - this was not a debating society. Questions of faith and morals were actually decided under the protection of the Holy Spirit. Meeting the needs of Church as it transitioned from being caccooned in Judiac law and traditions to one of a totally new creation.

No easy answers here - but, as we move forward 275 years we see that the next meeting was similar: the Council of Nicaea (325)where the following decisons were made: Nicene Creed was adopted and the heretical teaching of Arius were repudiated. not much negoiating here. Another interesting development was the role of the Emperor Constintine - and political authority begins to exert influence not previously seen. Things are getting complicated - but, still the Power of God is guiding His Bride the Church through all of this activity.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Mickey]

When I read your response I had this mental image of Peter as some sort of lawyer getting disputing parties to come to the table to work out an agreement.

LOL! Legalism is usually Rome’s M.O

So, about in the year 50 a meeting of the Church’s senior members and interested parties discussed the matter and a decison was made.

Amen. Ecumenical Council.

Questions of faith and morals were actually decided under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks Be to God.

 

[Gofer]

Jerusalem wasn’t an ecumenical council. The first was First Nicaea.

 

[Mickey]

Jerusalem wasn’t an ecumenical council. The first was First Nicaea.

Jerusalem was the model.

 

[JRKH]

Jerusalem was the model.

(Honest question)
How do you know this?
Is it written down somewhere?
I mean is there a document from first Nicea that says, “We shall pattern this council based upon the first Council of Jerusalem as seen in Acts”.

Peace
James

 

[Mickey]

(Honest question)
How do you know this?

Hmmm? I thought this was shared knowledge–East and West. Does the Church of Rome not see it this way?

I will look at Church Father quotes. I do not believe anything is written at Nicea.

**The Apostolic Council in Jerusalem. **
When Christianity had spread throughout the known world and multitudes of pagans began to accept the Christian faith, some Christians were troubled. Christians of Jewish background held that Christians from pagan religions had to strictly observe the rituals of the Law of Moses. As a prerequisite, it should be necessary to turn them first to the Jewish faith because otherwise they could not be saved. This led to heated disagreements among the Christians.
No single apostle was able to resolve such an important question alone. It was determined by the holy apostles together with the presbyters or priests in harmony with the commandments of Christ (cf. Matt. 18:17) to convene the first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in the year 51 A.D.
After long discussions, the issue was settled by the words of the Apostle Peter. He arose and said that the Lord having elected him in the early days to preach to the gentiles did not make any distinction between Jews and gentiles but to all gave the Holy Spirit; and therefore, Christians converted from pagan religions did not have to keep the rituals of the law of Moses. “We believe,” the Apostle finished his speech, “that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
The speech of the Apostle Peter created a deep impression and was then strengthened still more after the Apostles Paul and Barnabas related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
After this, the Apostle James, the “brother of the Lord,” arose to address those present at the council. The last word belonged to him as to bishop of the JerusalemChurch and to president of the council (first among equals). His opinions were furthermore important because he himself was a strict adherent of the Law and received for this not only from Christians but also from Jews themselves the epithet “righteous.” Honour was accorded him by his position in the Church, first bishop of Jerusalem, placed there by the Lord Himself. St. James led a strict ascetic life, and he wore a gold name plate which was worn only by the chief priests. He spent whole hours alone in the Temple praying for his people. In Jerusalem, he was honoured and respected by the people.
St. James approved the opinion of the Apostle Peter. He showed that it was in agreement with prophecy (Amos 9:11-12) and consequently with divine providence. He proposed, “we should not trouble those of the gentiles, who turn to God, with keeping the rituals of the Law of Moses; but they must refrain from idol worship, from fornication, and from things strangled and blood. They should not do to others what they do not want done to themselves.”
This proposal of the Apostle James was accepted by the apostles, presbyters, and the whole Council unanimously as a resolution of the Council. It was made known to all Christians in a Council decree, which began with the words, “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
Thus the Apostolic Council showed Christians that the decree of the Council, in agreement with the word of the Lord (John 16:13;14:16), is established by the Holy Spirit. This letter of the Apostolic Council brought great joy and comfort to the Christians.
*Note: *See Acts of the Apostles 15:1-35.

orthodoxphotos.com/readings/LG/council.shtml

 

[JRKH]

Hmmm? I thought this was shared knowledge–East and West. Does the Church of Rome not see it this way?

I will look at Church Father quotes. I do not believe anything is written at Nicea.

**The Apostolic Council in Jerusalem. **
When Christianity had spread throughout the known world and multitudes of pagans began to accept the Christian faith, some Christians were troubled. Christians of Jewish background held that Christians from pagan religions had to strictly observe the rituals of the Law of Moses. As a prerequisite, it should be necessary to turn them first to the Jewish faith because otherwise they could not be saved. This led to heated disagreements among the Christians.
No single apostle was able to resolve such an important question alone. It was determined by the holy apostles together with the presbyters or priests in harmony with the commandments of Christ (cf. Matt. 18:17) to convene the first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in the year 51 A.D.
After long discussions, the issue was settled by the words of the Apostle Peter. He arose and said that the Lord having elected him in the early days to preach to the gentiles did not make any distinction between Jews and gentiles but to all gave the Holy Spirit; and therefore, Christians converted from pagan religions did not have to keep the rituals of the law of Moses. “We believe,” the Apostle finished his speech, “that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
The speech of the Apostle Peter created a deep impression and was then strengthened still more after the Apostles Paul and Barnabas related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
After this, the Apostle James, the “brother of the Lord,” arose to address those present at the council. The last word belonged to him as to bishop of the JerusalemChurch and to president of the council (first among equals). His opinions were furthermore important because he himself was a strict adherent of the Law and received for this not only from Christians but also from Jews themselves the epithet “righteous.” Honour was accorded him by his position in the Church, first bishop of Jerusalem, placed there by the Lord Himself. St. James led a strict ascetic life, and he wore a gold name plate which was worn only by the chief priests. He spent whole hours alone in the Temple praying for his people. In Jerusalem, he was honoured and respected by the people.
St. James approved the opinion of the Apostle Peter. He showed that it was in agreement with prophecy (Amos 9:11-12) and consequently with divine providence. He proposed, “we should not trouble those of the gentiles, who turn to God, with keeping the rituals of the Law of Moses; but they must refrain from idol worship, from fornication, and from things strangled and blood. They should not do to others what they do not want done to themselves.”
This proposal of the Apostle James was accepted by the apostles, presbyters, and the whole Council unanimously as a resolution of the Council. It was made known to all Christians in a Council decree, which began with the words, “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
Thus the Apostolic Council showed Christians that the decree of the Council, in agreement with the word of the Lord (John 16:13;14:16), is established by the Holy Spirit. This letter of the Apostolic Council brought great joy and comfort to the Christians.
*Note: *See Acts of the Apostles 15:1-35.

orthodoxphotos.com/readings/LG/council.shtml

Thank you for this text and link. Very interesting reading.

In relation to the discussion of earlier in the thread where there was debate about Peter’s authority and how to read and interpret the passage in acts, I noted a couple of things which I highlighted above. That being that Peter silenced the debate and settled the issue. James, as head of the Church in Jerusalem, approved what Peter had put forth.
Note here that I am not putting this forth to prove Peter’s primacy but rather to those who debated the reading of the passage earlier, that The Orthodox agree (at least this author anyway) that it was Peter who ended the debates and settled the issue.

Peace
James

 

[Mickey]

The Orthodox agree (at least this author anyway) that it was Peter who ended the debates and settled the issue.

It was a council decision.

"No single apostle was able to resolve such an important question alone. It was determined by the holy apostles together with the presbyters or priests in harmony with the commandments of Christ (cf. Matt. 18:17) to convene the first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in the year 51 A.D.
After long discussions, the issue was settled by the words of the Apostle Peter. "

"The speech of the Apostle Peter created a deep impression and was then strengthened still more after the Apostles Paul and Barnabas related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles."

"After this, the Apostle James, the “brother of the Lord,” arose to address those present at the council. The last word belonged to him as to bishop of the Jerusalem Church** and to president of the council (first among equals). **His opinions were furthermore important because he himself was a strict adherent of the Law and received for this not only from Christians but also from Jews themselves the epithet “righteous.” Honour was accorded him by his position in the Church, first bishop of Jerusalem, placed there by the Lord Himself."

"This proposal of the Apostle James was accepted by the apostles, presbyters, and the whole Council unanimously as a resolution of the Council."

**

**

 

[JRKH]

It was a council decision.

"No single apostle was able to resolve such an important question alone. It was determined by the holy apostles together with the presbyters or priests in harmony with the commandments of Christ (cf. Matt. 18:17) to convene the first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in the year 51 A.D.
After long discussions, the issue was settled by the words of the Apostle Peter. "

"The speech of the Apostle Peter created a deep impression and was then strengthened still more after the Apostles Paul and Barnabas related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles."

“After this, the Apostle James, the “brother of the Lord,” arose to address those present at the council. The last word belonged to him as to bishop of the Jerusalem Church** and to president of the council (first among equals).** His opinions were furthermore important because he himself was a strict adherent of the Law and received for this not only from Christians but also from Jews themselves the epithet “righteous.” Honour was accorded him by his position in the Church, first bishop of Jerusalem**, placed there by the Lord Himself.”**

"This proposal of the Apostle James was accepted by the apostles, presbyters, and the whole Council unanimously as a resolution of the Council."

---

Like I said in my post, I am not advancing this as any sort of papal proof, but the discussion earlier (I haven’t tried to go back and look it up) about reading the passage in Acts kept trying to put all sorts of convoluted meanings into something that was very straight forward.
The piece you posted reinforces the more straightforward reading of the passage.
“After long discussions, the issue was settled by the words of the Apostle Peter.”
This was strengthened by further testimony and approved St. James as Residing Bishop of Jerusalem and Chair of the Council.

I’m not going to say that this passage proves Papal Primacy. That is not my intent. My purpose in mentioning it is to help people understand that, when reading such passages, the author is generally meaning exactly what he says. IN this case, that there was much debating of the issues, but when Peter Spoke, He silenced the debate. His speech “Settled the Issue”.

I am saying no more and no less than that.

Peace
James

 

[Mickey]

My purpose in mentioning it is to help people understand that, when reading such passages, the author is generally meaning exactly what he says.

Amen.

 

[Gofer]

“After long discussions, the issue was settled by the words of the Apostle Peter.”

This is the meat of the issue; James, who was not

placed there (in his see) by the Lord Himself

but was made bishop by Peter, James and John, added non-essentials, or “disciplines” to the final decree as a concession to his “hard-line Jewish” party. And Paul later advises his flock to ignore these.

 

[tqualey]

Dear Gofer,

You said:

And Paul later advises his flock to ignore these.

As I recall, there were three issues that James addressed: idolatry, fornication and a dietary item on strangled animals/blood. Did you meant to ignore all three?

I am a little fuzzy on your reference as to where Paul told anyone to ‘ignore these’ (especially the first two). Please help me out here…

Have a great day.

 

[Gofer]

Dear Gofer,

You said:

And Paul later advises his flock to ignore these.

As I recall, there were three issues that James addressed: idolatry, fornication and a dietary item on strangled animals/blood. Did you meant to ignore all three?

I am a little fuzzy on your reference as to where Paul told anyone to ‘ignore these’ (especially the first two). Please help me out here…

Have a great day.

I’m sorry. What I meant to say:

In 1 Corinthians 8, written well after the council, Paul taught that whether one eats meat which has been sacrificed to idols is purely a prudential judgment.link

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. … But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. (1 Corinthians 8, NIV)

Regarding blood and strangled animals, the Council of Florence (1438-1445) stated:

…every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel. …the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practising the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. (link)

 

[tqualey]

Thank you very much for an excellent reply - and, an outstanding link!

Have a great weekend.

 

[joe370]

Interesting article by Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics…

Tough to refute…

Bishop of Rome

The Roman Catholic Church from Apostolic times has literally followed the Bible in the establishment of good order in the Church. According to Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus there are three orders to the organization and leadership of the Church (sometimes known as ecclesiastical order or hierarchy): episcopos or bishops, presbyteros or elders, commonly translated priests, and diaconos or deacons.

The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop.

1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach …
Tit 1:7,9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.

Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.

The shepherding role of the apostle Peter as episcopos was related by John.

Jn 21:15-17
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the twelve apostles were the first episcopes, receiving at the Last Supper their leadership order to serve when Jesus told them “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

Peter, as demonstrated in the biblical portrait of him, exercised a leadership role first among the other apostles and early Christians, and then later in Rome before his martyrdom there in 67/68 AD.

Peter’s presence in Rome in indicated in his first letter. The name “Babylon” is used here as a cryptic name for the city of Rome, a characteristic of writings done during times of persecution. During Peter’s time (witnessed by his own martyrdom) and most New Testament times (witness the Book of Revelation–classic persecution literature), Rome took on the characteristics of the most outstanding example of a world power hostile to God–ancient Babylon.

1 Peter 5:12-13
I write you this briefly through Silvanus … The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.

Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter’s presence and death in Rome.

Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter’s first successor as bishop of Rome.

2 Timothy 4:21
Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.

Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.
Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.

Below is a list of the bishops of Rome from Peter to Benedict XVI. Historians both secular and ecclesiastical concur with a final list published by the Vatican Library.

The only biblical “claim to fame” of these men is that they are episcopoi, bishops. There is no greater “order” according to the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches this. Other titles are only honorary and organizational.

The Catholic Church has also taken Paul at his word.

1 Cor 4:14-16
I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.
1 Thess 2:11-12
As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

The faithful of the Church has always called their ordered leadership “father.” In Greek, the language of the early Church, the word for father was pappas; in Latin, the language of the later Church, the word for father was papa.

By the 300’s, bishops were sometimes called “pope” a corruption of the word for father. By the 700’s the title for affection and respect for the Bishop of Rome exclusively was Pope.

It is not uncommon for enemies and non-believers of Roman Catholicism to create an argument against the succession and therefore validity of the Bishops of Rome as true successors to Peter by proffering the history of the “bad Popes.” That argument arises from a basic misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture.

The first response to be made to the so-called argument from the “bad Popes” is admission that many men who held the position of Bishop of Rome were not holy men. Perhaps Peter was the best model for human failure in such a leadership role. He denied Jesus three times after being told he would do so. Some (e.g., Peter, Judas) who are called stumble and fall.

Some (Peter) repent and are saved. Others (Judas) reject that grace. It behooves us to remember that Jesus does not call saints, but sinners.

Lk 5:31-32
Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”
Mt 9:12
He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.”

The moral miracle of the “bad Popes” is that they were worldly men, public sinners, and never functioned as spiritual leaders nor touched or changed the deposit of faith of Christianity.

We are reminded by the Lord even to the present day that the lifestyle of the messenger does not alter the validity of the message. Recall the American TeleEvangelists’ scandals in 1987 and 1988.

catholicapologetics.org/ap050500.htm

 

[joe370]

Most protestants (with the exception of protestant scholars) don’t believe that Peter is the Rock. They are taught (I was as a former lutheran) to buy into the petra/petros argument which is refuted quite easily.

The Greek text is a translation of Jesus’ words, which were actually spoken in Aramaic. Aramaic only had one word for rock, kephas (which is why Peter is often called Cephas in the Bible). The word Kephas in Aramaic means “huge rock.” The Aramaic word for “little stone” is “evna,” and Peter was not called “Evna” or “Envas” or anything like that. In Aramaic, Jesus said “You are Peter (Kephas) and upon this rock (kephas) I will build my Church.” The metaphor worked well in Aramaic where nouns are neither feminine or masculine, but in Greek, the noun “rock” was feminine, and therefore unsuitable as a name for Peter. So the Aramaic word Kephas was translated to the masculine name Petros when it referred to Peter, and to the feminine noun petra when it referred to the rock. In ancient Koine Greek, petra and petros were total synonyms, unlike modern Attic Greek and unlike Ionic Greek which was about 400 year before Christ.

If Martin Luther, leader of the protestant reformation referred to Peter as the Rock. Quote…

The Reformer, Martin Luther, said this:

Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth. Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men. (Martin Luther 1530 - after he left the Church)

W. F. Albright, one of the best known Protestant theologians of this century, in his Anchor Bible Commentary, says:

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church…To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.

When Jesus says “whatever you bind” --to Peter, in Mat 16:18,

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

the Greek text used for “you” is singular. In Mat 18:17-18

**“And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." **

the Greek text, the word for “you” in “whatever you bind” is plural. Catholics think these two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the principal leader.

The link illustrates the grammatical correctness. The adjective"this" grammatically must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier.

davidmacd.com/images/peter_rock.gif

Examples of Peter’s Authority among the Apostles:

* Next to Jesus, Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in Scripture (152 times).
* He stood up and spoke on behalf of the apostles (Mt 19:27, Acts 1:15, 2:14)
* He stood up at the birth of the Church at the Pentecost to lead them. (Acts 2:14)
* The disciples were referred to as Peter and the Apostles. (Acts 2:37, 5:29)
* Peter was given the authority to forgive sins before the rest of the apostles. (Mat 16:18)
* He was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) -- sometimes it was only "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32);
* John ran ahead of Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. He waited and let Peter go in. (Jn 20:4)
* Jesus told Peter to "feed my lambs...tend my sheep... feed my sheep." (Jn 21:15-17) The difference between a sheep and a lamb might be significant. A lamb is a baby, a sheep is an adult. Perhaps Jesus was asking Peter to take care of both the general people (the lambs), and the apostles (sheep). Regardless of that interpretation of sheep and lambs, it is clear Jesus is asking Peter to feed and tend his flock. That is what a shepherd does. It appears to me that he is asking Peter to shepherd his Church on earth, on his behalf.