Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul says the Rock was Christ. Paul says he opposed Peter to his face because he stood condemned. Paul said he who plants and waters is; and I quote “nothing”. Paul condemns the Church for saying “I follow Cephas.”

These are ample opportunities for Paul to clarify that Peter is a special Pope; he doesn’t. There’s nothing.
The Corinthian church was divided into factions. Paul appeals to them to put aside their differences with these words:

1 Corinthians 1:10-17 New International Version (NIV)
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

If Paul is chastising the Corinthians for saying, “I follow Cephas”, is he condemning those who say, “I follow Paul” or even “I follow Christ” in the same sentence? :sad_yes: All four groups were equally guilty of fighting with one another and destroying the unity of the Corinthian church.

The overall point of this passage is that factionalism is wrong. So, “there’s nothing” in this passage that has ANYTHING to do with Paul’s opinion of Peter as it relates to the subject of this thread.

If anything, this passage is another example of Paul placing himself side by side with Apollos (a “super-apostle”) and Cephas (the head of the Church). This is a matter that will come up again in his second epistle to Corinth.
 
The Corinthian church was divided into factions. Paul appeals to them to put aside their differences with these words:

1 Corinthians 1:10-17 New International Version (NIV)
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

If Paul is chastising the Corinthians for saying, “I follow Cephas”, is he condemning those who say, “I follow Paul” or even “I follow Christ” in the same sentence? :sad_yes: All four groups were equally guilty of fighting with one another and destroying the unity of the Corinthian church.

The overall point of this passage is that factionalism is wrong. So, “there’s nothing” in this passage that has ANYTHING to do with Paul’s opinion of Peter as it relates to the subject of this thread.

If anything, this passage is another example of Paul placing himself side by side with Apollos (a “super-apostle”) and Cephas (the head of the Church). This is a matter that will come up again in his second epistle to Corinth.
It absolutely does have to do with this discussion; as the Orthodox and Protestants are all in disagreement over Peter’s role and how it relates to the Papacy when we all claim to follow Christ.

Paul would be disgusted in all of us. We have all failed him by denying each other communion because of our disagreement over Peter when we all have Christ. This passage truly does speak to me, because it’s still an issue today.
Post #16.

Paul went to Jerusalem twice to be schooled by Peter.

So, there’s something.
When Paul converted it would only make sense that he would learn from those before him.

Peter certainly was “a rock” but we’re considered rocks as well, and Paul clears it up that “The Rock was Christ.”
 
It absolutely does have to do with this discussion; as the Orthodox and Protestants are all in disagreement over Peter’s role and how it relates to the Papacy when we all claim to follow Christ.

Paul would be disgusted in all of us. We have all failed him by denying each other communion because of our disagreement over Peter when we all have Christ. This passage truly does speak to me, because it’s still an issue today.
:sad_yes:

Unfortunately, for a few parties in the dispute, the “solution” is for everybody else to convert to their own view, despite the fact that the history of the Church shows an awful lot of that not happening.

Differences of opinion will always exist so long as free-willed, sentient beings are involved. Nonetheless, difference need not be division.
 
When Pope Callixstus made a degree to excommunicate a certain bishop, the entire Christian world acquiesce…this the working of the Holy Spirit
And when several other Popes did the same, they were summarily ignored by the rest of the Church, also the working of the Holy Spirit. Your point?
 
:sad_yes:

Unfortunately, for a few parties in the dispute, the “solution” is for everybody else to convert to their own view, despite the fact that the history of the Church shows an awful lot of that not happening.

Differences of opinion will always exist so long as free-willed, sentient beings are involved. Nonetheless, difference need not be division.
Here’s one:
Catholic Catechism:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
Westminster Confession of Faith:
  1. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
How we read the Scriptures depends on which of these two positions (or others) we hold to.
 
Firstly, it was assumed. How many Catholic bishops in our own day discuss Petrine primacy? Almost none. Why? Because it’s an established fact, not an issue in debate.
Sorry, but that just does not work logically. It is an argument from silence, and thus a fallacy of the excluded middle, coupled with an anachronistic analogy.
Secondly, St. Paul’s Epistles were written with other concerns.
This works much better.
What sets Protestants apart from Catholics more than any other issue is Petrine primacy.
What sets Protestants, Orthodox, and various other groups apart from Catholics is more precisely the difference in interpretations of inherited Petrine supremacy.
 
Sorry, but that just does not work logically. It is an argument from silence, and thus a fallacy of the excluded middle, coupled with an anachronistic analogy.

This works much better.
Sort of. Paul covered the structure of the church, and somehow…left out the POPE? Big oops or intentional?
What sets Protestants, Orthodox, and various other groups apart from Catholics is more precisely the difference in interpretations of inherited Petrine supremacy.
The Orthodox honor a primacy but not a supremacy of the Petrine office. OTHOH, some Protestants are into absolute denial. Others maintain the Popes had the Petrine thing but blew it somehow. If I ever get around to it, I may push a series of threads on the second proposition.
 
It absolutely does have to do with this discussion; as the Orthodox and Protestants are all in disagreement over Peter’s role and how it relates to the Papacy when we all claim to follow Christ.

Paul would be disgusted in all of us. We have all failed him by denying each other communion because of our disagreement over Peter when we all have Christ. This passage truly does speak to me, because it’s still an issue today.

When Paul converted it would only make sense that he would learn from those before him.

Peter certainly was “a rock” but we’re considered rocks as well, and Paul clears it up that “The Rock was Christ.”
Nope.

Protestant scholars by the dozen acknowledge that Peter was the Rock of Mt. 16:18-19. In other passages, sure…Jesus is the rock. But context matters, and Jesus said that He would build His Church (singular, one) on Peter.

As a Catholic, I’m right where Jesus expected me to be when He gave Peter the keys of the Royal Steward and commanded him to tend the one flock. And Paul would surely be disgusted with the fruit of sola scriptura and private judgment. He wrote:

Romans 15:5-6 New International Version (NIV)
5 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, 6 so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You aren’t of one mind with the Church Jesus built on Peter. You aren’t even of one mind with other non-Catholics.
 
Here’s one:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

How we read the Scriptures depends on which of these two positions (or others) we hold to.
You are familiar with the definition of the word, Vicar, right?

a person who acts in place of another; substitute.

a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy:

Jesus gave Peter the keys of the office of Royal Steward and commanded Peter to tend His own flock. Peter is authorized to act in the place of Jesus as the head of the Church on earth while Jesus is separated from us.
 
How we read the Scriptures depends on which of these two positions (or others) we hold to.
Well, sort of: how we read some Scriptures can depend upon such things.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of Petrine primacy in Scripture. I think that it is spelt out quite clearly.

The difficulties which I see in the Catholic argument are that the claim that Peter’s leadership of the Apostles was inherited by the subsequent bishops of Rome and the claim that the inherited leadership constitutes power over the rest of the Church.
 
Well, sort of: how we read some Scriptures can depend upon such things.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of Petrine primacy in Scripture. I think that it is spelt out quite clearly.
:clapping:
The difficulties which I see in the Catholic argument are that the claim that Peter’s leadership of the Apostles was inherited by the subsequent bishops of Rome and the claim that the inherited leadership constitutes power over the rest of the Church.
Anglicans don’t accept the idea of apostolic succession?
 
Anglicans don’t accept the idea of apostolic succession?
As per GKC: motley crew.

Quite a few Anglicans do, but the viewpoint is not necessary, or universal. Even then, those Anglicans who believe that Apostolic Succession exists within the Anglican Communion clearly do not believe in a version of it which imputes ruling power to Rome, since they have not converted to Catholicism.
 
As per GKC: motley crew.

Quite a few Anglicans do, but the viewpoint is not necessary, or universal. Even then, those Anglicans who believe that Apostolic Succession exists within the Anglican Communion clearly do not believe in a version of it which imputes ruling power to Rome, since they have not converted to Catholicism.
Well, I’ll take a shot…

Apostolic Succession Proved from Scripture and History

Many people deny that the modern Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) claiming that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible. Is this argument valid?

Let’s begin by examining the evidence contained in scripture as well as the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians for evidence of Apostolic Succession. The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Paul also outlined the beginnings of Church hierarchy (as well as the qualification for Church office) in his first letter to Timothy.

“Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer (bishop) must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

“Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.” (1 Timothy 3:1-10)

These verses illustrate that by the time this letter was written in the late first century, the Church had already established several positions of leadership: Apostles (Peter being the foremost among them), Overseers (or Bishops) and Deacons.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.
 
2 Timothy 2:1-2
Titus 1:5
So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.
Fair enough, and a natural concern.
1 Timothy 3:1-10
These verses illustrate that by the time this letter was written in the late first century, the Church had already established several positions of leadership: Apostles (Peter being the foremost among them), Overseers (or Bishops) and Deacons.
Sort of: they demonstrate that such positions were being established. The process cannot be shown to be complete from this passage.
Philippians 4:3
Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3
From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.
Sure, the fact that they appointed successors is clear, and still quite natural.

The issue with believing or not believing in Apostolic Succession is not a matter of the history of the line of church leaders from then to now, but rather a matter of the belief that the designated successors necessarily inherited a special charism not available to others.
 
The issue with believing or not believing in Apostolic Succession is not a matter of the history of the line of church leaders from then to now, but rather a matter of the belief that the designated successors necessarily inherited a special charism not available to others.
Does an Anglican priest have the ability to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? Do you?

What makes a priest different in this regard?
 
Does an Anglican priest have the ability to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? Do you?

What makes a priest different in this regard?
Anglican Eucharistic theologies are plural and complex, like most aspects of Anglicanism. We’re really not kidding when we go on about the ‘motley’.

Personally, I cannot claim to know precisely what transpires metaphysically in an Anglican Eucharist, although I do not believe that any physical change occurs in the elements. None of this, however, goes in a direction at all useful to a claim about the value of Apostolic Succession: a belief in a particular Eucharistic theology does not necessitate a belief in a particular position on Apostolic Succession.

Baptism is not much simpler, and runs into the same lack of causal connection with AS. The same is true for matrimony, confirmation, ordination, reconciliation, and unction.
 
Anglican Eucharistic theologies are plural and complex, like most aspects of Anglicanism. We’re really not kidding when we go on about the ‘motley’.

Personally, I cannot claim to know precisely what transpires metaphysically in an Anglican Eucharist, although I do not believe that any physical change occurs in the elements. None of this, however, goes in a direction at all useful to a claim about the value of Apostolic Succession: a belief in a particular Eucharistic theology does not necessitate a belief in a particular position on Apostolic Succession.

Baptism is not much simpler, and runs into the same lack of causal connection with AS. The same is true for matrimony, confirmation, ordination, reconciliation, and unction.
I understand. If you had answered differently, then I would have talked about the indelible mark on the soul of the priest as evidence of Apostolic Succession.

Instead, I offer this article which was originally posted here at CA:

sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=36&topic_id=32042&viewmode=thread&order=0
 
Good question. I think there is room for a high role in the NT for Peter as viewed by Paul without that role being what the Catholic Church says it is. At the same time, I am not sure Paul says anything to limit that role to something less than the Catholic position.

He was “extra-special”. But what we are faced with here is an argument from silence, or rather a parade of them. Paul could have said things in Romans 1 about Rome’s future role, or the role of its bishop, or in Ephesians 4 he could have mentioned a pope along with the apostles, and among those 12 thrones of apostles in the book of Revelations there could have been one extra gold and shiny. 1 Clement doesn’t bother to mention the bishop, Justin Martyr describes a church service in which there is no bishop or priest, just “one presiding”.

Paul rebuked Peter. And he went up to Jerusalem.
As I said in my last post, maybe the word “pope” is the issue. A little history on the word might be in order here. The word “pope” (father) was used in reference to other bishops in the first few centuries at least, not just the bishop of Rome. It wasn’t until the 11th century that Pope Gregory Vll officially made the word “pope” apply only to the bishop of Rome.

Please, please understand, the role of the bishop of Rome was an ongoing process that took many, many years, centuries actually, to develop to a similarity of what it is today. When you look at the NT you are seeing the very infancy of the papacy, its hardly discernable to us, even us Catholics, but it is there because Jesus established it with Peter, the scripture is very clear that Jesus was appointing Peter specifically to a position of authority over the new church, you cannot read it any other way. The reason you are not seeing it is because you are desperately trying to look for any other possible explanation for what Jesus is saying (Matthew 16:16-19, John 21:15-19 and quite possibly even in Matthew 17:27) instead of just seeing and believing.
 
As I said in my last post, maybe the word “pope” is the issue. A little history on the word might be in order here. The word “pope” (father) was used in reference to other bishops in the first few centuries at least, not just the bishop of Rome. It wasn’t until the 11th century that Pope Gregory Vll officially made the word “pope” apply only to the bishop of Rome.

Please, please understand, the role of the bishop of Rome was an ongoing process that took many, many years, centuries actually, to develop to a similarity of what it is today. When you look at the NT you are seeing the very infancy of the papacy, its hardly discernable to us, even us Catholics, but it is there because Jesus established it with Peter, the scripture is very clear that Jesus was appointing Peter specifically to a position of authority over the new church, you cannot read it any other way. The reason you are not seeing it is because you are desperately trying to look for any other possible explanation for what Jesus is saying (Matthew 16:16-19, John 21:15-19 and quite possibly even in Matthew 17:27) instead of just seeing and believing.
Cephas. It’s derived from the Aramaic word, “kepha” which means “rock”.

No one had ever been called “Cephas” prior to Jesus giving that name to Simon.

Paul wasn’t in Caesarea Philippi the day that Jesus spoke the words of Mt. 16:18-19, so it must have been strange to his ears the first time he heard someone refer to “Rocky” as the head of the Christian Church.

But Paul didn’t refuse to use Simon’s new name; he referred to Simon as “Cephas” just as Jesus had done.

Paul knew who Cephas was in the Church. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top