P
PJM
Guest
Protestant Problems with Peters primacy: What’s YOUR opinion?
- Status
P
Publisher
Guest
Don’t really have any problems with Peter…or his position he held with the rest of the apostles…James and John seem to have been along with Peter the “inner core” so to speak.
For me making a deal of his “primacy” seems to have been addressed in Pauls letter as believers claimed to be “of Appolos, of Cephas…of XYZ” and because they claimed their respective “leaders” superiority…Paul in a very small way spoke to that issue occuring in Corinth.
P
PJM
Guest
Thanks for your responce!
pat/PJM
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
The children of Reformation are in a dilemma. They did not decide to get out of the Catholic Church.
They are following their ancestors choice and go back to the Catholic Church is a betrayal of their ancestors tradition.
So do, individually, but as a group, I have never seen.
So, they must justify the choice Calvin, Luther, Henry VIII did.
For instance, in the case of Henry VIII, it is almost unbearable to see how they try to go around the King trying to get rid of him and justify at the same time a position that was taken by him. It is not nice to see their struggle to stay faithful to their creed and at the same time avoiding to justify the unjustifiable.
So, Protestant are not blind. They see perfectly well that the Pope has a stature in the world that their leaders do not have. I think it was the Archbishop of Canterbury who told that he accepted the Pope as the spokesman for Christianity.
In discussion I had with Protestant, I think they try to justify their position and use any argument at all, like we are all united, we do not need Pope at all, if I am not well here, I may choose another Church, try to tell that the Church of Rome today is not the Early Church, that the succession from Peter to the second Pope is not clear, that Popes are not in Scripture, that the words of Jesus to Peter are not what the RCC interprets.
There are some who go to insult, calling the RCC the great whore of Babylon and I was surprised for I did not even know where it was in the Bible.
So, I think you get all kinds of positions towards the Pope.
T
Traverse
Guest
I agree. It’s mostly a depressing argument I’ve seen. While I don’t recognize the position of the papal office myself, I disagree vehemently with the idea that we are all united despite differing doctrine and that any church is a good church if it works well for you.
P
Publisher
Guest
That’s the interesting thing for me…the pope isn’t on the radar for most Protestants i know…he’s no more an “authority” than the Clerk of the Yearly Meeting I belong to or the Presiding Elder of any number of Protestant groups on a national/world level…he’s the head of the Catholic church…his words are no more binding than are the words of Katherine Schori-Jeffors…he just is a leader of a large group…albeit the largest group of Christians…but…No…we don’t need a pope…most of us find the “succession” and “list of popes” from Peter to the present to be “suspect”…it’s a nice “sacred story” for Catholics to believe…but it makes no sense or impact on me and my walk with God…he’s a man who happens to be the leader of a large group of people claiming things about him I can’t and don’t accept.
The only time I really even consider the pope is when Catholics make assertions about what Protestants “really think” about the pope…
P
PJM
Guest
My friend, share with me please why not? It seems to be biblical and it is cleary historical.
God Bless,
pat/PJM
S
Sixpence
Guest
As far as Peter himself goes, I have a problem with the idea that he held authority over all Christians everywhere, and that he stood alone as the sole man in charge of all Rome. Authority, in this context, extends from you (the royal you) to all the people you’re able to disfellowship and it extends no further. Peter did not have the final say or even a partial say on any and all disfellowshippings within his lifetime, and the full extent of his authority didn’t even cover all of Rome. Statements to the contrary are not consistent with historical reality, and while it is possible for Catholics to acknowledge this reality and describe more of an unfolding of Roman primacy that grew out of a more accurate kernel into eventual supremacy, a more inaccurate point of view seems to have had more prevalence in a kind of ahistorical tradition-is-what-we-tend-to-believe way of viewing things. Also, it can be accompanied by an attitude that refuses to submit to falsifiability so that beliefs can, where necessary, be replaced by facts.
P
PJM
Guest
Good point.
Both are of interest.
God Bless you Jon,
nice to hear from you again,
Pat
Even though christ warned against the disciples having a “pecking” order, there seems to be times when different ones took leading roles. Peter, certainly after the Ascension, held a leading role, along with Paul, and even James.Good point.
Both are of interest.
God Bless you Jon,
nice to hear from you again,
Pat
A for the Primacy of the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, a lot depends on what one means by primacy. Certainly, in the west, he has jurisdiction. As a whole Church, he has a primacy of respect and honor.
Jon
T
Traverse
Guest
I’m sorry, which part are you commenting on? Why I don’t hold to the office of the pope or why I don’t think any church is as good as any other church?
If it’s the pope issue…
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. In that famous Matthew passage where Christ says “on this rock I will build my church” and so on, it seems more like a recognition of Peter’s confession than it is a elevation of Peter’s status. For example, when the authority to “bind and loose” is given to Peter, it is also later given to all apostles.
Matthew 18:15-18
"If your brother sins , go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
So we see here that this is about the authority of the church, not one man. Jesus said this to his disciples that were with him and not one person, which is why I take it to mean it applies to the church as a whole. Furthermore, it explains what the “bind and loose” issue mean. It’s about keeping our brothers on the right path.
But mostly I think of when the apostles were arguing about who among them was the greatest shortly before Christ died. Significant time had passed since Jesus had given Simon the name Peter. I’m sure some try to argue that Christ’s answer is trying to say that Peter wasn’t pope, but what really stands out to me is that none of the other apostles recognized Peter has having any special authority, yet if he had a special authority there would be no reason for them not to understand that by this time.
That is, at least, what stands out to me. I’m aware that Peter’s name is often listed first when numbered with other apostles, but I’ve never found that to be anything other than a coincidence.
P
PJM
Guest
It’s SOOOO nice to agree my friend,
God’s continued blessings be with you Jon,
Pat
N
Nicea325
Guest
Really? Problem with Christians,especially in the U.S. is the anti-kingship attitude due to democratic ideals. Jesus’ had no qualms with Rome having an emperor or the Jewish kingdom having a king. The OT is full of monarchial rule.
E
exnihilo
Guest
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.
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.
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.
K
kwortham
Guest
(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.
(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.***
(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.
(Joh 21:17) He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
(Act 1:15) And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
(Act 2:14) But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
(Act 2:37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
(Act 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[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.
(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.
[Peter convenes the first Church Council]
(Act 15:7) And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
And you do not see Peter in a leadership role?
T
Traverse
Guest
Isn’t this talking about Eliakim the son of Hilkiah in a completely different context?
I already commented on this.
Should we not all strengthen the bretheren when we can?
See above.
Peter speaking in a passage where the other apostles don’t makes him a spokesman for the apostles, not one with papal authority.
Did not other apostles question people about their sins and their motives?
Did not other apostles perform miracles and receive this attention?
Just a couple verses up it says so.
Acts 5:12-13
At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico. But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem.
Peter is one of many that spoke at the council. As did James. What’s key here is the next bit…
Acts 15:23
…and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.
It wasn’t some papal decree that went out, it was a unified thought.
My comments do not in themselves dispute the primacy of Peter, but I wish to point out to you how it’s not hard to see the verses you shared in a different light. Furthermore, there are other verses that seem to contradict the idea of Peter as a leader. Maybe they are verses that have been commented on before in the catholic faith but I’d be interested in your comment on them.
1 Peter 5:1
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed…
Acts 10:25-26
When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him.
But Peter raised him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am just a man.”
2 Corinthians 11:5
(Paul writing) For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.
Consider the spiritual keys Peter was given. Keys open doors. Peter was to teach, to reveal the word of Christ. I don’t see the keys as having any additional authority beyond that.
S
Sixpence
Guest
That was the best they could do at the time. We can do better now. 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. Up to a certain point, there wasn’t much that could be done about it- and in many ways, this is roughly analagous to the slavery issue. But as soon as we’re able to do something about it, we had better take that opportunity and do something. A society without slavery is not just different from an enslaved people, it is better. A society with freedom of religion is not just different from one where the ruler of a country or empire picks the religion on behalf of all his citizens- the free country is the better one, and given a fair choice between the two, you had better pick the better one. 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. None of the superior items in this list are mentioned in the Bible, nor did they really even exist (at least not in ways that were notable and competitive in the long-term) until the past handful of centuries. But they’re still better, superior, preferable, and the options I’ll choose to go with. It’s the right choice.
K
kwortham
Guest
Yes, if you do not believe that the Old Testament was a foreshadowing of Christian times and the New Testament. By that logic, Melchizedek was just some old priest that Abraham and Sarah met and should not be considered a foreshadowing of anything in the New Testament Christian times. Just disregard the following:
Gen_14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Psa_110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
Heb 5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Also, since there is no foreshadowing according to you (at least I think that you hinted that you do not believe in it), then you would also fail to acknowledge a link in the following as to any foreshadowing of baptismal regeneration and entry into the Church:
(Eze 36:25) Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
(Eze 36:26) A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
(Eze 36:27) And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
(Eze 36:28) And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
If the above verses refer not to something foreshadowed in the NT, then to what is being referred.
Since we believe that the Old Testament foreshadows the New Testament, then we plainly see that Melchizedek in the OT foreshadowed Christ in the NT. We clearly see that the sprinkling of water in Ezekiel 36:25 OT foreshadowed baptismal regeneration in the NT. Of course, the wording of these verses cannot be anything other than the OT foreshadowing the NT:
(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.
(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.
Please forgive the pause at this point. I found out that my mother (c of C member) is in the hospital and I have to check on her. I will get back to your post later tonight or in the morning.
- Status