MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

[benedictus2]

Yes I agree Tom, Elvisman hits on the main point here which is “original language” with excellent examples.

Christs words on the Cross alone speaks volumes.

Yes, I thought that too.

To cry My God, My God why hast though forsaken me in Aramaic - as He hung there dying is good evidence that Aramaic must be the his mother tongue.

Another point is that when He healed the little girl (Talitha Kum) and when he healed the the deaf (Ephhatha) He spoke Aramaic too.

I wonder with this mounting evidence why anyone would persist in believing the petros/petra seeming contradiction when even Protestant Biblical Scholars have had to agree that Peter is indeed the Rock that Christ built His Church upon.

 

[benedictus2]

My comment:

It is certainly a name change. If it was meant only as a nickname, it would not have stuck…Simon would not be named Peter today.

Yes, that is an excellent point! The Scriptures refer to him either as Peter or as Cephas.

Paul certainly referred to him as Cephas.

Protestants also unwittingly acknowledge the name change, for they refer to him as Peter, not Simon.

Very, very good point!

In addition, Mark 16: 5-7:

5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

The angel, as “young man sitting on the right side”…mentions “Peter” by name, the only instance in all the Gospels where an apostle’s name is mentioned immediately after the resurrection and at the tomb. And the one mentioning the name of Peter is an angel. This is significant in that Heaven, God the Father, has acknowledged the name change.

**The name change has Heavenly approval, and the role Peter will play in building Christ’s church. **

Hey, that is excellent insight! And notice, the angel says tell his disciples and Peter. He is given specific mention.

As a matter of fact I think God the Father and God the Son have already agreed on this name prior to the event in Cesaria Philipi.

The decision to build His Church upon Peter would have been chosen even before the moment in Caesaria Philipi. If Jesus came precisely to die on the cross, then even before the incarnation, this would have been the Trinity’s plan to effect the salvation - by building a Church and they would have chosen those who will play a major part in it.

 

[benedictus2]

ill stick to this one. it sounds like its gonna get heavy over there with foreign languages, and real scholars. i love it when giants clash. its like watching two rabbis, go at it about a particular verse, and have the other rabbis, vote on who was most sucessful in their argument. fascinating. Peace

You mentioned Rabbis and this joke came to mind.

Back in the middle ages, the Pope decided that he will deport the Jews in Rome unless they convert and become Catholics.

The Jews were livid and demanded to speak to the Pope. The Pope then decided to settle the matter with a debate. If the Rabbi wins the debate then the Jews can stay without converting.

But there’s a problem. The Pope did not speak Yiddish and the Rabbi did not speak Italian.

So how to debate???

The Pope then said, that’s okay we will have a silent debate!

So on the day of the debate they faced each other at St Peter’s square.

Pope fires the first salvo by holding up 3 fingers.
Rabbi answers with 1 finger.

Next the Pope points upward and draws a circle around his head.
Rabbi replies by pointing vigorously to the ground.

Then the Pope took out the bread and the wine.
The Rabbi then opened his bag and pulls out an apple.

After this the Pope stood up and declared the Rabbi the winner.

The Cardinals were all quite perplexed as they gathered around the Pope wondering why he said that the Rabbi won.

The Pope explains:
"I held up 3 fingers to signify the Trinity. He holds up 1 finger to say but there is only 1 God. So I thought that was good.

Then I made a circle above my head to say that God is all around us, but he points to the ground to say that God is right here. So again, that was good.

Then I took out the bread and wine to say that God saves us from sin. But he took out the apple to say : Aaah but remember the original sin. With that I thought he was too good so I declared him the winner."

In the meantime the other Rabbis have gathered around the Chief Rabbi asking him how he won?

The Chief Rabbi replied: "I don’t really know. First he held 3 fingers to tell us we have only 3 days left in here. So I gave him the finger.

Next he makes this circle to tell us that he will round us up so I pointed to the ground to tell him that No, we are staying put."

The other rabbi’s nodded their heads, then asked: Well what about that business with the bread, wine and apple?

Chief Rabbi says: That one I really have no clue. He took out his lunch so I took out mine.

 

[benidict]

You mentioned Rabbis and this joke came to mind.

Back in the middle ages, the Pope decided that he will deport the Jews in Rome unless they convert and become Catholics.

The Jews were livid and demanded to speak to the Pope. The Pope then decided to settle the matter with a debate. If the Rabbi wins the debate then the Jews can stay without converting.

But there’s a problem. The Pope did not speak Yiddish and the Rabbi did not speak Italian.

So how to debate???

The Pope then said, that’s okay we will have a silent debate!

So on the day of the debate they faced each other at St Peter’s square.

Pope fires the first salvo by holding up 3 fingers.
Rabbi answers with 1 finger.

Next the Pope points upward and draws a circle around his head.
Rabbi replies by pointing vigorously to the ground.

Then the Pope took out the bread and the wine.
The Rabbi then opened his bag and pulls out an apple.

After this the Pope stood up and declared the Rabbi the winner.

The Cardinals were all quite perplexed as they gathered around the Pope wondering why he said that the Rabbi won.

The Pope explains:
"I held up 3 fingers to signify the Trinity. He holds up 1 finger to say but there is only 1 God. So I thought that was good.

Then I made a circle above my head to say that God is all around us, but he points to the ground to say that God is right here. So again, that was good.

Then I took out the bread and wine to say that God saves us from sin. But he took out the apple to say : Aaah but remember the original sin. With that I thought he was too good so I declared him the winner."

In the meantime the other Rabbis have gathered around the Chief Rabbi asking him how he won?

The Chief Rabbi replied: "I don’t really know. First he held 3 fingers to tell us we have only 3 days left in here. So I gave him the finger.

Next he makes this circle to tell us that he will round us up so I pointed to the ground to tell him that No, we are staying put."

The other rabbi’s nodded their heads, then asked: Well what about that business with the bread, wine and apple?

Chief Rabbi says: That one I really have no clue. He took out his lunch so I took out mine.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

That was quite good. Considering this thread… I guess the Rabbi is fortunate the Pope did not throw a Rock at him!

By the way, have you seen AnIrishLutheran anywhere around? I have looked… and he seems to have vanished in a stream of smoke…

God bless

You mentioned Rabbis and this joke came to mind.

Back in the middle ages, the Pope decided that he will deport the Jews in Rome unless they convert and become Catholics.

The Jews were livid and demanded to speak to the Pope. The Pope then decided to settle the matter with a debate. If the Rabbi wins the debate then the Jews can stay without converting.

But there’s a problem. The Pope did not speak Yiddish and the Rabbi did not speak Italian.

So how to debate???

The Pope then said, that’s okay we will have a silent debate!

So on the day of the debate they faced each other at St Peter’s square.

Pope fires the first salvo by holding up 3 fingers.
Rabbi answers with 1 finger.

Next the Pope points upward and draws a circle around his head.
Rabbi replies by pointing vigorously to the ground.

Then the Pope took out the bread and the wine.
The Rabbi then opened his bag and pulls out an apple.

After this the Pope stood up and declared the Rabbi the winner.

The Cardinals were all quite perplexed as they gathered around the Pope wondering why he said that the Rabbi won.

The Pope explains:
"I held up 3 fingers to signify the Trinity. He holds up 1 finger to say but there is only 1 God. So I thought that was good.

Then I made a circle above my head to say that God is all around us, but he points to the ground to say that God is right here. So again, that was good.

Then I took out the bread and wine to say that God saves us from sin. But he took out the apple to say : Aaah but remember the original sin. With that I thought he was too good so I declared him the winner."

In the meantime the other Rabbis have gathered around the Chief Rabbi asking him how he won?

The Chief Rabbi replied: "I don’t really know. First he held 3 fingers to tell us we have only 3 days left in here. So I gave him the finger.

Next he makes this circle to tell us that he will round us up so I pointed to the ground to tell him that No, we are staying put."

The other rabbi’s nodded their heads, then asked: Well what about that business with the bread, wine and apple?

Chief Rabbi says: That one I really have no clue. He took out his lunch so I took out mine.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

I think I have an answer for that one….

/FONT]I don’t know how anyone can rationalize away such Biblical evidence

After reading his posts, I do not think there has been any evidence of honest discourse from AIL on this topic. Ultimately, it appears to boil down to ignoring reality (Christ spoke Aramaic) so as to justify one’s current position (the Successor of Peter [Benedict XVI] is NOT the Foundation that Christ CONTINUES to build His Church on.

Additionally, his disparaging comments about the education of others in the vain effort to promote what he considers his knowledge of biblical languages is quite transparent. Ultimately, the Inspired Word of God was canonized by the Catholic Church in about 400AD - and the Church had access to not only those languages but, closer proximity in time to the Historical Christ, the Historical Apostles - AND - those who were taught by the Apostles. Contrast this with a disgruntled and ego-enhanced German monk 1,600 years removed from the situation.

God bless

 

[Rocket_Man]

Mark 16: 5-7…Hey, that is excellent insight! And notice, the angel says tell his disciples and Peter. He is given specific mention.

Remember that in Mark 14:72 Peter had heard the cock crow twice. The announcement from the angel was specific to Peter to end his agony.

 

[Mickey]

I contend that “this rock” uses a different but related noun, with the demonstrative adjective, to refer back to what Peter said, not to anything Jesus said. “You” in the passage always means Peter. “This rock” fits quite nicely with Jesus’ reference to “this,” i.e., this truth/statement/confession Peter had just spoken.

I agree with you.

 

[Mickey]

Remember that in Mark 14:72 Peter had heard the cock crow twice. The announcement from the angel was specific to Peter to end his agony.

Exactly!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

I realize that, “…brevity is the soul of wit…” but, would you kindly explain why are are in agreement with what honestly appears to be an incorrect conclusion.

I agree with you.

Allow me to provide you with the quote in context from Matthew 16…
13
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
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.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

As I see it, there are at least four problems with your concurance in this matter:

1.) Geographicially, Christ is really quite a distance from where He normally traveled as recorded in the Gospels. While this just may have been an outing - I believe He brought His Apostles to this massive rock formation for a particular reason - and this was to highlight the magnitude of the announcement He was going to make. Why do you think Christ had brought the Apostles to Caesarea Philippi ?

1. Theologically, God the Father has chosen Peter from amongst the 12 to be the leader. Prior to the Divine Inspiration given to Peter - none of them had the answer to Christ’s question about, “Who do men say I am?” Surely there is a significant reason for this Divine selection of Peter. Why do you think God the Father selected Peter from all of the others?

3.) Grammatically, In the statement, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock…” Christ had already changed Simon’s name to Peter (John 1:42) and when we look at the order rock can only refer to Peter - “You are rock”. Why do you think this sentence is written the way it is?

4.) Logically, The fact that Christ did not had out 12 sets of Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven surely places Peter in a unique position for having received the only set of Keys in the entire Gospel. Keys represent authority, responsibility, leadership and accountability. Christ is verbally proclaiming His choice of Peter and providing a physical sign (Keys). What is the significance of Peter getting the only set of keys?

Truly, if there were not an issue to justify one’s continued break and separation from the Catholic Church, there would be no real question what these verses mean. A similar example would be to look at the lengths that Protestants go to state that Christ did not order us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in John 6 - this is no metaphor, but an actual command. As an Orthodox, you are in agreement with the belief in the Real Presence. These verses from Matthew are no different in presentation - Christ is making a pronouncement, and not offering a choice to believe or not believe.

God bless

 

[Mickey]

I believe He brought His Apostles to this massive rock formation for a particular reason

Are you speculating? Perhaps it was because of Eph 2:19-22.

Theologically, God the Father has chosen Peter from amongst the 12 to be the leader.

St Peter was definitely a mouth piece—so was St Paul.

Why do you think God the Father selected Peter from all of the others?

Christ does not favor one Apostle over another.

and when we look at the order rock can only refer to Peter - “You are rock”.

The Holy Orthodox Church definitely sees this as St Peter’s confession of faith. The holy Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself the Cornerstone–a holy temple in the Lord, Eph.2: 19-22; 1.Pet.2: 6.

Christ is verbally proclaiming His choice of Peter and providing a physical sign (Keys).

Jesus said “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”, as a future event, and He gave the keys to all the disciples at the same time in Matthew18:18 (see also Jn20:23, 27, 28; Lk24:50). These keys were given to the Church—and they signify the priestly authority for the forgiveness of mankind’s sins.

And therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19). Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that actually it was the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles: “Receive ye the Holy Spirit” – and further after this: “Whoseso sins ye remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retained” (Jn 20:22-23); or: “with what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven: and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavens” (Mt 18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone – Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20) doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Wherefore “by the passions of his own sins – says Wisdom – is each ensnared” (Prov 5:22); and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.
St Augustine

Truly, if there were not an issue to justify one’s continued break and separation from the Catholic Church…

Holy Orthodoxy would say that it is you who have separated.

there would be no real question what these verses mean.

The meaning of the verses are very clear.

 

[adrift]

He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).

The more I think about this scripture the more I realize that it proves that the dispute over Petro and Petra to be nonsense.

The Scripture says that Jesus used the Aramaic and that it should be interpreted as the same as Peter.

I think it has been firmly established that Cephas (rock) = Peter and what Jesus said was that you are Cephas and unpon this cephas I will build my Church.

 

[Mickey]

I believe He brought His Apostles to this massive rock formation for a particular reason

Are you speculating? Perhaps it was because of Eph 2:19-22.

Theologically, God the Father has chosen Peter from amongst the 12 to be the leader.

St Peter was definitely a mouth piece—so was St Paul.

Why do you think God the Father selected Peter from all of the others?

Christ does not favor one Apostle over another.

and when we look at the order rock can only refer to Peter - “You are rock”.

The Holy Orthodox Church definitely sees this as St Peter’s confession of faith. The holy Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself the Cornerstone–a holy temple in the Lord, Eph.2: 19-22; 1.Pet.2: 6.

Christ is verbally proclaiming His choice of Peter and providing a physical sign (Keys).

Jesus said “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”, as a future event, and He gave the keys to all the disciples at the same time in Matthew18:18 (see also Jn20:23, 27, 28; Lk24:50). These keys were given to the Church—and they signify the priestly authority for the forgiveness of mankind’s sins.

And therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19). Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that actually it was the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles: “Receive ye the Holy Spirit” – and further after this: “Whoseso sins ye remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retained” (Jn 20:22-23); or: “with what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven: and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavens” (Mt 18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone – Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20) doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Wherefore “by the passions of his own sins – says Wisdom – is each ensnared” (Prov 5:22); and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.
St Augustine

Truly, if there were not an issue to justify one’s continued break and separation from the Catholic Church…

Holy Orthodoxy would say that it is you who have separated.

there would be no real question what these verses mean.

The meaning of the verses are very clear.

 

[adrift]

Christ does not favor one Apostle over another.

To appoint as head does not mean to favor. That Peter was commissioned can be seen in Jesus telling him to feed His sheep.

The Holy Orthodox Church definitely sees this as St Peter’s confession of faith. The holy Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself the Cornerstone–a holy temple in the Lord, Eph.2: 19-22; 1.Pet.2: 6.

It isn’t an either or interpretation it is BOTH. It is Peter’s faith but it is also Peter himself.

Jesus said “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”, as a future event, and He gave the keys to all the disciples at the same time in Matthew18:18 (see also Jn20:23, 27, 28; Lk24:50). These keys were given to the Church—and they signify the priestly authority for the forgiveness of mankind’s sins.

It is spoken to Peter alone not all the Apostles. Later is when all the Apostles, as you note are spoken to. Two different events with two different intents. Peter was to receive the authority of Jesus’ Church.

The meaning of the verses are very clear.

Of course they are clear, unless of course you want to deny what they are clearly saying.

 

[Mickey]

That Peter was commissioned can be seen in Jesus telling him to feed His sheep.

Ah yes. The triple affirmation for the triple denial.

It is spoken to Peter alone not all the Apostles.

As a future event which later included all.

Later is when all the Apostles, as you note are spoken to.

Yes.

Peter was to receive the authority of Jesus’ Church.

All received authority.

Of course they are clear, unless of course you want to deny what they are clearly saying.

I understand that you must be obedient to the interpretations of your magisterium–I cannot fault you for that.

I answered a question that was not really in line with the OP’s subject. My apologies.
I must leave cyberspace for an extended period now.

Blessed Nativity

Christ is Born!
Glorify Him!

 

[Timothy17]

Ah yes. The triple affirmation for the triple denial.

As a future event which later included all.
Yes.

All received authority.
I understand that you must be obedient to the interpretations of your magisterium–I cannot fault you for that.

I answered a question that was not really in line with the OP’s subject. My apologies.
I must leave cyberspace for an extended period now.

Blessed Nativity

Christ is Born!
Glorify Him!

Dear Mickey,

Please understand that the Protestant community is largely a seperating from the Church of Rome : the Latin Rite. I implore your Orthodox understanding for spiritual jurisdiction as to which particular Church should thus proceed to guide these little ones, as it were, and ask you not to “remove a single boundary stone,” (again-) as it were.

While we all welcome your questions and comments, I do not see with what Christian rationale you could justify placing stumbling blocks in this very edifying thread. I don’t believe it would serve any good, except perhaps to make outsiders blush at our Churches lack of unity and agreement.

St Augustine’s comments are most interesting ; however, do you not remember the claim of a previous Saint (Ignatius), who said,

Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

While your quote of Saint Augustine does lend itself to your view, it equally could be used to lend itself to the view that the Bishop of Rome uniquely personifies the whole Church, for at the beginning of your quote the great Saint, Doctor and Bishop said,

And therefore it is said to [Peter], preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19).

“Preferentially,” says this eminent and scholarly Saint.

Now, owing to Peter’s having received the keys and authority first (preferentially, according to St Augustine ; by a proclamation of Christ addressed to him, after Peter had been chosen by God the Father to receive a particular, and definitive, revelation in regards to who Christ is), we could argue that St Peter especially represents the Church in person because of this - just as any Bishop does, according to the logic of St Ignatius, who so intimately unites the seat of the Bishop with that of the whole Church - even Christ. But remember that for St Peter the Triune God became so present : The Holy Spirit working in Peter to confess the Truth revealed to him by the select decision of God the Father, and with the Son thereafter confirming this : God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all present in this scene. For the Son hears the words of His Father in Peter, and, naturally, follows it by rendering His divine blessing.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Since the authors of both threads have chosen not to return, these threads are now merged. **

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by adrift
Peter was to receive the authority of Jesus’ Church.

All received authority.

But not all 12 received the keys,but Peter alone and that alone has huge implications.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

Thank you for your prmopt response… I have a few comments I would like ot share…

Are you speculating? Perhaps it was because of Eph 2:19-22.

Well, I guess so.,… But, I do feel confident here, Mickey… because the only alternative is to say that Christ had no special purpose. And, really, considering all of the things that the Son of God has accomplished - concluding that this place had no purpose is far more speculative than my idea.

And, no - Eph 2:19-22 has nothing to do with this - unless, of course you want to speculate on that.

St Peter was definitely a mouth piece—so was St Paul.

Oh, Mickey, I do not believe you have attempted to equate the two. Besides, my point was that God the Father specifically spoke the answer to Peter - and this was confirmed by Christ. Our Lord did appear to Saul on the road to Damascus - and selected him for a most imporant mission to the Gentiles. But, this is really besides the point. God chose Peter to lead His Church and God chose Paul to launch the missionary work to the Gentiles.

Christ does not favor one Apostle over another.

I have no idea where you got this idea,Mickey, but it is not from Scripture! Do you recall

1.) Christ changing the name of Simon to Peter - but did not change the names of any of the other Apostles?

2.) Christ selecting Peter, James and John to accompany Him on several personal experiences (Transfiguration, Agony in the Garden, etc.)?

3.) John resting his head on Christ’s bosom - and John referring to himself as the Disciple whom Christ loved?

4.) Christ paying the Temple Tax for Peter, but not for any of the other Apostles?

I would say that there is ample evidence of treating the Apostles in unique ways - but, not all the same. I am ‘speculating’ here, but Christ favored His Apostles in individual ways - but, He put Peter in charge of the group.

The Holy Orthodox Church definitely sees this as St Peter’s confession of faith.

As you probably guessed, we differ on that one, Mickey…

Jesus said “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”, as a future event, and He gave the keys to all the disciples at the same time in Matthew18:18 (see also Jn20:23, 27, 28; Lk24:50).

Apparently, Mickey, you have a different version of these Scriptures than I - my Bible does not have any reference to additonal sets of keys being given out to the Other Apostles. To the best of my knowledge Peter was the only one to receive such a Gift.

These keys were given to the Church—and they signify the priestly authority for the forgiveness of mankind’s sins.

We differ on this one, too, Mickey. While Christ breathed on the Apostles and gave them the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive or retain sins … no keys accompanied this event as it is recorded in my Bible. Tell me what yours actually says here.

Augustine’s words are interesting - but, if the idea is that Peter does not have primacy, then this is a misunderstanding. Peter is the one in charge of Christ’s Church - and that comes from Christ Himself.

Holy Orthodoxy would say that it is you who have separated.

Thank you for your opinion on this matter. I think the history of the Catholic Church before 1000 is pretty clear on the Bishop of Rome - the Successor of Peter being in charge. St. Augustine whom you previously quoted identified the Popel’s authority in resolving disputes - “The case is closed - Rome has spoken!”

The meaning of the verses are very clear.

Apparently not, Mickey, but that is for another thread.

God bless

 

[elvisman]

All received authority.

In the same way that Peter did?
NOPE.

Did Jesus say the following to ANY other Apostles?

Luke 22:31-32
*"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." *

John 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 bottom line friend, is that Peter was singled out for leadership in a way that the other Apostles weren’t. They were given Church authority, whereas Peter was given supreme authority.