Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

[KathleenGee]

We agree with your last post.

It is not about Peter’s claim.

It is about Christ appointing Peter to head His Church as stated in Sacred Scripture…

All this going about and deflecting makes me remember St. Thomas who said he would not believe unless he could place his fingers in the wounds of Christ…and eventually he did.

May be check out an old article on Called to Communion website, August 2009…‘Catholics are Ecclesial Deists’…implying our church is physical…like Peter was…something you can place your fingers into…

 

[Tomyris]

We agree with your last post.

It is not about Peter’s claim.

It is about Christ appointing Peter to head His Church as stated in Sacred Scripture…

**All this going about and deflecting **makes me remember St. Thomas who said he would not believe unless he could place his fingers in the wounds of Christ…and eventually he did.

May be check out an old article on Called to Communion website, August 2009…‘Catholics are Ecclesial Deists’…implying our church is physical…like Peter was…something you can place your fingers into…

What do you mean by the part I bolded? Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

 

[Magdalena59]

He never claimed anyone would be greater, either. This is an argument from silence. .

Jesus asked Peter specifically to feed his sheep. John 21.

‘you’ in the passage is the apostles - this is a dispute between the disciples. They were continually arguing about who is the greatest. Instead of saying ‘Peter’, Jesus gave them this lecture repeatedly. They were still arguing about who was the greatest among them - and Jesus was saying none of them and they were not to think that way.
.

In Luke 22 Jesus doesn’t say none of them would be greater than the other. He is explaining what kind of leader they were to be. You are reading more into that passage than what is there.

From a Reformed perspective, bishops and popes have been a disaster for the church. A presbyterian structure would have guarded the church from men who were more interested in their own stature, position and wealth, and followers who wanted their own see advanced beyond that of others, and the development of factionalism and envy. .

How many times do employees think they can do a better job than their employer. That is what is going on here. This is saying I don’t like the way things are done and I can do better.

God did not choose the reformed theology to head His Church. He chose the Catholic Pope and bishops.

Plus Presbyterian is so divided we can see that perspective already would not have worked.

Paul (subject of the thread, by the way) would have none of it in 1 Cor 1. He went so far as to be grateful that he had baptized none of them.

Paul did not like the disagreeing and the divisions. Again an argument for the unity of the Catholic church.

KathleenGee;12807242:

We agree with your last post.

It is not about Peter’s claim.

It is about Christ appointing Peter to head His Church as stated in Sacred Scripture…

All this going about and deflecting makes me remember St. Thomas who said he would not believe unless he could place his fingers in the wounds of Christ…and eventually he did.

May be check out an old article on Called to Communion website, August 2009…‘Catholics are Ecclesial Deists’…implying our church is physical…like Peter was…something you can place your fingers into…

What do you mean by the part I bolded? Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

I am not KathleenGee but it appears to me that what she is saying is there is a lot of arguing over things that don’t point to truth, a turning away from truth to justify not believing. Deviating from what can be seen.

St. Thomas was one who had to see to believe and that the Catholic church is a place you can put your fingers into and believe because it is there, just as the wounds in Jesus’ side were there and enabled him to believe.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Who is steve b?

Thank you for giving credit for one of your sources.

Oh, did you do all that research for your Protestant Pope Pals list, or did you crib that somewhere, without attestation? In the first case I would congratulate you for your diligent research, in the second castigate you for plagiarism and fraudulently representing it as your own work. Which is it?

As I noted in the post, the information I presented was originally posted by steve b, and you can see his post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3544884&highlight=hegeomai#post3544884

Since I specifically noted that steve b was the author of the post (which you know since you asked his identity), how have I plagiarized or fraudulently represented it as my own work?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I like this part. :thumbsupoes not follow…You just said God does not need anything, now you say he does.

No you misunderstood, Jesus needed to leave a steward in the same way he needed to die on a cross…because we needed it. We need a leader, a visible head of our church to guide us less we dissolve into bickering…basically an umpire.

But you do not know what form that protection may take or how he guards the truth. You could equally say Jim Jones or the Pope is the Chosen Vessel by that argument. Or Daffy Duck.

this is where history comes in…do they have a historical lineage to the apostles? If not then they are not the church. And it is not the fullness of truth.

 

[KathleenGee]

Randy, Tomyris, is quite clear and resourceful with documented history.

You have to consider…what is our rebuttal outside quotes of Scripture…because it then comes down to my interpretation vs yours.

Our Church is not founded on personal interpretation.

Church is created by God, not us. The Church is created for us, just as we see in Exodus. Moses was given the 10 commandments. The Lord dictated to Moses not only the requirements of building the temple, but also the form of worship, the daily sacrifice…which required the priesthood…who likewise were to be kept separate and dressed a certain way, acknowledging even their garments were given a pattern to create…by God’s people…with the work of their hands.

We are spiritual children. Look at the apostles after the Resurrection who still could not understand Scripture until Christ broke bread with them…symbolizing the Eucharist.

Christ is the Lifeblood of the Church, the living Cornerstone.

Christ is the Word Made Flesh…meaning He is tactile, to be touched, to be eaten…fulfilling our calling to eat of the Tree of Life…that Adam and Eve could always see in front of them but could not eat.

We don’t interpret the Word of God per se, we consume the Word…great book by Dr Scott Hahn. Our life in the Church is beyond us, but she is something we enter into, as a living sacrament. And we cannot make sacraments. We can bring forth the means with the work of our hands…but it is the priesthood…the fulfilled priesthood with Christ as High Priest giving us His life through the hands of His priestly ministers.

We are not only nurtured by God’s Word, but also by His sacraments that made the Word come to life in concrete forms that we can see, experience, touch, and consume to receive Eternal Life.

So you go back into history and you will find that the spirit, tone, parts of the perpetual daily sacrifice of the breaking of the bread was in effect since Christianity’s beginnings and it continues today in the daily Mass, the perpetual sacrifice of bread and wine, that which was foretold by the mysterious priest Melchizedek. But this bread and wine not ordinary form but the living Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

We consume the Word in Eucharist.

 

[benhur]

Having established that some are greater than others, we would then draw on other verses to demonstrate that Peter was chosen to be the “greatest” of them all.

Some indeed are greater in service and spiritual works than others. As far as the apostles, it also quite clear they are equals as in “young =old, Peter/John”, “server=served”. That is not say that one is not more a leader than others, or that one does not edge out another in works. So while the Lord rewards justly, He also does as He pleases and may reward equally if He so chooses. Peter does not have a place any different than the the others .He says there are 12 thrones.The 12 indicates a completeness even an equality. That is why I like the phrase that Peter was “first amongst equals”. It does not deny his giftings,even leadership, but avoids the pitfall of any further petrine/papal doctrine.

The twelve may be an actual twelve thrones but it may be figurative also. For sure Paul, even Barnabus, were apostles .No one in their right mind would say Paul was “left out " on such"judging” (Mathias having replaced Judas). Nor are we left out.

“Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” 1 Cor. 6:2

For sure all of us will “rule”. All of us have that gifting (even now) and reward.

Jesus puts a twist on everything like inside out, topsy turvy, ironic in His kingdom paradigms.

The modern day papacy is quite understandable, even desirable, but worldly paradigmed in my opinion.

One more reason why we rightly long for His return, when all things will have been put under His feet, and all will visibly see him on the throne. Some may say the Petrine chair is a forerunner to that , but others say it is an impatient short cut.

 

[Magdalena59]

…
You have to consider…what is our rebuttal outside quotes of Scripture…because it then comes down to my interpretation vs yours.

Our Church is not founded on personal interpretation…

This is such a good point. Debating personal interpretation of scripture is routine for non-Catholics and in the end of the day many will leave each other with the understanding that they just disagree with each other but that is okay, which it is not okay.

We don’t interpret the Word of God per se, we ** consume the Word…great book by Dr Scott Hahn.** Our life in the Church is beyond us, but she is something we enter into, as a living sacrament. And we cannot make sacraments. We can bring forth the means with the work of our hands…but it is the priesthood…the fulfilled priesthood with Christ as High Priest giving us His life through the hands of His priestly ministers.

We are not only nurtured by God’s Word, but also by His sacraments that made the Word come to life in concrete forms that we can see, experience, touch, and consume to receive Eternal Life.

So you go back into history and you will find that the spirit, tone, parts of the perpetual daily sacrifice of the breaking of the bread was in effect since Christianity’s beginnings and it continues today in the daily Mass, the perpetual sacrifice of bread and wine, that which was foretold by the mysterious priest Melchizedek. But this bread and wine not ordinary form but the living Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

We consume the Word in Eucharist.

I just purchased Consuming the Word by Scott Hahn and am looking forward to reading it, even more so after reading this post,

God bless.

 

[benhur]

And we cannot make sacraments.

I hate when folk say this, "Scripture and verse please’’.

We have a dignity and gifting to judge ,we also have the dignity to the most basic elements of the priesthood.

The first church met in hundreds of house, broke bread daily. Their is no historical evidence that only the twelve broke the bread. Their is no evidence that a “resider” a "president’’ had to be a priest.

In larger settings things were to be done in order, and that someone was appointed to "lead the "meeting’’ does not mean the "leader was not “laity” but a priest . Such distinctions evolved.

Part of this goes hand in hand with what folks understood “breaking bread/eucharisting” to be.it is interesting that with real presence explanation comes need of “real priests”.

I am of the opinion, as are others, that it was just done. Eucharist was eucharist .Some thought it a spiritual representation others physical, others symbolic but for all a holy solemn, unifying commemorization. They did not need gold cups and plates. They did not need to consume all the consecrated wine.They had one loaf and broke it.

 

[SteveVH]

I hate when folk say this, "Scripture and verse please’’.

Should we instead ask for evidence from Tradition? How would that go over? I see nothing wrong with being asked to back up our assertions.

I am of the opinion, as are others, that it was just done. Eucharist was eucharist .Some thought it a spiritual representation others physical, others symbolic but for all a holy solemn, unifying commemorization. They did not need gold cups and plates. They did not need to consume all the consecrated wine.They had one loaf and broke it.

How do you know this? I know you don’t want to be pressed to provide a Bible verse, but what evidence do you have that everyone was just doing their own thing and it was just fine to do so? Why did Paul admonish those who were receiving the Eucharist without discerning the body and blood of the Lord? Why did he tell them that they had called down judgment upon themselves?

 

[Magdalena59]

I hate when folk say this, "Scripture and verse please’’.

We have a dignity and gifting to judge ,we also have the dignity to the most basic elements of the priesthood.

The first church met in hundreds of house, broke bread daily. Their is no historical evidence that only the twelve broke the bread. Their is no evidence that a “resider” a "president’’ had to be a priest.

In larger settings things were to be done in order, and that someone was appointed to "lead the "meeting’’ does not mean the "leader was not “laity” but a priest . Such distinctions evolved.

Part of this goes hand in hand with what folks understood “breaking bread/eucharisting” to be.it is interesting that with real presence explanation comes need of “real priests”.

I am of the opinion, as are others, that it was just done. Eucharist was eucharist .Some thought it a spiritual representation others physical, others symbolic but for all a holy solemn, unifying commemorization. They did not need gold cups and plates. They did not need to consume all the consecrated wine.They had one loaf and broke it.

I am curious also as to how you know this, especially since your post says “I am of the opinion”.

 

[eddie_too]

this question of who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven is answered directly by Jesus in the first few verses of Matthew, chapter 18.

seeing the topic of this thread, maybe it is better to discuss who has the greatest formal authority within Christendom?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Some indeed are greater in service and spiritual works than others. As far as the apostles, it also quite clear they are equals as in “young =old, Peter/John”, “server=served”. That is not say that one is not more a leader than others, or that one does not edge out another in works. So while the Lord rewards justly, He also does as He pleases and may reward equally if He so chooses. Peter does not have a place any different than the the others .He says there are 12 thrones.The 12 indicates a completeness even an equality. That is why I like the phrase that Peter was “first amongst equals”. It does not deny his giftings,even leadership, but avoids the pitfall of any further petrine/papal doctrine.

The twelve may be an actual twelve thrones but it may be figurative also. For sure Paul, even Barnabus, were apostles .No one in their right mind would say Paul was “left out " on such"judging” (Mathias having replaced Judas). Nor are we left out.

“Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” 1 Cor. 6:2

For sure all of us will “rule”. All of us have that gifting (even now) and reward.

Jesus puts a twist on everything like inside out, topsy turvy, ironic in His kingdom paradigms.

The modern day papacy is quite understandable, even desirable, but worldly paradigmed in my opinion.

One more reason why we rightly long for His return, when all things will have been put under His feet, and all will visibly see him on the throne. Some may say the Petrine chair is a forerunner to that , but others say it is an impatient short cut.

So if church authority is a worldly idea and we all rule…

How and why would Jesus proscribe the last part of Matt 18.

You know that part where one takes their dispute to the church, and if they don’t listen to the church they become outcasts.

Maybe explain in practical terms how this works in your opinion.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

And how many times did Paul refer to him as Cephas?

 

[Jon_S_1]

And how many times did Paul refer to him as Cephas?

Yes I don’t see how it follows that because Paul sometimes used “Simon” that he was being “disrespectful” or undermining Peters authority.

I think the opposite is more likely.

Remember these are letters. If I am really close with someone important I generally am less formal with them. I feel this is what is seen in the New Testsment.

So example: I’m best friends with Pope Francis. Would I always call him “Your holiness Pope Francis” or would I often call him Jorge?

I think it’s far more likely that based on the letter and its audience sometimes a formal Cephas was used and sometimes a casual “my friend Simon” was used.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes I don’t see how it follows that because Paul sometimes used “Peter” that he was bring “disrespectful” or undermining Peters authority.

I think the opposite is more likely.

Remember these are letters. If I am really close with someone important I generally am less formal with them. I feel this is what is seen in the New Testsment.

So example: I’m best friends with Pope Francis. Would I always call him “Your holiness Pope Francis” or would I often call him Jorge?

I think it’s far more likely that based on the letter and its audience sometimes a formal Cephas was used and sometimes a casual “my friend Peter” was used.

Do you mean “Simon”? Peter is “Cephas”.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Do you mean “Simon”? Peter is “Cephas”.

Haha yes!!! My bad…guess I’m not firing on all cylinders today!

Thankfully you caught it soon enough that I could edit the corrections and we can pretend it didn’t happen!

 

[DCNBILL]

Boy ho it would seem from some of the talk around here that God went through all of the business of the Incarnation and then left people (who He created and most likely knows what they are like) with no one in charge and no way to insure that there will always be someone in charge. What a careless God that would be.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

There’s a lot of hair splitting going on on this post. I guess Jesus was speaking empty words when He solely gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. It doesn’t matter that they were Jews and He was using kingdom language that was familiar to their culture. Maybe we should just blot out that portion of scripture since being “over the house” means nothing, although Judaic scholars would beg to differ with every non-Catholic position.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Magdalena for better explaining my position. You may want to start with the “Supper of the Lamb”…also by Dr Scott Hahn and an immediate seller, as well as ‘Consuming the Word’, which lays out the covenants given to His people up to the Covenant of the Blood of Christ shed for us.

Benhur, there is no way any Christians could worship the Lord in the Jewish form of the Memorial except it made known by the apostles.

All we believe and practice originally came to us from the apostles…this testimony given in the Acts and their letters.

We can further state that through scholarly research, and I am repeating now my parochial vicar who is indeed a biblical scholar…that the apostles had scribes and the gospels are attributed to the apostles who dictated to their scribes but we don’t know who most of the scribes are. We know that there were pupils of the apostles such as those under John, and Peter’s son, Mark, but again…many helped build the Church…but it primarily coming and being established by the apostles.

So what we found our faith in CHrist on is His Word…and the Mass is totally founded on Sacred Scripture as well as its parts tone and spirit the same today as it was 2000 years ago. This practice of living out our faith is also based on the apostles, sacred Tradition…as SS Peter and Paul exhorted us to follow their teachings and the traditions given to us.

Just as we cannot separate correct way of thinking from the correct way of acting – orthodoxy and orthopraxis, which is the right way of behaving, likewise we cannot separate the Word of God from its connection directly to its believers and the process of integrating the Word of God into life…that continues to emanate Jesus Christ. We cannot do this, but the clergy can.

We cannot separate the Word of God from Jesus, we cannot separate the Word of God from its people otherwise we are in a place where Christ is not fully revealed for all that He intends for us to have in His life.

Likewise Word cannot be separated from worship. True worship takes us into the depth of Christ…to the very center of His being present in the Mass through the mystery of faith.

All these gifts of testimony are beyond human beings but the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church through the apostles, the same now as yesterday.