Other Christian denomination responses?

[JonNC]

A small step for men, a giant leap for mankind?

(That ‘pun’ shows my age?)

I remember that July as well.

But a giant leap may be an understatement, if, if all of us continue to listen to the Spirit as He draws us closer.

Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Fellow Servant,
I believe these other religions DO in fact accept that the gates of hell have not prevailed against Christ’s Church and the Rock upon which it was founded! However, we do not believe that church to be the CC or the rock to be Peter. The rock is Christ and the fact that he is the Son - the church is the multi-religion flock of people in the servitude of Christ and the family of God.

Maybe if it’s repeated on every thread here…no, I don’t think Catholics would even agree with you then.

Matthew 16 is quite clear and shows the conversation was directed at Peter

What you may fail to recognize is, Christ it the cornerstone and the Apostles are the foundation. Christ being the wise man, built His house on rock and not sand.

Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

There’s too much searching for ways to make Matthew 16 mean something else. It’s a straight forward read.

Multi-religious flocks is multiple flocks.

Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

How many multi-religious Churches were there in the early Church’s history? The Apostles started them, and wrote the same message to all. The ‘multi’ is of men.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Amen, the gates of Hell have not prevailed against this confession: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

How did the ‘confession’ receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven AND the authority to bind and loose on earth?

It was Peter’s confession. You cannot separate the two.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He was afforded the opportunity to recant his 95 these, which he refused. He was not excommunicated for it. In fact, the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire caved to Martin and the others of whom he would have had to kill had he not done so. He did not want to kill them since he needed their assistance in fighting wars against foreign entities at the time. In fact, that is probably why Martin Luther wasn’t beheaded publicly.

Are you saying Martin Luther was not excommunicated?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Surely one can see the universal jurisdiction, as it existed through the life of the early since it’s beginning.

After reading your post, I have to wonder how ‘first among equals’ is defined?

People try and make the position a dictatorship, which it is not. By Peter’s example, the pope takes counsel from those of Apostolic succession. People try and make it as if everything a pope says is infallible, it is not.

The pope is the ‘prime minister’ of Christ, acting as head in His earthly absence. There were not twelve Christs, there was one. When you view the Apostles appointed by Christ, through the writings of scripture, you see they taught one message.

Have you ever heard of a prime minister that acts unilaterally without the assent of his cabinet?

 

[MuddyRocker]

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

Reading the writings from the various Council meetings it is obvious that Rome thought it had primacy (the Bishop of Rome even boycotted at least one meeting because he felt slighted by the other Bishops). But once Constantine moved his capitol to Byzantium, the Bishop there felt that he was the primary Bishop. Since these were the two most prominent cities in the world at that time, both these offices made the claim. That is when the Bishop of Rome began using the succession of Peter to his own advantage in claiming that this was the real reason he should be the “first among equals”.
“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 qf 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” (ibid. 3:3:2).

 

[flightkid]

Fellow Servant,
I believe these other religions DO in fact accept that the gates of hell have not prevailed against Christ’s Church and the Rock upon which it was founded! However, we do not believe that church to be the CC or the rock to be Peter. The rock is Christ and the fact that he is the Son - the church is the multi-religion flock of people in the servitude of Christ and the family of God.

Was Peter the Rock?
This is a short discussion about Peter as the Rock. A full discussion exploring the Greek, Aramaic Biblical text, the history, early Christian quotes, and more is here.

In recent years some Evangelicals have suggested that the Greek word that means “rock” did not refer to Peter but only to his “faith.” I got an email that said:

However Jesus stated “upon this rock I will build my church” in reference to Peter’s declaration that He (Jesus) was the Christ (Matthew 16:16).

Let’s call this the “little rock, big rock” theory. I don’t think it holds up under scrutiny when we look at it grammatically, linguistically, historically and most important, Biblically. I think Jesus built his Church on people, not a declaration. Following through on the passage we see that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter, not to his declaration. The little rock big rock theory is very new. All of the early reformers believed Peter was the rock (but they didn’t believe Peter had a successor, more about that below). The Reformer, Martin Luther, said this:

Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth. Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men. (Martin Luther 1530 A.D.- after he left the Church 1)

W. F. Albright, one of the best known Protestant theologians of this century, in his Anchor Bible Commentary, says:

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church…To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.

All of the early Church interpreted Peter as the Rock also. For example, Tertullian said:

Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth? (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret, 220 A.D.)

I recently spoke with a grammar specialist who is not Catholic. She explained to me that the adjective “this” grammatically must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier.
When Jesus says “whatever you bind” to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for “you” is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for “you” in “whatever you bind” is plural. Catholics think these two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the Pope and the other apostles as priests.

Examples of Peter’s Authority among the Apostles
•Next to Jesus, Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in Scripture (152 times).
•He stood up and spoke on behalf of the apostles (Mt 19:27, Acts 1:15, 2:14)
•He stood up at the birth of the Church at the Pentecost to lead them. (Acts 2:14)
•The disciples were referred to as Peter and the Apostles. (Acts 2:37, 5:29)
•Peter was given the authority to forgive sins before the rest of the apostles. (Mat 16:18)
•He was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) – sometimes it was only “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32);
•John ran ahead of Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. He waited and let Peter go in. (Jn 20:4)
•Jesus told Peter to “feed my lambs…tend my sheep… feed my sheep.” (Jn 21:15-17) The difference between a sheep and a lamb might be significant. A lamb is a baby, a sheep is an adult. Perhaps Jesus was asking Peter to take care of both the general people (the lambs), and the apostles (sheep). Regardless of that interpretation of sheep and lambs, it is clear Jesus is asking Peter to feed and tend his flock. That is what a shepherd does. It appears to me that he is asking Peter to shepherd his Church on earth, on his behalf.

 

[flightkid]

Amen, the gates of Hell have not prevailed against this confession: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The Keys
Catholics believe that Jesus had a very specific purpose in saying that Peter was the Rock upon which he would build his Church. He was evoking Isaiah 22:22.

Isaiah 22:15-24 Mat 16:18-19
22:15 (Shebna) you have cut out a tomb here for yourself … in the rock? …I will thrust you from your office…22:20 On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, 21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. 23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. …you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

In the Isaiah passage, Shebna was the Chancellor (like a Prime Minister) under King Hezekiah. This Prime Minister had a special role above the cabinet. He got the keys to the kingdom. Shabna messed up and was unfaithful so God appointed Eliakim to Prime Minister and gave him the keys. In Mat 16:18, Peter got the keys just the way Eliakim got them in Isaiah 22:15-24.

Protestant theologian Albright says:

Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus (Mat 16:18). The keys are the symbol of authority and … the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority. (ibid)

David Palm wrote the following:

Long before I had any inkling of becoming Catholic I came to embrace the current majority report among Protestant scholars, namely, that “this rock” of Matt 16:18 refers to the person of Peter and that he is the foundation on which Christ would build His Church. I was challenged later, by those same scholars and by Catholic apologists, to see from the use of Isa 22:22 in Matt 16:19, that our Lord, as the son of David and new King of Israel, reestablished the office of “steward” or “one who is over the house” (in modern parlance, the prime minister). He [Jesus] gives that office to Peter, as symbolized by the “keys of the kingdom.” This establishes that in principle there is nothing antithetical between the supreme Lordship of Jesus Christ and a mortal man serving as His “vicar” on earth. (mwt.net/~lnpalm/jw_jpk.htm)

When Jesus says “whatever you bind” to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for “you” is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for “you” in “whatever you bind” is plural. Catholics think these two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the Pope and the other apostles as priests.

 

[flightkid]

ALL PLEASE READ THIS BRILLIANT ESSAY FROM FORMER PROTESTANT DR. SCOTT HAHN ON THE “KEYS” AND THE PAPACY

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

 

[MuddyRocker]

Surely one can see the universal jurisdiction, as it existed through the life of the early since it’s beginning.

After reading your post, I have to wonder how ‘first among equals’ is defined?

People try and make the position a dictatorship, which it is not. By Peter’s example, the pope takes counsel from those of Apostolic succession. People try and make it as if everything a pope says is infallible, it is not.

The pope is the ‘prime minister’ of Christ, acting as head in His earthly absence. There were not twelve Christs, there was one. When you view the Apostles appointed by Christ, through the writings of scripture, you see they taught one message.

One last point, some deny a single position of leader over the others, because it’s not specifically mentioned or listed to their satisfaction. If we look closely at scriptures and the writings of the early Church fathers, we see there is no denial explicitly stated, as it is around many circles today. In fact, we find quite the opposite, if you read the statements for what they are and not try to read other meanings in to them.

Yet at the earliest example of Christ’s church, which was in Jerusalem not Rome, in a council meeting where Peter was present, James presided. And Paul said that Peter ate with the Gentiles, until some came from James to challenge him? That does not sound like a man “at the head” of the church.

 

[MuddyRocker]

Was Peter the Rock?
This is a short discussion about Peter as the Rock. A full discussion exploring the Greek, Aramaic Biblical text, the history, early Christian quotes, and more is here.

In recent years some Evangelicals have suggested that the Greek word that means “rock” did not refer to Peter but only to his “faith.” I got an email that said:

However Jesus stated “upon this rock I will build my church” in reference to Peter’s declaration that He (Jesus) was the Christ (Matthew 16:16).

Let’s call this the “little rock, big rock” theory. I don’t think it holds up under scrutiny when we look at it grammatically, linguistically, historically and most important, Biblically. I think Jesus built his Church on people, not a declaration. Following through on the passage we see that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter, not to his declaration. The little rock big rock theory is very new. All of the early reformers believed Peter was the rock (but they didn’t believe Peter had a successor, more about that below). The Reformer, Martin Luther, said this:

Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth. Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men. (Martin Luther 1530 A.D.- after he left the Church 1)

W. F. Albright, one of the best known Protestant theologians of this century, in his Anchor Bible Commentary, says:

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church…To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.

All of the early Church interpreted Peter as the Rock also. For example, Tertullian said:

Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth? (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret, 220 A.D.)

I recently spoke with a grammar specialist who is not Catholic. She explained to me that the adjective “this” grammatically must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier.
When Jesus says “whatever you bind” to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for “you” is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for “you” in “whatever you bind” is plural. Catholics think these two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the Pope and the other apostles as priests.

Examples of Peter’s Authority among the Apostles
•Next to Jesus, Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in Scripture (152 times).
•He stood up and spoke on behalf of the apostles (Mt 19:27, Acts 1:15, 2:14)
•He stood up at the birth of the Church at the Pentecost to lead them. (Acts 2:14)
•The disciples were referred to as Peter and the Apostles. (Acts 2:37, 5:29)
•Peter was given the authority to forgive sins before the rest of the apostles. (Mat 16:18)
•He was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) – sometimes it was only “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32);
•John ran ahead of Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. He waited and let Peter go in. (Jn 20:4)
•Jesus told Peter to “feed my lambs…tend my sheep… feed my sheep.” (Jn 21:15-17) The difference between a sheep and a lamb might be significant. A lamb is a baby, a sheep is an adult. Perhaps Jesus was asking Peter to take care of both the general people (the lambs), and the apostles (sheep). Regardless of that interpretation of sheep and lambs, it is clear Jesus is asking Peter to feed and tend his flock. That is what a shepherd does. It appears to me that he is asking Peter to shepherd his Church on earth, on his behalf.

Let me be clearer. I am not for an instant disputing the fact that Peter was the leader of the 12. He was also named “Rock” by Christ, although in the passage cited Jesus was referring to the truth as the rock for the church and not coincidentally Peters nickname. I do believe Peter was the preeminent Apostle. But Paul never referred to Peter as a Bishop in the earliest writings we have in scripture and neither does any later writings of scripture. Peter and Paul died together in Rome and as far as we know, neither of them was Bishop of Rome at the time. Early Fathers of the church used Peters primacy as chief Apostle to attach it to the church at Rome to grab leadership for themselves over the Bishops in other areas but all the other Bishops did not submit themselves to the title.

 

[TriuneUnity]

How did the ‘confession’ receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven AND the authority to bind and loose on earth?

It was Peter’s confession. You cannot separate the two.

Yes, it was, and was given to all of the apostles two chapters later. I do not discount Peter’s pre-eminence among the apostles. I agree, however, with St. John Chrysostom (among others), who said ''wherein Christ says, ‘And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;’ that is, on the faith of his confession, (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm)"

and Augustine, "“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. (Source:The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.)” and again,

“And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Source: John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.)”

 

[schaick]

Martin Luther should’ve recanted and avoided excommunication. Instead, he built another Church. Man cannot improve on what Christ built, and we all know that eventually a reform did take place in the Catholic Church.

*“If the emperor desires a plain answer, I will give it to him. It is impossible for me to recant unless I am proved to be wrong by the testimony of Scripture. My conscience is bound to the Word of God. It is neither safe nor honest to act against one’s conscience. Here I stand. God help me. I cannot do otherwise.” *

I have heard that he hought often on the following verses:
Matthew 10
18On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Matthew 10
28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 10
33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Have you ever heard of a prime minister that acts unilaterally without the assent of his cabinet?

Read Isaiah 22:22, and understand in the culture of those times, the holder of the keys acted in place of the king in his absence. What he closed, no one opened and what he opened, no one closed. 1 Chronicles 9, details the specifics of the keys abit more.

The Pope does not act unilaterally without the assent of his ‘cabinet’, even though as the key holder for the King, he has every right.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am not aware of any denomination that is a splinter off of Lutheranism. But this does not explain the position of Orthodoxy, and why on this issue, they and we are in agreement.

Jon, where did all the denominations come from? Martin Luther was first, then the others came.

The Lutheran Confessions recognize the jurisdiction as set in the early councils, and it does not invalidate our ministry. And the division within the Church regarding this existed long before Luther.

I thought there was evidence of infant baptism in the early Church. And Lutherans are not quick to reject the early writings of the Church.

Jon

Let me state, I feel closer to Lutherans than most other Protestants, who have left many beliefs behind and deny anyone’s right to believe. Recently, I have found a sincere respect of some Methodists. There are the exceptions, in all Churches, that preach an ‘anti-Catholic’ gospel that seem to want an even deeper separation, and I struggle with finding similarities with them.

Nothing would make me happier than to see ALL Christians unite.

There is evidence of infant baptism, the ‘measure’ of denial explicitly stated or not, reminded me of the infant baptism discussion on another thread. I was told ,by a Protestant, that the teaching is a contradiction of the Bible. I tried to explain, if it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible, it cannot be a contradiction. They didn’t agree.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yet at the earliest example of Christ’s church, which was in Jerusalem not Rome, in a council meeting where Peter was present, James presided. And Paul said that Peter ate with the Gentiles, until some came from James to challenge him? That does not sound like a man “at the head” of the church.

My interpretation differs from yours. Your point of Jerusalem not Rome is a moot point as the Church ended up in Rome, by the Apostles.

Peter rose up and spoke, then all discussions quieted. Then the Bishop of Jerusalem affirmed what Peter said.

There was a time Paul corrected Peter, as any good bishop should do, and Peter listened, as any good leader would do.

There was no divisions in the Church at that time, not like the picture you’re trying to paint.

I find it hard to believe anyone would even slightly besmirch any of the Apostles to somehow support a modern theology. :tsktsk:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let me be clearer. I am not for an instant disputing the fact that Peter was the leader of the 12. He was also named “Rock” by Christ, although in the passage cited Jesus was referring to the truth as the rock for the church and not coincidentally Peters nickname. I do believe Peter was the preeminent Apostle. But Paul never referred to Peter as a Bishop in the earliest writings we have in scripture and neither does any later writings of scripture. Peter and Paul died together in Rome and as far as we know, neither of them was Bishop of Rome at the time. Early Fathers of the church used Peters primacy as chief Apostle to attach it to the church at Rome to grab leadership for themselves over the Bishops in other areas but all the other Bishops did not submit themselves to the title.

Coincidently?

Christ starts off calling him Simon Bar-Jona and tells all that the answer was revealed to Peter by the Father in heaven.

**Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. **

Now Christ states, ‘Thou are Peter…’ The Greek word for rock. ‘…and upon THIS rock I will built my Church…’

**Mat 16:18 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. **

The Lord continued with a train of thought when He continued by saying, ‘AND I will give to thee the keys…’ Peter became the key holder. The Lord continued His speaking to Peter with, ‘AND whatsoever you bind on earth…’ He was ONLY speaking these words to Peter, in front of witnesses.

**Mat 16:19 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. **

Reading it any other way, is reading into it so it fits a theology.

Your power grab theory is ludicrous. There was one Church, one authority, until the great schism and then you had two Churches with Catholic beliefs. Martin Luther did not leave the Church over a question of leadership.

Again, you besmirch an Apostle with your theories, to support your theology. The two men were not divided.

You want to address why Peter’s name appears 195 times in the New Testament? More than all the Apostles put together?

 

[flightkid]

My interpretation differs from yours. Your point of Jerusalem not Rome is a moot point as the Church ended up in Rome, by the Apostles.

Peter rose up and spoke, then all discussions quieted. Then the Bishop of Jerusalem affirmed what Peter said.

There was a time Paul corrected Peter, as any good bishop should do, and Peter listened, as any good leader would do.

There was no divisions in the Church at that time, not like the picture you’re trying to paint.

I find it hard to believe anyone would even slightly besmirch any of the Apostles to somehow support a modern theology. :tsktsk:

Very good point!!! I will follow up too on this…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, it was, and was given to all of the apostles two chapters later. I do not discount Peter’s pre-eminence among the apostles. I agree, however, with St. John Chrysostom (among others), who said ''wherein Christ says, ‘And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;’ that is, on the faith of his confession, (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm)"

and Augustine, "“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. (Source:The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.)” and again,

“And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Source: John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.)”

You cannot separate the confession from Peter. Evidently, you are reading the direct writings of St. Augustine with a bias, no offense meant. And it’s very disrespectful of your source to refer to Peter as ‘Rocky’ to de-value the name change.

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.

And the authority was given to all the Apostles two chapters later, is missing a very important part that only Peter received, the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Christ, Matthew 18, was addressing where two or more was gathered, signifying a ‘local’ Church. To bind and loose was binding an offender from communion or loosing communion to the person involved in a dispute, depending on whether or not the person listened to the Church.

With the keys, Peter had doctrinal authority.

 

[flightkid]

Yet at the earliest example of Christ’s church, which was in Jerusalem not Rome, in a council meeting where Peter was present, James presided. And Paul said that Peter ate with the Gentiles, until some came from James to challenge him? That does not sound like a man “at the head” of the church.

Muddy, U are right, Paul did call Peter out on this rightfully so. Peter was not infalliable here, but this was a matter of DISCIPLINE and NOT DOCTRINE. A pope is not impeccable meaning does not sin. But a pope IS infalliable on matters of doctrine of faith and morals. This was a matter of discipline and Paul rightfully called Peter out on not wanting to eat with the Gentiles. An example of Peter being infalliable is in Acts when the have a council (sounds very Catholic) on whether on not circumcision is needed and all the Apostles(bishops) brought it to Peter in a council (Pope or aka a bishop also) and as Peter spoke infalliably saying the need for circumcision from the Old Law is no longer needed because of Christ and his new covenant and NOBODY spoke or asked questions. There was an example of Peter being infalliable on morals and faith.