Non-Catholic Christians...Simon to Peter?

[pneuma07]

Try again-John 18 NAB

15 Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Now the other disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered the courtyard of the high priest with Jesus.
16 But Peter stood at the gate outside. So the other disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest, went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in.

If you look at the NAB footnotes they believe that this is the disciple whom Jesus loved, commonly believed to be John himself. And he didn’t deny Jesus that night and was at the cross.

We receive from this pericope the impression that John ( if he was that) was somehow an insider there. That could leave Peter as probably the only one who was seriously putting his life at risk by not abandoning the Lord. Then he reaches his very human limits. As when walking on the waters towards his Lord. In both cases, while experiencing a failure, he was daring more than any other for his Lord.

 

[pneuma07]

You say;

*Peter described God’s promise to him as
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acts 15:7 Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.”
rather than universal leadership. *

What I cannot understand here , is whence you get that this represents a description of the whole of Peter’s mission, rather than one of its aspects.

You may note, for one, that precisely by stating

The fulfillment of Christ’s promise to Peter is that he will build the church, and he does so on the day of Pentecost .

you affirm another distinct aspect.

In general, if you had an acknowledged undisputed leadership within a group, would you get up and say: " You guys are aware that I have the leadership here …" ?

Rather, Peter’s statement is clearly to the point, considering the issue of the “Jerusalem Council”.

 

[pneuma07]

Non Serviam,

I see you are dealing in detail with “re-instatement Theory” in the other ad hoc thread, so I’d like to deal with some other aspects of John 21 here.

Peter has the initiative in John 21 about fishing (2 Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.”
They said to him, “We are going with you also.”) .
A small thing, we can say. Sure. Yet, in the great framework of the Gospels and of Acts, this small thing does appear to confirm IMHO something like a leadership acting in daily life as well as in the ecclesial decisions they will face. The fellow brothers seem to follow Peter here quite naturally.

Now, the first question Peter receives here from the Lord is: do you love me more than these ? The further questions will be shorter, but this point is pivotal IMHO.
Who were there, besides Jesus and Peter ? Most of the other disciples. And the point seems: does Peter love Jesus more than these ?

What is John 21 commission to Peter founded on ? On love. More specifically we could say: on a primacy of love.
Peter’s humble understatements follow: passing to the verb “fileo”, as you pointed out, and to the “You know”. .
It would be highly presumptuous for Peter ( more so after his recent sin against the Lord) answering: “Sure, I agapao you more than these !”. Yet we’re lead to believe, together with Augustine, that what the Lord knows is precisely… what He asked first…
Petrine primacy, petrine service, appears here as a primacy in Love, ( or from Love).

You know, recently it occurred to me to observe how striking a connection we can see between this famous scriptural passage and Ignatius’ epistle “To the Romans”.

In the introduction he calls the Church in Rome: “presiding in love” (prokathemene tes agapes). Again the *agape *!

I know, we cannot understand for sure the exact meaning of Ignatius’ “prokathemene tes agapes”. Yet, the concept of agape is linked here with a concept of primacy.
Wait a moment: isn’t that the same link as in John 21 ?
The Gospel deals with Peter, Ignatius deals with Rome. Here the point is whether Peter has more agape then his fellow brothers, ie whether he is first, primus, in love. There, the point is that Rome has a primacy in agape.

Why such an analogy between Peter and Rome ?

A mere coincidence, maybe. Nevertheless it may help to consider that John 21 and Ignatius’ letters were written in the very same generation. And Ignatius is considered to be in that very John’s school. In other words the two texts are from same period and same school.

That was just a home made suggestion.
Let’s listen now to John Chrisostom on what commission Peter receives here (Homily 88 on John)
“He says unto him, Feed My sheep.”
And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others.
And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Thanks, it’s good to see you too.

It seems pretty obvious to me that “foundation” and “ruling authority” aren’t synonyms – hey that’s almost a palindrome.

So it is.

Question: What significance, if any would you ascribe to Jesus using “Simon” instead of “Peter” in John 21? John uses a mix in the narration “Simon Peter” and “Peter”, so I’m not sure if there should be significance ascribed to it.

 

[Non_Serviam]

So you agree now, that they all fled at His arrest?

I agree with what I wrote before you edited it.

There are just so many examples of Peter’s leadership, some of which you have not addressed.

Why was it Peter spoke for the Apostles?

Let’s be precise here-I’ve never said Peter wasn’t a leader-he was an Apostle. What I said was that I don’t believe that God made him the universal head of the entire church.

When you provide an example, you need to make the case as to why that example proves Peter’s authority over the others. The fact that Peter said something first doesn’t make him the leader or spokes person in every case. We see in the text of Matt 16 that Peter’s statement there is special.

We have examples of him saying very foolish things and even being called Satan on one occasion. Likewise, the example of Ananias and Sapphira shows an Apostle leading in the church, just as James or Paul do later in Acts. To prove special authority on the part of Peter an argument would have to be made showing how something makes this different from those other examples.

In future, in the interests of time, I simply can’t respond to lists and lists of quotes that don’t make a clear argument. Peter’s name appears more in the Gospels because that’s how they were written. I believe it was to honour Peter for his role in bringing salvation to Jews and Gentiles and you believe that there was an office being recognized. Without further developing the argument neither point of view is more credible.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Last night I had suggested the Ask an Apologist section to you. Let me suggest the Apologetics section instead. It will allow you the opportunity to question answers given as opposed to you having to the one question, one answer format offered by the Ask an Apologist section.

Looking into the truth of Catholicism on the Non-Catholic forum appears disingenuous from someone with the username, “I will not serve”…

If you look at the OP, the question was asked of non-Catholics

I think we’ve had debate and discussion over Peter, being the rock, or the Rock, but I’d like to hear our non-Catholic Christians brothers take on the importance, if any of Simon’s name change. Please discuss, and again, I want to try to stay away from the little rock, or Big Rock debate, plenty of discussion on that already. Thanks!

So the more appropriate question would be to ask yourself why you are posting in the thread when you self-identify as Catholic.

I’m fulfilling the OP’s request for a non-Catholic perspective on the issue while pursuing my own questions.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Isn’t the power to bind and loose on earth, with a promise it would be made so in heaven similar to saying, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained?”.

Peter received this promise only after confessing Jesus as the Christ, tying Peter and his confession together. I agree that binding and loosing and the forgiveness of sins are combined-we see the fulfillment of both Matthew 16 and John 20 take place during and after Peter’s sermon in Acts 2. The teaching that Jesus is the Christ is made available (or “loosed” to use the rabbinic term) and as a result people’s sins were forgiven (per Acts 2:38).

Acts 15:7 further confirms that this was Peter’s understanding of the unique role God chose him for. It all fits together very nicely.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Fair enough; I don’t think that explanation is much better or much worse than other Protestant “worldviews” (for lack of a better word) that I’ve heard.

The main difficulty I can see with what you are saying, is to reconcile it with the different historical phases. More specifically, the fact that for a while the books of the New Testament were still being written; this was followed by a phase in which the 27 books had all been written, but the Canon had not yet been agreed upon; this was, of course, followed by the phase (which we are still in) when the Canon of the New Testament has been established/agreed upon. (And that’s without even considering the Old Testament.)

Perhaps the Old Testament should be considered in the discussion. It’s an example of God being able to inspire the writing of Scripture and preserve that Scripture for use by the Jews right up to the time of Jesus without the agent of an infallible Magisterium.

Doesn’t that call into question the need of an infallible Magisterium to preserve God’s revelation or if one still deems it essential are we saying that the Jews lost God’s revelation until the time of Jesus?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Hi Non Serviam !

Nice to meet you again.

Here are some little observations.

Asked

“When the Apostles are listed in scriptures, why is it Peter’s name always comes first?”

you answer

If we go back to John 1

Good point, my apologies-the three synoptics all listed Simon as being chosen first and I got careless. Another of the variations in the Gospel narratives, much like the difference between Mark and Luke as to when the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law took place.

If you consider reliable the tradition (small t) according to which Mark got his information directly from Peter, consider this too please:

All of the evangelists have a specific pericope pointing to the petrine mission, each in a different context and perspective: Matthew 16, John 21, and Luke 22:31-32 (IMHO ). But Mark.
In his Gospel Peter has “narrative primacy”, but without an* ad hoc * passage about his special mission. That can mean that there was no “petrine school”, within the primitive Church, trying to build an inflated image of their leader from which later misunderstandings could come.
Just the contrary. While Mark seems to refrain from anything particularly glorifying for his source, it is all the other evangelists who point in different manners to petrine primacy.

(The fact that Luke did not choose to present the Ceasarea Philippi incident the way Matthew did, with its jewish cultural flavour, can be probably explained IMHO remembering their different targets: mostly jewish for Matthew , essentially gentile for Luke.)

I do consider tradition useful, much as I do history. I simply treat it with the same caution as with which one should treat historical texts, recognizing that simply because a text was preserved, doesn’t mean that it was influential (cf. some of the Nag Hammadi documents who had the good fortune to be kept in the right place) or that people writing hundreds of years later for their own purposes didn’t have similar blind spots to the ones we have today.

I agree that there was a special honour reserved for Peter, that Peter describes in Acts 15:7 and carries out in Acts 2 and Acts 10. This could be seen as a type of Primacy, but not the primacy of authority taught in Catholicism.

As for John 21 I believe that to be more about Jesus restoring Peter to ministry, as I’ve been discussing on other threads.

Lastly, there was a petrine party, at least in Corinth, as we learn from Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians in vs 12

11
For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
12
I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

Whether this party existed elsewhere I don’t know, and whether or not it played a role in future beliefs about Peter’s authority, I can’t say, but “I follow Cephas (Peter)” does have a familiar ring to it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree with what I wrote before you edited it.

(I edited your post in attempt to fit a response within the character limits set on these forums. It didn’t work, so I will splitmy response into two posts as well.)

Peter denied Christ 3 times, Christ asked Peter if he loved Him 3 times. The first time was specifically asking if he loved Him more than these. “These” being the other disciples, who were also present to witness this conversation.

**Joh 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. **

Peter had denied Christ 3 times, and Christ provided Peter an opportunity of correcting his fault, with 3 confessions of love. Peter, repentant, told Christ, each time he was asked, “thou knowest that I love thee”, except the third time, when he said, " thou knowest all things", past, present and to come. With each confession of love, Christ commanded Peter, in the presence of the other disciples, to “feed my lambs”, “feed my lambs”, and finally “feed my sheep”.

In verse 15, Jesus refers to Peter as, “Simon, son of John” so there would be no confusion between Simon Thaddeus and Simon Peter and which was chosen to care for, or lead, the Church.

Christ used the phrase, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”, twice. Once, the first time, speaking specifically to Peter. The second time speaking to the Apostles. The only differences was the fact that Christ, when addressing Peter specifically, said, “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” The second time was while He spoke to the Apostles, after giving authority to His Church.

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

There were no keys to the kingdom of heaven mentioned this time.

As for the lists you mention, to me they clearly show the primacy of Peter. I really think that anyone that denies the examples given above is looking for a reason to reject the Catholic faith, or more specifically the primacy of Peter.

I don’t believe you ever addressed my first post and am not sure if you read it or not. So, I am re-posting it below for you to review. There was more to Peter’s renaming, with explanation from Christ than meets the eye, for some who don’t know the history of the area chosen, and the things that were said.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The incident in Matthew took place at Caesarea Philippi, so named by Herod Philip. However, it was originally Panion, the city of Pan…dedicated to the Greek god Pan. The mountain where Christ was transfigured was above the spot where there remains, to this day, a site honoring Pan, who was, at that time, considered by pagans to be the “great god” who ruled the world. Pan’s essence was sexual and leaned toward depravity, i.e., to Christians, it represents the power of evil. (Remember that with the exchange immediately following Christ’s proclamation!) The altar to Pan was just below the city that represented the evil, and was hidden in the cliffs.

Why this spot? Why, of all the places to which Jesus journeyed, would he choose (and don’t think it wasn’t chosen!) a place so antithetical to the Kingdom of God? Obviously, because Christ, through the Church He was then establishing, is the antithesis to everything which kept men from the Kingdom. And even the gates of hell (a site so named in a niche in the same mountain, which some claim to be the “abyss”) will not prevail over that Kingdom!

But the Kingdom is to be established in the “now” of time, in order for man to live a life of genuine holiness through which he may enter into the eternal Kingdom. Hence, a kingdom needs a King – the King of Kings. However, when the King, established by God through David, is absent from the physical kingdom, it cannot be left unattended. Hence, the keeper of the keys, the “prime minister” or “vicar”, is charged with the full authority of the king over all his lands, peoples, and possessions. He can make law or repeal it. He can make any decisions the King would make. And he is responsible to the King for every action he takes.

The “short” form of my position on Matthew 16:

1. The “petros/petra” issue would not have occurred, since Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, wherein there is ONE word form: Kepha.
2. A change in name in Scripture ALWAYS came with a significant change in stature and responsibility. It wasn’t a “whim” of Christ’s to change Simon’s name to Peter. And we know that change was real, as it’s referred to throughout the NT. What is the significance of the name change, if not to designate Peter as the primate over all the followers of Christ? Note that whenever a name change was made in the OT, there was an explanation for it – Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed. Likewise, Simon becomes Peter because upon his strength in faith the sacred community of the faithful, the Church, would be founded.
3. The keeper of the keys is not simply noted in Isaiah. 1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys. The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.
4. The throne of David was considered by Jews to be the throne of God. (Ref. 1Chron 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.
5. The keeper of the keys is, therefore, the Lord’s vicar, who occupies the earthly throne until Christ returns.

(If someone can’t see what Catholics see from the explanation given, I don’t believe they want to see it, but I’m not going to continue this circular discussion, as I do not see how to make someone understand who places their private interpretation above all other interpretations, including the early Church fathers; doctors, theologians, professors, etc. etc.)

 

[Non_Serviam]

We receive from this pericope the impression that John ( if he was that) was somehow an insider there. That could leave Peter as probably the only one who was seriously putting his life at risk by not abandoning the Lord. Then he reaches his very human limits. As when walking on the waters towards his Lord. In both cases, while experiencing a failure, he was daring more than any other for his Lord.

That’s a possible interpretation-I would think that if John was an insider there would have been even more pressure on him to “fit in” with his acquaintances and deny Jesus. Given the early church’s description of John’s character, if he had fallen, I can’t believe he would have left this information out of his account.

You say;

*Peter described God’s promise to him as
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acts 15:7 Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.”
rather than universal leadership. *

What I cannot understand here , is whence you get that this represents a description of the whole of Peter’s mission, rather than one of its aspects.

You may note, for one, that precisely by stating
you affirm another distinct aspect.

In general, if you had an acknowledged undisputed leadership within a group, would you get up and say: " You guys are aware that I have the leadership here …" ?

Rather, Peter’s statement is clearly to the point, considering the issue of the “Jerusalem Council”.

Peter is indeed reminding the group of the honour that God gave him by making salvation available to the Gentiles through his preaching of Jesus as the Christ. The vision he received had direct bearing on the question and on God’s thoughts on the matter.

Once Peter finished sharing, Paul and Barnabas contributed what God had showed them-we see no sense here that Peter had “undisputed leadership” beyond that which the other Apostles also possessed. Rather we see that each of the leaders contributed to the council, on an equal basis until James began to spoke and made “his judgment” (vs. 19). We know from tradition that James led the church in Jerusalem at the time of the council.

We see shared episcopal leadership, with authority for the meeting being taken by the leader in whose area the meeting took place.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Peter received this promise only after confessing Jesus as the Christ, tying Peter and his confession together. I agree that binding and loosing and the forgiveness of sins are combined-we see the fulfillment of both Matthew 16 and John 20 take place during and after Peter’s sermon in Acts 2. The teaching that Jesus is the Christ is made available (or “loosed” to use the rabbinic term) and as a result people’s sins were forgiven (per Acts 2:38).

Acts 15:7 further confirms that this was Peter’s understanding of the unique role God chose him for. It all fits together very nicely.

Acts 15 was a council meeting as to whether or not to include Gentiles, without the old law of Judaism being imposed upon them. Remember, the dispute was whether or not to even include Gentiles or make them follow the old law to become Christian. Peter was telling them the Gentiles were to be included with his statement. I think one has to read Acts 10 to get the full implication of what Peter said in Acts 15:7. Not all the Apostles had received the vision that Peter had received and were still of the belief that there was a separation of Jew and Gentile…

Act 10:28 And he said to them: you know how abominable it is for a man that is a Jew to keep company or to come unto one of another nation: but God hath shewed to me, to call no man common or unclean.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Peter denied Christ 3 times, Christ asked Peter if he loved Him 3 times. The first time was specifically asking if he loved Him more than these. “These” being the other disciples, who were also present to witness this conversation.

Peter had denied Christ 3 times, and Christ provided Peter an opportunity of correcting his fault, with 3 confessions of love. Peter, repentant, told Christ, each time he was asked, “thou knowest that I love thee”, except the third time, when he said, " thou knowest all things", past, present and to come. With each confession of love, Christ commanded Peter, in the presence of the other disciples, to “feed my lambs”, “feed my lambs”, and finally “feed my sheep”.

We agree up to this point.

In verse 15, Jesus refers to Peter as, “Simon, son of John” so there would be no confusion between Simon Thaddeus and Simon Peter and which was chosen to care for, or lead, the Church.

Why would he not have simply called him Peter, as that would have afforded no confusion?

Christ used the phrase, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”, twice. Once, the first time, speaking specifically to Peter. The second time speaking to the Apostles. The only differences was the fact that Christ, when addressing Peter specifically, said, “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” The second time was while He spoke to the Apostles, after giving authority to His Church.

There were no keys to the kingdom of heaven mentioned this time.

Agreed-I believe I also agreed with your post about binding and loosing being connected to forgiveness of sins.

As for the lists you mention, to me they clearly show the primacy of Peter. I really think that anyone that denies the examples given above is looking for a reason to reject the Catholic faith, or more specifically the primacy of Peter.

I don’t believe you ever addressed my first post and am not sure if you read it or not. So, I am re-posting it below for you to review. There was more to Peter’s renaming, with explanation from Christ than meets the eye, for some who don’t know the history of the area chosen, and the things that were said.

And I believe that it takes something more concrete than appearing first in a list on which to base beliefs in the authority claimed for the Pope by the Catholic church today. Perhaps I am wrong in expecting more evidence than that, but I do.

I will take another look at your post-I see that I didn’t address it the first time. my apologies.

 

[Non_Serviam]

The incident in Matthew took place at Caesarea Philippi, so named by Herod Philip. However, it was originally Panion, the city of Pan…dedicated to the Greek god Pan. The mountain where Christ was transfigured was above the spot where there remains, to this day, a site honoring Pan, who was, at that time, considered by pagans to be the “great god” who ruled the world. Pan’s essence was sexual and leaned toward depravity, i.e., to Christians, it represents the power of evil. (Remember that with the exchange immediately following Christ’s proclamation!) The altar to Pan was just below the city that represented the evil, and was hidden in the cliffs.

Why this spot? Why, of all the places to which Jesus journeyed, would he choose (and don’t think it wasn’t chosen!) a place so antithetical to the Kingdom of God? Obviously, because Christ, through the Church He was then establishing, is the antithesis to everything which kept men from the Kingdom. And even the gates of hell (a site so named in a niche in the same mountain, which some claim to be the “abyss”) will not prevail over that Kingdom!

But the Kingdom is to be established in the “now” of time, in order for man to live a life of genuine holiness through which he may enter into the eternal Kingdom. Hence, a kingdom needs a King – the King of Kings. However, when the King, established by God through David, is absent from the physical kingdom, it cannot be left unattended. Hence, the keeper of the keys, the “prime minister” or “vicar”, is charged with the full authority of the king over all his lands, peoples, and possessions. He can make law or repeal it. He can make any decisions the King would make. And he is responsible to the King for every action he takes.

The “short” form of my position on Matthew 16:

1. The “petros/petra” issue would not have occurred, since Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, wherein there is ONE word form: Kepha.
2. A change in name in Scripture ALWAYS came with a significant change in stature and responsibility. It wasn’t a “whim” of Christ’s to change Simon’s name to Peter. And we know that change was real, as it’s referred to throughout the NT. What is the significance of the name change, if not to designate Peter as the primate over all the followers of Christ? Note that whenever a name change was made in the OT, there was an explanation for it – Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed. Likewise, Simon becomes Peter because upon his strength in faith the sacred community of the faithful, the Church, would be founded.
3. The keeper of the keys is not simply noted in Isaiah. 1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys. The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.
4. The throne of David was considered by Jews to be the throne of God. (Ref. 1Chron 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.
5. The keeper of the keys is, therefore, the Lord’s vicar, who occupies the earthly throne until Christ returns.

(If someone can’t see what Catholics see from the explanation given, I don’t believe they want to see it, but I’m not going to continue this circular discussion, as I do not see how to make someone understand who places their private interpretation above all other interpretations, including the early Church fathers; doctors, theologians, professors, etc. etc.)

I was familiar with the information about Caesarea Philippi, it is nice to have such information to aid in interpretation of Scripture.

One’s interpretation of “the Gates of Hell” plays a large role in how one looks at the passage. If one sees the gates as attacking the church and the church having to defend itself, then one tends to heaven outlook on Peter’s commission related to authority and “keeping things safe”. On the other hand, if one sees the church as confronting the gates and bursting through them to free people caught in their sin and destined for Hell, and one sees the truth of Jesus as the Christ as the means by which this will be accomplished, then an entirely different image begins to form. Peter’s confession of Christ signifies that God has chosen him to deliver this message to Jew and Gentile, to loose them from the claim hell has on them and to permit their sins to be forgiven!

I have seen the description of Peter as “Prime Minister” before, but it doesn’t seem to have been a part of the interpretive tradition of the early church-could you point me to any early examples of this interpretation?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Acts 15 was a council meeting as to whether or not to include Gentiles, without the old law of Judaism being imposed upon them. Remember, the dispute was whether or not to even include Gentiles or make them follow the old law to become Christian. Peter was telling them the Gentiles were to be included with his statement. I think one has to read Acts 10 to get the full implication of what Peter said in Acts 15:7. Not all the Apostles had received the vision that Peter had received and were still of the belief that there was a separation of Jew and Gentile…

Act 10:28 And he said to them: you know how abominable it is for a man that is a Jew to keep company or to come unto one of another nation: but God hath shewed to me, to call no man common or unclean.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I agree that Peter’s vision is the key to why he spoke at the meeting-he had important information to contribute to help the council come to a decision, just as Paul and Barnabas did. Many of the others there had little or no contact with Gentiles and needed this information to help them understand what God was doing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I was familiar with the information about Caesarea Philippi, it is nice to have such information to aid in interpretation of Scripture.

One’s interpretation of “the Gates of Hell” plays a large role in how one looks at the passage. If one sees the gates as attacking the church and the church having to defend itself, then one tends to heaven outlook on Peter’s commission related to authority and “keeping things safe”. On the other hand, if one sees the church as confronting the gates and bursting through them to free people caught in their sin and destined for Hell, and one sees the truth of Jesus as the Christ as the means by which this will be accomplished, then an entirely different image begins to form. Peter’s confession of Christ signifies that God has chosen him to deliver this message to Jew and Gentile, to loose them from the claim hell has on them and to permit their sins to be forgiven!

I have seen the description of Peter as “Prime Minister” before, but it doesn’t seem to have been a part of the interpretive tradition of the early church-could you point me to any early examples of this interpretation?

During the time of Christ, it was believed that the gates of hell was located beneath the rock known as Caesarea Philippi. Also, just a bit more information about the Greek god Pan. Pan (Greek Πάν, genitive Πανός), in Greek religion and mythology, is the companion of the nymphs,[1] god of shepherds and flocks.

Christ knows the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, He holds the keys.

Rev 1:18 And alive, and was dead. And behold I am living for ever and ever and have the keys of death and of hell.

Christ gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He shall open and none shall shut, he shall shut and none shall open (bind and loose).

The throne of David was the throne of the Lord.

1Ch 29:23 And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and he pleased all: and all Israel obeyed him.

David had a prime minister and he bestowed great authority upon him.

Isa 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
Isa 22:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda.
Isa 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth:

I just got in from a shift on the ambulance (24 hour shifts) and need to get some sleep. I hope you understand the examples I provided above. I will try to look up some writings of the early Church fathers with the information you requested, or maybe someone else can provide them before I log back on.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Copyright © 2004 StayCatholic.com ***

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps the Old Testament should be considered in the discussion. It’s an example of God being able to inspire the writing of Scripture and preserve that Scripture for use by the Jews right up to the time of Jesus without the agent of an infallible Magisterium.

Doesn’t that call into question the need of an infallible Magisterium to preserve God’s revelation or if one still deems it essential are we saying that the Jews lost God’s revelation until the time of Jesus?

I think that “without the agent of an infallible Magisterium” is misleading.

For one thing, we agree that infallibility was exercised at least by the writer of each book of the OT.

By saying that, I’m probably inviting responses of “OK, but the exercise of infallibility in the OT was strictly individual, not corporate.” But consider: didn’t the question of a particular writing being Scripture or not, come up back then? Clearly, saying “This book calls itself infallible, and it must be correct in saying that because it’s an infallible book” doesn’t work. I would conclude that, even back then, there must have been some kind of discernment by the whole people of God about which books were Scripture – in other words, a corporate exercise of infallibility.

 

[jlhargus]

To start, I don’t have a problem with Peter being the first Pope…yet. To help me with this one, maybe someone can answer this question:

I know about how the “rock” section in Matthew is used to justify Peter’s place. I got that. And I know that people point out that the two words for the “rock” in Greek are two completely different words with different meanings. I have also been told that Aramaic that there is NO difference between the two words. All that is clear to me. So…

Why did those that compiled the canon allow a translation that could lead to problems? Why not translate it and write it so there would be no problems? I just don’t understand why they would leave any room for error when dealing with such a major issue.

JL: Because Christ established and built his Church on ST ROCK, and promised ST ROCK’S faith would fail not, making the Church the pillar and ground of turth, sending the Holy Spirit to guide it into ALL TRUTH. If we neglect to hear the Church we are as a heathen.