Is Peter the Rock

  • Thread starter Thread starter BTTG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnVIII said:
I still say that St Peter was called “Rocky” simply because he was the first Christian. If the scripture said nothing more than this Peter would only be the 1st of equals. But it is because Peter was given the Keys of the Kingdom that he becomes the head of the Church (after Christ); and St Clement after St Peter. 👍
Click to expand...
It can easily be argued that Simeon the prophet was the first Christian, since he both identified and professed his belief in the infant Savior. But again, how about John the Baptist, who recognized Jesus even from the womb and both testified and sent others to Him?

Of course, Peter is not the cornerstone, but rather Christ’s chosen earthly rock upon which the Apostolic Church was founded.
 
I don’t know about Constantine supposedly claiming to be the first pope. I have found a pretty important passage by Eusebius that illustrates that Constantine didn’t create the bible and he didn’t add to the bible to make Jesus divine. Here it is if anyone’s interested.

“It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour, that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy church in the city which is called by my name [Constantinople]. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity… that the number of churches should also be increased. Do you therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures… to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art.” (Eusebius, Life of Constantine,
4.34-47, NPNF, cited in McDonald, Formation, 187)

Constantine just ordered 50 copies of the scriptures from Eusebius for his city. So much for Dan Brown and the Davinci Code. I just thought this might be relevant to Constantine/Christianity questions
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
I don’t know about Constantine supposedly claiming to be the first pope. I have found a pretty important passage by Eusebius that illustrates that Constantine didn’t create the bible and he didn’t add to the bible to make Jesus divine. Here it is if anyone’s interested.

“It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour, that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy church in the city which is called by my name [Constantinople]. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity… that the number of churches should also be increased. Do you therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures… to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art.” (Eusebius, Life of Constantine,
4.34-47, NPNF, cited in McDonald, Formation, 187)

Constantine just ordered 50 copies of the scriptures from Eusebius for his city. So much for Dan Brown and the Davinci Code. I just thought this might be relevant to Constantine/Christianity questions
Click to expand...
Disregard this post. I am a fool. This post was meant for a different thread…how embarrassing…
 
If I understand correctly, apologize if I am wrong, that the Pope is in-fallible.

Why then was Paul equal to Peter?

Secondly, why was Peter’s faith questioned and condemned? “But when Peter came to Antioch, Paul opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” Galatians 2:11

Thank you
 
BTTG said:
If I understand correctly, apologize if I am wrong, that the Pope is in-fallible.

Why then was Paul equal to Peter?

Secondly, why was Peter’s faith questioned and condemned? “But when Peter came to Antioch, Paul opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” Galatians 2:11

Thank you
Click to expand...
Yes, Peter was the first pope.

Infallibility of the Pope…here is link for your further reading and study:

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Quote:

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Peter held primacy and Paul recognized Peter’s authority and primacy by going to Jerusalem, prior to going on his missionary journeys, to submit his gospel and what he was going to proclaim to Peter for Peter’s approval. I think you may find this in Gal 1.

Paul also acknowledges Peter’s primacy by calling him Cephas (Aramaic for Peter), the name Jesus gave to Simon in Matthew 16.

Anything else?
 
BTTG said:
If I understand correctly, apologize if I am wrong, that the Pope is in-fallible.

Why then was Paul equal to Peter?

Secondly, why was Peter’s faith questioned and condemned? “But when Peter came to Antioch, Paul opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” Galatians 2:11

Thank you
Click to expand...
You are incorrect to a certain extent. While we acknowledge that the Pope can make infallible statements when acting under what is known as “ex cathedra”, the Pope is a fallible person when in relation to anything other than Faith and Morals. It’s not like the Pope can say anything and it becomes Infallible Truth.

Did you know that Peter was mentioned in the New Testament 155 times? When adding the mentions of every other Apostle, they equal 130 when added together. This is an example of how Peter had such a primacy in relation to the other apostles.

Likewise, Peter, just like Paul, was an fallible human being and made an error. And he was rebuked for his error (which was of a cultural/leadership style manner) just as it is supposed to be. His faith wasn’t condemned, but what he had done. For this is what the full set of verses say:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (NIV)

We are all fallible human beings. And while we (Catholics) trust in the leadership of the Church, we remember that we are to correct one another when in error, and to always grow in love and faith in Christ.
 
Cruxis117 said:
You are incorrect to a certain extent. While we acknowledge that the Pope can make infallible statements when acting under what is known as “ex cathedra”, the Pope is a fallible person when in relation to anything other than Faith and Morals. It’s not like the Pope can say anything and it becomes Infallible Truth.

Did you know that Peter was mentioned in the New Testament 155 times? When adding the mentions of every other Apostle, they equal 130 when added together. This is an example of how Peter had such a primacy in relation to the other apostles.

Likewise, Peter, just like Paul, was an fallible human being and made an error. And he was rebuked for his error (which was of a cultural/leadership style manner) just as it is supposed to be. His faith wasn’t condemned, but what he had done. For this is what the full set of verses say:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (NIV)

We are all fallible human beings. And while we (Catholics) trust in the leadership of the Church, we remember that we are to correct one another when in error, and to always grow in love and faith in Christ.
Click to expand...
BTTG,

I will add a little bit to Cruxis post:

This passage account also states that having authority does not mean one is above reproof. Here Paul stands face to face with Peter and accuses him of a moral fault. Peter had taught rightly of the equality of the Gentiles but drew back from keeping company with them.

Also, Paul demonstrates a refreshing honesty with Peter here. He acknowledges Peter’s authority, but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.

And this speaks of Peter’s humility also. Peter did not rebuke or get mad at Paul, but corrects himself of his hypocrisy, and sets the example for all to follow, which a true leader does.
 
BTTG said:
If I understand correctly, apologize if I am wrong, that the Pope is in-fallible.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Infallibility is very limited and does not apply to personal behavior at all. It applies only when the Pope is addressing the entire Church, from the seat (office) of Peter, and then only in the areas of faith and morals. The rest of the time, he can be wrong. He is human, after all.
BTTG said:
Why then was Paul equal to Peter?
Click to expand...
Where does it say that? Paul both called himself an Apostle (Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 1:1, etc.), which he was, but he did not count himself as one of the twelve. He also said that he was not worthy to be called an Apostle (1 Corinthians 15:9). As given earlier in this thread, the evidence for Peter’s primacy is overwhelming.
BTTG said:
Secondly, why was Peter’s faith questioned and condemned? “But when Peter came to Antioch, Paul opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” Galatians 2:11 Thank you
Click to expand...
It wasn’t Peter’s faith - it was his behavior. It was not what he taught or believed, but how he acted. He was corrected, and apparently accepted the correction. Acts 10 reveals that he was convinced of God’s impartiality toward the Gentiles, and the cleanliness of all foods, so he would have no reason to segregate himself from them - which is what Paul’s criticism was about.
 
Po18Guy

You wrote:
Yes. Chosen by Christ Himself, according to the mountain of scripture that we have in the bible. He held office from 0033-0067, by the best records available.
Click to expand...
Essentially you are not correct.

Peter may have died a few years before 67. But he was not made Pope in Rome in 33.

Or are you suggesting he was Pope long before he came to Rome?

If you have evidence please let us know.
 
NoelFitz said:
Po18Guy

You wrote:

Essentially you are not correct.

Peter may have died a few years before 67. But he was not made Pope in Rome in 33.

Or are you suggesting he was Pope long before he came to Rome?

If you have evidence please let us know.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that Peter was not the head of the Church until he went to Rome?

It was because Peter went to Rome that Rome became the place of Pope’s. He did not become “Pope” because he went to Rome. Peter became the head of the Church. It is an interesting question of when. Was it when Jesus said you are Rock or when Jesus said “feed my sheep”? Or was it at Pentecost and the decent of the Holy Spirit but it certainly was NOT when he went to Rome.
 
Adrift,

You wrote:
Are you suggesting that Peter was not the head of the Church until he went to Rome?
Click to expand...
For the record Peter was never the head of the Church. Christ is the head of the Church.
 
davidv said:
Yes and no. He (Peter) was the visible head of the Church after the resurrection.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
POPE
Title of the visible head of the Catholic Church. He is called Pope (Greek pappas, a child’s word for father) because his authority is supreme and because it is to be exercised in a paternal way, after the example of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
adrift said:
Are you suggesting that Peter was not the head of the Church until he went to Rome?

It was because Peter went to Rome that Rome became the place of Pope’s. He did not become “Pope” because he went to Rome. Peter became the head of the Church. It is an interesting question of when. Was it when Jesus said you are Rock or when Jesus said “feed my sheep”? Or was it at Pentecost and the decent of the Holy Spirit but it certainly was NOT when he went to Rome.
Click to expand...
Precisely! Whether he realized it in full or not, Peter was made Pope at Caesarea Philippi, and his office travelled with him until it finally settled in Rome. As to the exact dates, who cares? much more important that it happened than when.
 
po18guy said:
Yes and no. Infallibility is very limited and does not apply to personal behavior at all. It applies only when the Pope is addressing the entire Church, from the seat (office) of Peter, and then only in the areas of faith and morals. The rest of the time, he can be wrong. He is human, after all.

Where does it say that? Paul both called himself an Apostle (Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 1:1, etc.), which he was, but he did not count himself as one of the twelve. He also said that he was not worthy to be called an Apostle (1 Corinthians 15:9). As given earlier in this thread, the evidence for Peter’s primacy is overwhelming.

It wasn’t Peter’s faith - it was his behavior. It was not what he taught or believed, but how he acted. He was corrected, and apparently accepted the correction. Acts 10 reveals that he was convinced of God’s impartiality toward the Gentiles, and the cleanliness of all foods, so he would have no reason to segregate himself from them - which is what Paul’s criticism was about.
Click to expand...
Was it fallible in 1517 when Pope Leo X authorized Archbishop Albrecht to sell a special indulgence throughout Northern Germany for which the proceeds were to be used to build St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome and also to pay the debts Albrecht had accumulated acquiring the office of archbishop. And that Albrecht claimed that the indulgences would remove guilt as well as punishments and persons in purgatory could be released.
 
If I am Catholic and I prayed in the presence of other witnesses to a person who suffers an illness and that person is healed of their illness by the grace of God ( by none medical means) can I become a saint?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top