P.P. with P.P. ?

[kwortham]

rkwortham:

Originally Posted by kwortham
(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.
(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.

I already commented on this.

Yes, you did. However, you failed to acknowledge a few things. First, Peter had his name changed by the Lord and this is always significant. Second, the keys were first given to Peter. Third, what did Christ say in the parable of talents?

(Mat 25:14) For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
(Mat 25:15) And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
(Mat 25:16) Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
(Mat 25:17) And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
(Mat 25:18) But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

Of course, you know this story, but consider this. The first servant was given five talents (Matt 16:18-19). The other servant was given two talents (Matt 18:18) and one servant was given a single talent (John 6:70-71). What was done with the talent that the unprofitable servant hid? It was given to the first. The first because of his primacy received the greatest blessing from the Lord, but also had the greatest responsibility. This is Peter.
"rkwortham:

Originally Posted by kwortham

Originally Posted by kwortham
(Luk 22:31) And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
(Luk 22:32) But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Should we not all strengthen the bretheren when we can?

Yes, we should, but do not miss the point that Jesus said this specifically to Peter. The brethren being referred to were the other apostles specifically.

Peter speaking in a passage where the other apostles don’t makes him a spokesman for the apostles, not one with papal authority.

In an isolated occurrence you could make this claim. However, given multiple scripture references and the writings of the the early church father’s, you would have to completely ignore sections of scripture and the other 1900 years of history to indulge in this delusion.

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. Successor to Peter - Saint Clement of Rome - Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1 [95 A.D.].

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. Saint Ignatius - Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [108 A.D.])

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 - St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 185])

 

[kwortham]

"rkwortham:

Originally Posted by kwortham
[Peter dispenses the first Church Discipline]
(Act 5:1) But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land,
(Act 5:2) And by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto: and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles.
(Act 5:3) But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost and by fraud keep part of the price of the land?
(Act 5:4) Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.
(Act 5:5) And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost. And there came great fear upon all that heard it.

Did not other apostles question people about their sins and their motives?

Most assuredly! This would be in keeping with Matt 18:18. However, the writer of Acts thought it important to show the primacy of Peter in narrating the first excommunication/punishment for Ananias and Saphira for their sin against the Church under the leadership of Peter.
"rkwortham:

Originally Posted by kwortham
(Act 5:15) Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

Did not other apostles perform miracles and receive this attention?

Other apostles did perform miracles, but the author of Acts felt it necessary to acknowledge Peter’s primacy. At this point and in these situations during this post-Pentecost period, while all of the apostles were in one place, the writer acknowledged the primacy of Peter by giving this narration to him. Could the shadows of other apostles have the same effect on the sick and infirm? It is possible and even probable. However, the importance of this verse is to show Peter as the prime apostle by attributing this healing miracle of the shadow to him and his place in the stewardship of the Lord.

This post is much too long. So let me acknowledge that Peter was a man and not God. However, he was the chief steward of the Lord. Also, what version of the bible did you get this verse out of?

2 Corinthians 11:5
(Paul writing) For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

The KJV, DRB and others render this verse in this manner:

(KJV) 2Co 11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

(Douay Rheims Bible) 2Co 11:5 For I suppose that I have done nothing less than the great apostles.

In these translations it is clear that Paul acknowledged a pecking order.

 

[PJM]

=exnihilo;9334860]Peter seemed to have a certain primacy among the Apostles. The Bishop of Rome has a certain primacy. At the moment I see it as primus inter pares of the Ancient Sees with jurisdiction over the West.

I agree that is a problem. Aristotle and St. Thomas regarded monarchy, in as much as it had a properly ordered unity of purpose, as a superior form of government. Regarding the OT times, as I understand it, God instituted Judges and the people then clamored for a king. They got their wish in King Saul. That didn’t turn out so well. But they had kings from then on.

It seems to me we are led by a single man, whether he gets his power by birth or election. There is nothing inherently wrong with a monarch. At any point in time half of the US is supremely dissatisfied with the man who reigns supreme (with far more power than most kings ever had), yet they obey him. Most accept that we must yield to the secular powers (except of course where they would have us violate God’s Law). So I’m not really sure what the issue could be regarding having a single ruler. And, if we must obey the state I dont know why the church would have no authority. Most people dont think we can just set up our own governments whenever we dont like or agree with the leader so I’m not sure why the state gets more authority from Christians than the Church.

That is some of what I’ve been thinking lately.

Mal.3: 6 "For I the LORD do not change”

Has not God with forethought and consistancy always chosen One Man to lead; to speak on His behalf, with HIS Authority? Abram, Noah, Moses, Jacob, David, the Prophets, John the Baptist and then Peter… …So why the "surprise?

If One reads carefully Matthew 16:15-19 one NOTES that the idea of KINGSHIP is very much on Christ mind as He appoints Peter to be the “Prime Minister” who answers ONLY to "the King Jesus" and by absolute necessity is granted “powers to bind and loose”]; UNLIMITED Governance of Christ Earthy Kingdom.

With authority comes Powers and with Powers responsibility. There is very much evidence of this scatted throughout the NT.

Just as Peter consulted the other Apostles, so today we have the Magisterium. RARE are the times when the Supreme Pontiff acts “solely on his own iniative.” Even though that remaons a constant option for him.

Let us not forget that God REMAINS in CHARGE! John 17:15-19; John 20:19-22.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[exnihilo]

That was the best they could do at the time. We can do better now.

I would caution you about this line of argument. This is the same argument promoted by heretics and pagans who say we have advanced or evolved. They assume the world is getting better. They accept as a matter of faith that the world improves over time. Christianity believes the world is not getting better it is getting worse. The Garden of Eden was paradise. The world today is fallen. I would have doubts about the superiority of modern man based on just a few statistics: divorce, abortion, and use of drugs (particularly anti-depressants).

Take freedom of religion, for example. It’s a relatively recent thing as far as it being acknowledged and protected. There were virtually no people-groups before or during the time of Christ that were free societies in terms of religion, and that continued to be the case through most of Christian history.

I agree that modern western states (that is former Christian societies) do tend to allow freedom of religion. But western states are also becoming more hostile to religion, the HHS mandate being a good example. And you have in recent history the scourge of communism which actively destroyed religion, particularly the Christian Faith. I think the evidence is mixed and not enough time has passed to make this judgement that man has somehow improved in terms of freedom of religion.

Likewise, a church with something along the lines of a self-governing laity is not just different from an authoritarian, rigidly hierarchical system of leadership with a monarch at the helm- it is better.

I think it unwarranted to say a democracy is always better than a monarchy. A good monarch can be better than a bad democracy. If the people are as in as bad a shape as modern Americans, and I assume given the things mentioned above you do agree America is in trouble, why would you think a people of such low morality would elect good leaders? It seems to me they would elect leaders that encourage them in their wickedness. This could be true of church members as much as it is true for voters in government elections.

 

[Taestron]

Admittedly, I am much more sympathetic to Catholic views than most Protestants, but I think I have an answer that many Protestants share. We look at history (albeit our very selective version) and we see many times where Peter and his successors failed. This starts with Peter himself
[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 2:13-14[/BIBLEDRB]

For many Protestants, the doctrine of infallibility of the Popemeans that the Pope is perfect, that every thing he says or everything he does is gospel truth. While I know that this is not what this doctrine states, this is what the doctrine means to many Protestants.

For myself, I have no problem with the Doctrine of Infallibility in theory. But I do question how it has been used. I respect Mary and even agree with (certain of) the Marian Dogmas. But to elevate these things to the level of dogma seems to me -and many Protestants I think- a grave breach of the trust required by the Doctrine of Infallibility of the Pope.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Traverse
I’m sorry,

I just don’t see Peter in a leadership role in the bible as some claim to see. It’s as simple as that really.

Dear friend in Christ; in addition to fatual history and testimony of “The Fathers” the NT had at least 50 Peter First. No one else even comes close to this.

The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically-based,

1. Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
2. Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7).

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). .
2. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else.
3. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).
4. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church,
5. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
6. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
7. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
8. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
9. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
10. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).
11. Christ teaches from Peter’s boat,
12. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).
13. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
14. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church,
15. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).
16. Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
17. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
18. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel”
19. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
20. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
21. Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
22. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
23. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
24. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
25. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
26. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age
27. The whole Church offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
28. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
29. Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8).
30. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).
31. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.).
32. Peter’s name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples (Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).
33. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water Mt 14:28-32
34. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
35. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas).
36. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture,"
37. Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).
38. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
39. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
40. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43).
41. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry
42. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet
    5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or “elders.”
43. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).
44. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. “Babylon” (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[PJM]

=DaddyGirl;9339981]I have problems with Jeshua’s whole “upon this rock” scene with Peter. When I read it, over and over–each time…I cannot see how it is interpreted as Jeshua making Peter the first pope. It doesn’t read like that to me at all and I wonder why it has been interpreted that way–especially because there is a scene later on the bible where the apostles are arguing about who is the higher apostle or some such thing…(right?).

Does anyone know…who officially interpreted the line in this way? To mean he is meant to be the first pope? Would like to know more about the origin of the interpretation.
Would this have happened at one of the councils centuries later?

Oh, hold on…looking at more posts now…this may have been answered already. If so, disregard my repetition…

First one must seek to place themselves at the scene. What Jesus did ought not be unexpected. Christ KNEW and spoke often of His pending Daeth. Thus He had TWO Coices:

1. Let everything just end with His Death
2. Set up as any “manager of a new enterprise would do” a plan for its contiunation.

Maybe breaking it down will be helpful?

Mt. 16:15-19 " Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 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. [18] And I [God] say to thee:[You Peter] That thou art Peter; and upon this rock [Upon YOU PETER]** I will build my church,** [Unspoken here is the FACT that the term “church” is introduced here by Christ to clarify not only a New Covenant; but a New set of Faith beliefs, a new Chosen People and HOW one MIGHT gain there salvation through THIS ONE CHURCH[/COLOR]] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I [God; promise] will give to thee [YOU PETER] 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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

God is PERFECT and used exactly the WORDS he dis because they BEST explained what he was doing.

STRONGS Lexicon of Hebrew and Greek show that the powers of “binding and loosing” were common terms at the TIME of Christ. USED BY KINGS OF WALLED-IN-CITES [LIKE JERUSALEM WAS] WITH REAL GATES AND A CHOSEN PRIME MINISTER [THE ROLE KING JESUS PASSES TO PETER] TO UNLIMITED GOVERANCE OF DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF “THE CITY” ANSWERABLE ONLY TO THE KING".

Everyone present UNDERSTOOD this which is why there was to deabte or arguments about it.

Paul the “LAST Apostle appointed by God” has theis to share:

John.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”

Eph. 4: 1-7 “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith,[means ONLY One set of beliefs] one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift".

Eph. 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

God Bless,
pat/PJM