If Peter is Pope why so much from Paul?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eleusis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My stepfather threw this one at me shortly after I joined the Church. It’s a red herring. Jesus didn’t write anything; does that attract from him in any way? Paul gives us the answer himself: there are many members in the Body of Christ and all of us have different gifts. Peter converted thousands right after receiving the Holy Spirit. That’s a lifetime of work for some evangelists. He was called to make a Church grow under the most hostile of circumstances. Paul was sent to make believers of the Gentiles and he wrote letters to keep them on the right path. Now we have the letters of Paul as part of our Bible and the Gospel that was preached by Peter and the Apostles as the basis of our Tradition. Both men did their jobs well.
 
This is for ex-Catholic who has problems with “This Rock”. I don’t know which scholarly Catholics he was referring to, but everyone I’ve heard believes Christ was giving a commission to Peter in Matthew 16. First he calls Simon Bar-Jonah “blessed”. Then He changes his name, which means He has a new job for the man now named Peter. Here’s a grammar lesson. Christ says I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church … I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven and whatever you …

Christ keeps saying YOU. He never stops speaking to and about Peter to turn the conversation toward himself. His reference to the keys is a reference to Isiah 22:22 where and office with power is passed on.

No one is saying Peter is without faults. He denied our Lord and he behaved badly toward the Gentiles. He deserved Paul’s rebuke. But it was still Peter who made the pronouncement at the Council of Jerusalem . And it was Peter to whom God revealed the Truth about Jesus Christ. And it was on Peter that Christ conferred the jurisdiction of supreme shepherd when he gold him to Feed my lambs (John 21: 15-17). That’s from the RCC scholars who edited teh Navarre bible.
 
Oops. Grammar teacher left out lesson. In Matthew 16, when Christ is addressing Peter, the subject of the verse in question remains Peter. He is the You. The subject is never Jesus. So when He says “on this rock” he is referring to the subject of the verse, which is Peter. He can’t be speaking of himself.

School’s out. Good thing, because if I don’t quit soon I’ll have to post another correction.
 
40.png
germys9:
Why is Jesus the Christ if Paul did so much writing? Point out the incosistency with his logic.
Click to expand...
Good point. One’s position is not determined by the quantity of his or her writing, but the mission God assigned him to.

Gerry 🙂
 
40.png
RobedWithLight:
Good point. One’s position is not determined by the quantity of his or her writing, but the mission God assigned him to.

Gerry 🙂
Click to expand...
Does the fact that Luke actually wrote more than Paul come into play here? The Gospel of Luke and Acts comprise a greater bulk of actual text than the Pauline corpus.
 
You NEVER THOUGHT, NOT even ONCE, even though the catechism tells you and us, NOT TO LOOK at GIFTS AND ABILITY with an INDIVIUAL PERSPECTIVEs and REWARDS!

Yet YOU/U measure everything in TERMS of WHAT ,“ONE INDIVIDUAL,” accomplishs or is attributed with, when IN ACTUALLY the GOD OF SPIRIT, which WE BELIEVE IN, is the BLOOD and ENERGY, and good mood and thought, (if NOT Imagination too), which allows ALL WORK TO BE DONE and attributed to SOME NAME, somewhere!

The catechism says the MOTHER Of ALL EVIL INTENT IS SELFISH PRIDE and VANITY!
Theologians have gotten Phd’s on the writtings of ECCLESIATES…

Saint Paul tells us WE SHOULD ONLY be ,“PROUD,” in the LORD! Not of ,'OURSE#LVES…"

A ,“ROCK,” is an IMMUTABLE OBJECT, hard to ply or MOVE!

Last words of SAINT PETER, three TIMES:

Lord YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU!
Lord YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU!
etc… :cool:
 
40.png
metal1633:
Does the fact that Luke actually wrote more than Paul come into play here? The Gospel of Luke and Acts comprise a greater bulk of actual text than the Pauline corpus.
Click to expand...
I think that hits the nail on the head!
 
I hope this post makes sense…

I’ve created a new phrase that I apply to non-Catholic christians when they do things like ask this kind of question. I call it the “cancels-out” theory. It may not be the best name but it’s all I could come up with in my limited imagination. This thread reminds me of it perfectly!

The idea seems to be that, in the Bible and the Early Church, one thing can be “canceled out” by another thing because it’s either a) mentioned more often, b) someone writes more often (like Paul vs. Peter), c) Someone scolds someone else (like Paul scolding Peter somehow = Peter wasn’t the pope.) d) the classic “This Early Church Father disagreed” idea that somehow cancels out everyone that did agree, e) Isolated writings from the Early Fathers cancel out droves of their same writings that are 100% Catholic, Etc. Etc. Etc.

There are countless ways that anti-Catholics use scripture passages and/or sections to “cancel out” verses that support Catholic teachings. It’s very frustrating! But if you call a person out on their Cancelation Theory you can get a very interesting conversation/debate going! Folks can get wrapped up in their own little box and sometimes it takes someone to get them to see outside the box!
 
As someone pointed out, Peter may have written or dictated much more than we know.
Since Peter went to Rome it is reasonable that his writings would be lost in the persecution of the Christians that soon followed, while Paul’s letters being circulated in the East were more likely to survive.

John, who lived up to sixty years after Our Lord’s Ascension had plenty of time to write thousands of letters. He must have written at least a few hundred. Where are they? Probably lost.

But never mind writings. Peter started the Church in Rome while Paul worked mostly in the East. Only in the end did Paul go to Rome where there was already a Christian community.

Ultimately, history showed that it was Peter’s Church in Rome that had so much influence on world Christianity. It was the Roman Catholic Church that sent missionaries throughout the world and set up countless schools, hospitals and other institutions in every country. It was the Roman Catholic Church that mandated Councils to settle doctrinal issues for all time.

Three cheers for Peter.
 
My evangelical coworker tossed that one on my desk the other day. Why, if Peter was the leader, did Paul do so much writing?
Click to expand...
Reverse this question to your friend since he attributes writing with Authority. Ask him where the writings of Jesus are?
 
Good thread with good answers. Just a couple of sticklers. Paul was not a tax collector, nor was he riding a horse on the road to Damascus.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Most early writtings are lost. Who knows, maybee St. Kephas did write more but the Romans or Jews (in 90 A.D.) destroyed them? It was a Church in persecution you know.

We’re lucky to have what we got!

Jesus founded His Church not a book. he never commanded anyone to write a book either. Thus the Bible is just whoever wrote letters that were lucky enough to survive. Faith is in His Church, it is in us. Faith is not in a Book, just the Love letters of those with Faith.:love:
 
do you know where can I read more of the early papacy first 200 years?

Ive read that there was a group of elders in the roman church during the first years and not a Pope, and that the Pope lists in the first years arent very realiable.

catholic answer to that?
 
many protestants quote gal2:11–14 as well, attempting to show that peter was not infallible and that paul did not consider him the head of the church. this position is not supportable. first of all, if they think peter was not infallible, why do they accept his twoletters as inspired and, therefore,infallible? we must accept that all the apostles were infallible. after the apostles, the popes individually and the bishops as a group in union with the pope,are infallible. st paul correcting st. peter for weak behavior is no different from st. catherine of siena correcting weak popes in the middle ages. there is no doctrine involved. st peter himself had settled the doctrinal point at the council of jerusalem. st paul corrected st.peter for being unwilling to confront the judaizers from jerusalem. remember, st paul was among those who fell silent at the council of jerusalem once st. peter spoke. :blessyou:
 
40.png
Asking:
do you know where can I read more of the early papacy first 200 years?

Ive read that there was a group of elders in the roman church during the first years and not a Pope, and that the Pope lists in the first years arent very realiable.

catholic answer to that?
Click to expand...
How reliable can a 2000 year old list be that wasnt even concidered nessesary until aftetr the fact?

The early lists, covering the first and early second century all have the same names. A couple of lists put a couple of names in a differant order. And yes there was a group of elders. They worked with the Pope. They still do.
 
40.png
Asking:
do you know where can I read more of the early papacy first 200 years?

Ive read that there was a group of elders in the roman church during the first years and not a Pope, and that the Pope lists in the first years arent very realiable.

catholic answer to that?
Click to expand...
Irenaeus of Lyon (about A.D. 189) would be a good start:2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
  1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chap. 3) (bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/Irenaeus/view.cgi?file=anf01-60.htm&size=20)
 
Regarding the request by Asking, for evidence of early papal history: “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians” speaks pretty loudly, when we catch a few key points:

The Christian congregation at Corinth was breaking apart into factions, and a group was trying to dismiss the appointed presbyters. Clement sends a rather lengthy letter to them, stressing meekness, humility, faith in Jesus’ promises, and Christian unity. He even makes extensive appeals to scripture, as far back as Adam. (In that respect, it looks fondly like lots of newer papal documents!)

He finishes with “You who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts”.

Leading to Point #1: Whether he truly possessed it or not, Clement assumed he had authority over the Church in Corinth (a long way from his office in Rome).

But even more important is a quote from Chapter 1: “…we feel we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points about which you consulted us.”
This means CLEMENT DID NOT FORCE himself on this distant church. Rather, the CORINTHIANS REQUESTED THAT CLEMENT SETTLE THE ISSUE FOR THEM!

One might say, “yeah… so what?” Well, it looks like proof that at least one early church (when the years still had 2 digits) was operating under the given assumption that the Bishop of Rome had some type of authority over them, even though they were separated by hundreds of miles. In an audio tape set on the papacy, Tim Staples even suggests that the Apostle John was still alive at this time, and much closer to Corinth than was Clement. Yet the people still took their problem to the Bishop of Rome! Is this amazing, or what?
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
because paul did a lot more travelling and had more people to keep up with. let’s not forget that these writings were letters of correspondence to real people and churches of the time.
Click to expand...
I doubt if Peter ever heard the word “pope” as he was not sent to the Gentiles.
 
40.png
eleusis:
My evangelical coworker tossed that one on my desk the other day. Why, if Peter was the leader, did Paul do so much writing? My best answer was as a sign for sinners. Even though we are fallen when we turn our lives over to him he can do great things with the greatest screw ups there are, and Paul was the latest example.

Any other ideas?
thanks,
Click to expand...
I doubt if Peter ever heard the word “pope” as he was not sent to the Gentiles.
 
40.png
Katholikos:
eleusis,

Did your co-worker point his finger at you and say “Gotcha” when he posed this question?😃

He may not have said it, but he meant it! Been there, done that.

Many Protestants contrast Paul with Peter every which way to “prove” that Peter wasn’t the head of the Church. Paul is always the hero and Peter is the loser, as they selectively interpret the Scriptures. Some even charge that Peter was never in Rome, disbelieving or disregarding the fact that his body is buried beneath St. Peters Basilica on Vatican Hill.

A little less twisting of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16 RSV) and a little more study of the history of Christianty (which is the history of the Catholic Church) would do those folks a world of good.

JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!
Click to expand...
Alright firstly just b/c Peter is buried in Rome doesn’t mean he taught there. It only means the Catholic Church brought him there after his death. I don’t think you can know that it really is St. Peter, but anyway I don’t know of any biblical evidence of Peter teaching in Rome. I do know of Paul teaching in Rome. Correct me if I’m wrong but it is only church tradition that says Peter was a bishop of Rome, not biblical evidence. Don’t take this the wrong way but to support the Pope’s claim to power with tradition that the Pope wrote isn’t smart. That makes it appear as a way to gain more power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top