If the Rock is Peter's faith

[susanlo]

The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs
by Dave Armstrong
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=81
“Peter’s name is found 191 times in the Gospels; even St. John is only mentioned 48 times! In short, Christ clearly gave Peter the distinct role of being the first Pope to lead the Church.”

On biblegateway.com I can search and see Simon/Peter/Cephas 144 times in the 4 gospels. (This was a quick count trying to eliminate the other Simons, but it is probably close). Paul is mentioned 0 times in the 4 gospels.
In Acts, Paul/Saul is mentioned 212 times while Peter/Simon is mentioned 73 times.
Paul wrote 13/27 books of the NT. (Maybe even 14 if you count Hebrews which is disputed in authorship). Peter wrote 2 books.
In the entire NT Paul is definitely mentioned much more than Peter, but I think both men have achieved much in the establishing of Christianity. I don’t know if a name count can be used to determine a supreme leader.

 

[josephback]

I agree with you.

This is off topic but can I claim membership in the society of benevolent Catholic trolls?

 

[Wannano]

I don’t see any ancient explanations in here connecting the key of David in Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7 to the keyS in Matthew 16:19. I think that is a modern day idea. Or maybe you can prove me wrong.

I read your links. I am always skeptical when I see a list of brief quotes with “…” in them. I see a lot of people identifying Peter as rock. Of course as we have seen earlier in the thread, Tertullian stated the church was built on Peter, but denied the fact that there was any succession. I would wonder if we could read the whole chapter of each of the books quoted if they would confirm that the papacy was initiated when the church was built on Peter himself. (How many foundations can you build in one building?)

This quote is in your second link:
J.N.D. Kelly, one of the greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century, and an Anglican, writes to the contrary in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :

“According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments…but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]…It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)

Here is the link to the actual book for this one: archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n423/mode/2up
I do think that reading the whole chapter paints a different hue then is depicted in the selected phrases pulled out. Page 417 where the last quote is taken from begins a section where JND Kelly explains the formation of the papacy in approximately the 5th century.

I just got done reading from page 417 to the end of the book. This is fascinating but now I have a whole lot of processing to do.

On the surface it seems like it took centuries for what is now current Catholic doctrine to formulate.

 

[guanophore]

I just got done reading from page 417 to the end of the book. This is fascinating but now I have a whole lot of processing to do.

On the surface it seems like it took centuries for what is now current Catholic doctrine to formulate.

this is actually not uncommon. The dogma of the Trinity 325, Theotokos almost 100 years later. the canon of Scripture 382 AD. This does not mean that the Church did not believe in these things since the beginning.

 

[Abu]

Susanlo #81
In the entire NT Paul is definitely mentioned much more than Peter, but I think both men have achieved much in the establishing of Christianity.

Yes, but why play down Christ’s Commissioning of St Peter as His Rock on which He built His Church?

I don’t know if a name count can be used to determine a supreme leader.

How strange that you should respond as above when my post #69 shows the Gospels confirming Peter as the supreme leader after Christ’s unique Commission to him on which Christ built His Catholic Church – facts which you seem not to have acknowledged.

Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle (Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

 

[benhur]

This is often a modern interpolation. It is an assertion that Jesus could not, and did not guide the Church into all Truth, as He promised.

Hi g,

Disagree. That assertion detracts from having to "study " the texts.

That He guides perfectly does not mean the chair follows perfectly (better is imperfect relative to best).

Here is a perfect example of failing to see what God has done, and color the text to fit a predisposition. Makes things tough for God led reformers.

It is an assertion that the traditional method of lots, given by God to His people, was not effective or appropriate

Maybe, but some would say why bother with a new, better, more powerful dispensation that is clearly in the NT ? Not sure I said what Peter did was "wrong’’, but maybe just not as “right” as what Jesus did. What Peter did may have been good, but clearly what Christ did seems better. Certainly God intervened in the OT, much beyond “casting lots” at times.

Paul enters the story as much as 20 years after the lots were drawn. There were many Apostles besides the 12 before that time. Clearly Paul also had a special role given to HIm by Christ. That does not make what Christ gave to Peter less, just different.

"The date of this most important event is ignored; the Letter to the Galatians may seem to indicate the years 33-35, a short time after the establishment of the first Church in Jerusalem, created around “Peter with the Eleven” . vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/en/san_paolo/conversione.htm

We will see who was the twelfth apostle mentioned in Revelations as our foundation some day.

I personally have a great dislike for the term “supreme”. It does not reflect Jesus’ teaching about leadership. Peter’s role was unique and authorative, but he did not “Lord it over” anyone.

OK. And I do not like the word “authoritative”, as regards with the other apostles. There may be better words that escape me to signify leadership, in faith and by example, like not executive over others.

Blessings
I

 

[benhur]

I The promises were made to the Church, not individual members thereof.

Hi g,

Oh if only this were believed more universally, and less political and sectarian. As if a non Rome patriarch, or bishop, or a cleric reformer were not parts of the Church. That there are not "other " teachers and prophets in the Church , save thru Rome. Do we then bicker to define Church and individuals, or do we simply put “Roman Catholic” in front of Church and what is promised her ?

Blessings

 

[Darryl_B]

I do think that reading the whole chapter paints a different hue then is depicted in the selected phrases pulled out. Page 417 where the last quote is taken from begins a section where JND Kelly explains the formation of the papacy in approximately the 5th century.

I think you are just reading what you want to hear. JND Kelly states that the papacy was more clearly defined by this time, not that it was created at this time nor that it changed in time.

This was required because what was already assumed, had been challenged when Constantine shifted the centre of the Roman Empire to Constantinople. There was a challenge that the patriarchal primacy should shift with the state.

Concerning ‘Papa’ the question should really be asked exactly what you would call the Elders of the Family of God. In my natural family I call him father. Am I not allowed to transfer this into my spiritual family? So really what is the point of contention?

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi g,

Oh if only this were believed more universally, and less political and sectarian. As if a non Rome patriarch, or bishop, or a cleric reformer were not parts of the Church. That there are not "other " teachers and prophets in the Church , save thru Rome. Do we then bicker to define Church and individuals, or do we simply put “Roman Catholic” in front of Church and what is promised her ?

Blessings

Don’t you mean if only this were believed more Catholic. Have you not learned anything in your time here. Roman is a Rite. It is a section of the Catholic Church. Romish Popish (spit). Do we then bicker? Only really those who reject can do that.

Really this Church thing should be viewed as a privilege, not a right.

 

[benhur]

I have never heard of Jesus “resting in a pope”. Did you invent that yourself?

Hi g,

Amongst other explanations, does not Christ rest in the pope, especially when he speaks ex cathedra ?

Jesus promised that His One Church would prevail against the gates of Hell. He never promised that the fallible human beings who are part of her would be impeccable.

He chose Peter and commissioned him knowing Peter would deny Him. God has never made human perfection a requirement for the HS to work in people. Did you invent that yourself? It seems like a strawman.

No, my point was that I totally use your truthful argument (the HS abiding in weak flesh) to make Mary’s Immaculateness not necessarily fitting.

Never the less, a donkey usually goes hee haw, and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Even we are cleansed by faith in the the Blood before the gifting of the HS. So as far as bad popes, not sure they made any ex cathedra pronouncements. Generally speaking they were seeking after other things other than spiritual.

Just as Jesus directed that the people should listen to and obey the Sanhedrin, for they sat on Moses’ seat, so many Popes have sat on Moses’ seat that were not any better examples than the rulers in Jesus’ day. God is able to protect His Word. Men are always in need of reform. Jesus’ teaching is not.

What is portrayed as God’s teachings has oft been “reformed”, even by Jesus Himself.

Yes do as Moses seat demands, but only as they are properly taught/practiced per Writs intention .Those in His seat had some bad doctrine (leaven), and needed reform, per His promise to guide.

Members of the Church are not error free, but the teachings must be. Errors in Teaching will cause the flock to pass through the Gates of Hell. Jesus’ promise to lead the Church into “all Truth” ensures that His Word is protected.

Of course teaching should be error free, but must they, as in only one sect, the Roman Catholic ? Is that what you mean by “Must”.

As some have said not to separate Peter from his faith, so we too must not separate the church from her parts /individuals. For in them God moves and guides

Probably not. Jesus and Peter spoke Aramaic, so Jesus called him Cephas.

So are you saying petros and petra are different ?

That is all I was saying, that maybe Petros was the petra that church is founded on, maybe.

his practice stuck

What practice ? I was referring to the appointment of successors by men, not directly by Jesus as with the twelve, and as infallibly…

The infallibility refers to the teaching, whether it comes from the Pope or the Magesterium, or the council. I don’t know what you are saying about “appointing perfectly to that chair”. Jesus never promised that people would not become bishops who ought not to be. He is able to draw straight with crooked lines. The CC has never asserted that 1) all the successors of Peter were models of the faith or that 2) any of them were “perfectly appointed” to that role. I am not sure if that is what you are saying./

I am saying that if the wrong pope was appointed, or even a string of them, then for a spell we were "orphans’’. For awhile we would seem to be “abandoned”, the Lord failing in His promises.

Look, all I am saying is that it is presumptuous to say the bishop of Rome is always lead man , even on faith and morals, when in fact God may have perfectly chosen another voice for that age, during our temporary “orphan” state.

I am sorry, but it is my opinion that pure sectarianism denies such a possibility.

Thankfully some see that, even in the CC. Now may it be for the right reason.

Blessings

 

[Abu]

benhur #90
all I am saying is that it is presumptuous to say the bishop of Rome is always lead man , even on faith and morals, when in fact God may have perfectly chosen another voice for that age, during our temporary “orphan” state.

Your presumption is of “another voice” on faith and morals which

1. Denies the explicit founding by Christ of “MY CHURCH” on St Peter.
2. Denies Christ’s explicit assurances to His Apostles headed by St Peter: “I shall not leave you orphans”; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18). “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

I am sorry, but it is my opinion that pure sectarianism denies such a possibility.

Only because “sect” is equated by you with Christ’s own Catholic Church – totally at odds with His unequivocal “MY CHURCH”.

The reality is the thousands of Protestant sects, all differing, and lacking profound truths.

 

[guanophore]

Hi g,

Disagree. That assertion detracts from having to "study " the texts.

I think you lost me there.

That He guides perfectly does not mean the chair follows perfectly (better is imperfect relative to best).

What you seem to be saying is that the weakness of men is more powerful than God, and he is unable to bring the Church into all Truth if some members of it ignore Him. What happened to the powerful Jesus shown in the letters of Revelation?

Here is a perfect example of failing to see what God has done, and color the text to fit a predisposition. Makes things tough for God led reformers.

The Holy Spirit does not lead people in the opposite direction to what He has already established. People are always in need of reform, but the doctrine of Christ is not.

Maybe, but some would say why bother with a new, better, more powerful dispensation that is clearly in the NT ?

Who would say such a thing?!

The disciples could have no way of knowing what would happen on Pentecost, or how His guidance would be different after that event. They used the method that God had given to Israel. You seem to be saying that Peter made a mistake, and that God did not answer the prayers of the Apostles to show them who was to replace Judas.

Not sure I said what Peter did was "wrong’’…

I am curious what you find in the text of Acts, or elsewhere, that tells you Matthias should not have been enrolled with the 11.

We will see who was the twelfth apostle mentioned in Revelations as our foundation some day.

What you are saying is that this part of the Sacred Text is telling us about a mistake, or an error. Something happened contrary to God’s plan, though I fail to see any indication in the text that this is the case.

In taking this position, you are also taking the position that Jesus was weak, and inattentive, and was unable or unwilling to guide His Church into all Truth as He promised. He was unable to communicate to Peter that he was making a mistake.

OK. And I do not like the word “authoritative”, as regards with the other apostles. There may be better words that escape me to signify leadership, in faith and by example, like not executive over others.

Jesus gave Peter the duty to strengthen his brethren, and to feed and care for the flock. These tasks do not require “executive over others”. Peter passed these responsibilities to his successor, and so on until the present day.

 

[guanophore]

Amongst other explanations, does not Christ rest in the pope, especially when he speaks ex cathedra ?

I have never heard such a phrase, so I am not sure what it means. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into “all Truth”, which happens through the teaching authority He appointed.

No, my

my point was that I totally use your truthful argument (the HS abiding in weak flesh) to make Mary’s Immaculateness not necessarily fitting.

Oh I see. Well, Jesus drew His flesh from hers, so I guess if you think His flesh was taken from flesh born into original sin that is between you and God.

Never the less, a donkey usually goes hee haw, and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Are you saying that the catechesis of the Popes is like the hee haw of a donkey?

So as far as bad popes, not sure they made any ex cathedra pronouncements. Generally speaking they were seeking after other things other than spiritual.

This arguement seems similar to saying that what Jesus taught is invalid, because Judas did not walk according to it.

Yes do as Moses seat demands, but only as they are properly taught/practiced per Writs intention .Those in His seat had some bad doctrine (leaven), and needed reform, per His promise to guide.

And Jesus directed the disciples to obey them anyway.

Of course teaching should be error free…

I think you are saying that Jesus allowed His teaching to be corrupted by men. Therefore, the frailties of men are more powerful than the protection of God to HIs word. Isa 55:11 is really a lie.

As some have said not to separate Peter from his faith, so we too must not separate the church from her parts /individuals. For in them God moves and guides

People separate themselves from the Church when they reject the One Faith.

So are you saying petros and petra are different ?

No, I said that Jesus and Peter spoke Aramaic, where the word is Cephas. Matthew wrote in Aramaic.

 I was referring to the appointment of successors by men, not directly by Jesus as with the twelve, and as infallibly..

I think what you are saying is that Jesus ignored the prayers of Peter and the Apostles in the selection of a replacement and allowed them to go off His plan. He failed in His promises.

 I am saying that if the wrong pope was appointed, or even a string of them, then for a spell we were "orphans''. For awhile we would seem to be "abandoned", the Lord failing in His promises.

Only if one ignores the instruction of Jesus to follow the appointed authority, even if they are bad examples.

Look, all I am saying is that it is presumptuous to say the bishop of Rome is always lead man , even on faith and morals, when in fact God may have perfectly chosen another voice for that age, during our temporary "orphan" state.

There have been many voices, many prophets, doctors of the Church. None of the redirection given by them to the Pope discounts his appointed role.

If you believe He left the Church orphaned, then He lied, and did not keep His Word.

 

[susanlo]

I just got done reading from page 417 to the end of the book. This is fascinating but now I have a whole lot of processing to do.

On the surface it seems like it took centuries for what is now current Catholic doctrine to formulate.

This book is a really good resource. J.N.D. Kelly taught Patristic Studies at Oxford University for decades and was highly respected. This book has a lot of scholarly information, but is very readable. It clearly depicts how the doctrines developed and evolved over the first 400-500 years of Christianity and notes the views of the early theologians over the centuries. It is very interesting!
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n0/mode/2up

 

[susanlo]

I think you are just reading what you want to hear. JND Kelly states that the papacy was more clearly defined by this time, not that it was created at this time nor that it changed in time.

This was required because what was already assumed, had been challenged when Constantine shifted the centre of the Roman Empire to Constantinople. There was a challenge that the patriarchal primacy should shift with the state.

I didn’t notice anything about a move to Constantinople in the chapter. It was about how the role and the powers within the role grew over time and by mid-5th century the roles were well defined. That’s what I got out of it at least. It says on page 419 that Augustine “attributed to the Pope a pastoral or teaching authority, extending over the whole church,” but there was no evidence he understood the successor of St. Peter to have “a sovereign and infallible doctrinal magisterium.” I think Augustine’s view was the original thing the website was citing J.N.D. Kelly for.

Concerning ‘Papa’ the question should really be asked exactly what you would call the Elders of the Family of God. In my natural family I call him father. Am I not allowed to transfer this into my spiritual family? So really what is the point of contention?

I don’t think I have a point of contention with the title itself.

 

[benhur]

Saul cannot be a replacement of Judas among the 12.

 

[benhur]

Your presumption is of “another voice” on faith and morals which

1. Denies the explicit founding by Christ of “MY CHURCH” on St Peter.
2. Denies Christ’s explicit assurances to His Apostles headed by St Peter: “I shall not leave you orphans”; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18). “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

Hi Abu,

We do not deny that the church has Peter (and the other apostles ) as its foundation.

We do not deny that we are orphanless.

The reality is the thousands of Protestant sects, all differing, and lacking profound truths.

Well tell me Abu, would you believe any reform if it had only one voice, one other church, and not 29,999 others ? I suspect not then either.

And surely you do not think a church branching out of, and still showing the unity of the Catholic faith, not having any profound truths ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I think you lost me there.

Hi g,

I think that to take the political, sectarian view that Peter can never be wrong (faith/morals) due to perfect promised Guidance, that therefore Paul was not the twelfth apostle avoids a study of Writ on the matter. .

Again, The CC has made no such determination.

What you seem to be saying is that the weakness of men is more powerful than God, and he is unable to bring the Church into all Truth if some members of it ignore Him. What happened to the powerful Jesus shown in the letters of Revelation?

No I am saying what has been said here ,He can draw straight with our crooked lines, or something to that effect . Quite powerful.

He may be powerful , but He can not do all things. He can not go against what He wills to be free, as in our wills. Of the seven churches, only two needed no correction. History also shows that some did not heed the warnings and exhortations. Their candle went out. I would not say that shows Gods’ weakness or inability.

The Holy Spirit does not lead people in the opposite direction to what He has already established

Again, you are presuming that everything Peter did “God established”. The text does not imply one way or other the other of whether the casting of lots was Holy Spirit led.

People are always in need of reform, but the doctrine of Christ is not.

Again, you do not separate Peter from his faith, why do you separate “people” from the “church” ?

The disciples could have no way of knowing what would happen on Pentecost, or how His guidance would be different after that event. They used the method that God had given to Israel

They were to tarry and wait. No where did Jesus tell them to appoint a replacement.

You seem to be saying that Peter made a mistake, and that God did not answer the prayers of the Apostles to show them who was to replace Judas.

No, I am saying Paul may have been the actual replacement.
You seem to be saying Paul was not the replacement because then what the apostles did before Pentecost, in particular Peter, would be “minimized”.

I am curious what you find in the text of Acts, or elsewhere, that tells you Matthias should not have been enrolled with the 11.

Mostly the enormity of Paul’s ministry, the circumstances of his calling and learning the gospel, and yes, a little of the method of Mathias’s selection, and Peter’s known oft impulsive behavior

What you are saying is that this part of the Sacred Text is telling us about a mistake, or an error. Something happened contrary to God’s plan,

So the church will never act contrary to God’s plan, even on something as momentary and inconsequential as this ?

In taking this position, you are also taking the position that Jesus was weak, and inattentive, and was unable or unwilling to guide His Church into all Truth as He promised. He was unable to communicate to Peter that he was making a mistake.

Again, this is your position, not mine. Your paradigm, not mine. As others have said, he can make straight our cooked lines.

Jesus gave Peter the duty to strengthen his brethren, and to feed and care for the flock. These tasks do not require “executive over others”.

Sorry , but the CC says the chair has authority over all.

Peter passed these responsibilities to his successor, and so on until the present day.

The passing is not mentioned in scripture , and somewhat muted in history, but certainly not in what would become a tradition.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Why not ?

I don’t claim to have an authoritative answer to this, but Judas’ office of Apostle was given to Matthias. So Paul would have taken one of the twelves’ office, if he was to have taken the place of anyone. Rather, I think, Paul was an addition to the Apostles in general, like the seventy.

Jesus personally chose and taught Saul. He wasn’t playing tiddly winks in the desert for three years. Paul says the gospel was taught to him by Christ , by no man.

Definitely! Paul was revealed the Revelation of Christ personally. Yet the group of the twelve is distinct from him. But what that means may only be for the sake of the number… that is the symbolic representation of the 12 tribes. And the practicality of Jesus taking a group around with him. Even then, He reduced the group to a few sometimes. And even still, He reduced it to Peter at times.

We know that Paul, by way of Revelation, went to Peter, and James and John, to lay before them the Gospel he was preaching. And that they confirmed it was true and added nothing to it. And we also know that Paul worked harder than the others. I think this is why he was raised to such a high status as an Apostle. He worked harder with the grace given him.

 

[rcwitness]

I think the fact that Jesus is The Rock of our faith, salvation, and leadership gives evidence to the belief that when He called Peter a rock which He would build the Church on, He was setting up an continual office. Why would He establish another rock within His Church if He is already the Rock of Life? It is a rock of Stewardship, not of equality to His divine status. It is an office of ministry, and not Lordship.