Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

[pablope]

Palope and yourself are getting it wrong.

The argument is that from Paul’s letters there is nothing to indicate that he thought anything special of Peter. Any argument that he did would be an argument from silence.

The ample amount of times Peter is mentioned (whether negatively or positively) Paul never once takes a moment to acknowledge that Peter is somehow the greatest Apostle. Instead Paul speaks of people like yourselves who make claims about “following Peter” when we all follow Christ.

There is not one tiny hint that Paul taught Peter’s supremacy.

There are arguments from Matthew and history; but not at all from Paul. Not one bit. I’m surprised at the straws being grasped to try and prove so.

Ah…so now you want an explicit proof from the Bible?

Well, first…does the Bible record all that Paul wrote or said?

On thing, from the example I provided, Paul did acknowledge Peter’s authority, in various ways. On closer scrutiny, the actions of Paul provide insights on how he recognized Peter’s authority:

One other way: the name change, which Paul calls/addresses Simon by the name “Cephas”:

Name Change (in the Jewish world, a name change meant a change in stature:

Abram to Abraham……Gen 17:15….Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.

Jacob to Israel….Gen 35……. 10And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel………. 11And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Simon to Cephas/Peter…Matt 16…
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”**

 

[JMM1957]

Evangelicals and Catholics agree that Jesus and His apostles were Jewish and fully practiced all the sacramental requirements of Judaism and observed all of its customs, even the one in which Jesus was not an author of which we find at the beginning of Matthew 23:1-3 “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore, whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works, for they say, and do not do.”
Nowhere is Sacred Scripture do we find the decreeing or the inaugurating of Moses’ chair, but Jesus respected the rabbinical tradition that developed over time.
That being said, we need not look no further than to Jesus’ statement to Peter “And I will give unto thee (singular to Peter) the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here Jesus is using kingdom language addressing Jews who understood exactly what he was talking about, not asking for clarification.
Judaic scholars of rabbinical customs of Jesus’ era would tell you and have stated that Jesus was clearly and unequivocally handing over authority to Peter by solely giving him the keys and made Peter head of the early church.
Funk and Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia’s definition of possessing the keys of the kingdom is as follows: "The power or right of deciding law in doubtful cases, or of interpreting, modifying or amplifying, and occasionally of abrogating (repeal or do away with) it as vested in the Rabbis as its teachers and expounders and too numerous to mention here.

Thank you.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

2 Peter 3:18
"Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in PEACE, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation - as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

 

[Della]

Unfortunately, it’s the same logical problem. That we have no extant references to him doing so does not prove that he did not do so: it only proves that we have no extant references to it. That current absence could be caused by an absence then, or a loss between then and now. The leap from “we have none now” to “they never existed” is the logical flaw.

The idea of its being an accepted fact is its own problem, since the connection between Petrine primacy and the bishopric of Rome is one which developed over the centuries of the Early Church, and developed in significantly different fashions in West and East.

While I do not think that you are wrong about Paul here, since I do not see any evidence of a desire on his part to challenge Peter’s role as the leader of the Apostles, that claim can be pushed too far.

The papcy developed, certainly, but history, especially the Early Church Fathers bear witness to Peter’s supremacy over the Church and his bishopric in Rome. This is plain historical fact. I’ve put my money on the ECFs. The claim is not “pushed too far” since Paul had no intention of pushing too far or too little, and neither does the Church.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Is it any wonder why Jesus took his disciples to Caesarea Philippi for the pronouncement of Peter’s revelation?
At the time in Caesarea Philippi there was a huge mountain of a rock upon which stood a temple built by Herod the Great in honor of Caesar, the antithesis of what Jesus was about to declare. Sola Scripture is not going to teach you that, but when we approach the Lord with a humble heart and ask to be lead into all truth, He will guide in all truth. That is historic and archeological fact that cannot be refuted.
Some erroneously claim that the building of the Church comes from Peter’s confession of faith in Matthew 16:16, but a close read of the text proves that is false. His confession of faith leads to the changing of his name to rock, and it’s that rock on which the church will be built, with Christ as the foundation, of course.
We all know from studying the OT that name changes are significant and represent a change in status, ie, Genesis 17:5 Abram (father) to Abraham (father of many) and Genesis 35:10 Jacob (holder of the heel) to the name Israel (triumphant with God.)
Furthermore, a little grammar lesson can also help.
Mt 16:18, "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

As a pronoun, “This” refers to the noun immediately preceding it or ahead to a referent placed later in the sentence. “This” in the above sentence separated by the conjunction “and” is referring to Peter as the “rock,” not the revelation which changes his name one complete sentence earlier.
We also know from history that the gates of hell have prevailed against individual members of the church as we are even seeing today, but the Church remains.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Furthermore, to make a statement that Paul did not see Peter as head of the Church would mean that Paul totally disregarded what Jesus said in Matthew 16:13 to 19.

When we study the OT we find the position of steward, that is, the one given the keys as the right hand man of the one who sits on the throne of the Davidic Kingdom as being described as “over the house.” We also find that this office never ended, i.e., Isaiah 22:15-23, Esther 8:2, 1 Kings 4:6, 1 Kings 16:19, 1 Kings 18:3-6.

Some evangelicals erroneously claim that Eliakim refers to Jesus. He may be a type of Jesus, but he can never be Jesus or vice versa. Remember, Eliakim was steward during King Hezekiah’s reign. Jesus is to assume the throne of the Davidic Kingdom and not the position of steward. Otherwise Jesus would not be the Messiah.

When we read 1 Samuel 8:4-5 "Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel unto Ramah and said unto him, Behold, thou art old and thy sons walk not in thy ways: Now make us a king to judge us like all nations.

There was no blue print in the OT to form a governmental kingdom. From studying Sacred Scripture we gather that the Jews followed the Egyptian model which was the most sophisticated of the era. The only difference was the Egyptian symbol for authority was the signet ring and not a key or keys

A great example of this and even a parallel to Peter is found in Genesis 41. Here we have a question of a dream, a revelation, an interpretation, a change in status and a changing of a name, and we find the phrases ascribed to future stewards in the Davidic Kingdom used to describe Joseph position, “over the house.”

I find when the bible is read in its context, without an axe to grind, with scripture interpreting scripture, and not scripture cancelling out scripture, there are no contradictions.

 

[Mystophilus]

The papcy developed, certainly, but history, especially the Early Church Fathers bear witness to Peter’s supremacy over the Church and his bishopric in Rome. This is plain historical fact.

No, it isn’t. The plain historical fact is that we have plenty of references to Rome’s primacy of honour, but its supremacy is another matter entirely.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Unfortunately, it’s the same logical problem. That we have no extant references to him doing so does not prove that he did not do so: it only proves that we have no extant references to it. That current absence could be caused by an absence then, or a loss between then and now. The leap from “we have none now” to “they never existed” is the logical flaw.

The idea of its being an accepted fact is its own problem, since the connection between Petrine primacy and the bishopric of Rome is one which developed over the centuries of the Early Church, and developed in significantly different fashions in West and East.

While I do not think that you are wrong about Paul here, since I do not see any evidence of a desire on his part to challenge Peter’s role as the leader of the Apostles, that claim can be pushed too far.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No, it isn’t. The plain historical fact is that we have plenty of references to Rome’s primacy of honour, but its supremacy is another matter entirely.

Correct, starting in the 11th century and solidifying in the 15 century. Still at the Council of Constance, the Pope could not over rule a council and the council itself declared to have ruled over the Pope.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Upon the proper reading and breakdown of Matthew 16:13-19, it is clear that Jesus gave Peter the authority by solely giving him the keys. When we read of the stewards in the OT we find the offices does not end. Even after the protestant rebellion, the world looks to Rome as the center of Christendom. They don’t go to Turkey or England or Billy Graham.

 

[PRmerger]

Er, my personal view of which aspect of it?

Specifically with regard to Anglican priests having the charism to consecrate the host.

From whence does this come, if not from apostolic succession?

What is the Anglican (your) view on how Anglican priests receive this, if not for the fact that they were ordained by someone who was ordained by someone <snip 2000 years> who was ordained by an Apostle, who was ordained by Christ?

 

[GiveTheTruth]

St. Ignatius of ANTIOCH, circa 107 AD.

“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

It should also be noted that St. Ignatius was a student of the apostles, specifically John, I believe.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

As we speak now, Cardinal Burke and others are rallying with a book and promulgating a petition for the Pope not to change doctrine on the divorced and remarried. This is the beauty of the Catholic faith at work and an example of the ECF. While all did not always agree, they remained Catholic, and didn’t pull a Martin Luther.

 

[Mystophilus]

Specifically with regard to Anglican priests having the charism to consecrate the host.

From whence does this come, if not from apostolic succession?

From God Almighty, which is why it is called a “charism” (χαρισμα, gift of favour/grace).

In “consecration”, we are talking about a metaphysical event, not something accomplished by humans. Think about Elijah and Elisha: the latter was ordained by the former, which is a parallel to Apostolic Succession, but who ordained the former?

 

[PRmerger]

From God Almighty, which is why it is called a “charism” (χαρισμα, gift of favour/grace).

In “consecration”, we are talking about a metaphysical event, not something accomplished by humans. Think about Elijah and Elisha: the latter was ordained by the former, which is a parallel to Apostolic Succession, but who ordained the former?

So you could consecrate a host, if someone–anyone– ordained you?

Or doesn’t the authority of the charism lie in the fact that this charism was received from someone who received it from someone <snip 2000 years> who received it from Christ?

 

[SteveVH]

As we speak now, Cardinal Burke and others are rallying with a book and promulgating a petition for the Pope not to change doctrine on the divorced and remarried. This is the beauty of the Catholic faith at work and an example of the ECF. While all did not always agree, they remained Catholic, and didn’t pull a Martin Luther.

I don’t think Pope Francis is planning on changing any doctrine. He is more interested in how we treat those with in our Church in light of the doctrine.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

From God Almighty, which is why it is called a “charism” (χαρισμα, gift of favour/grace).

In “consecration”, we are talking about a metaphysical event, not something accomplished by humans. Think about Elijah and Elisha: the latter was ordained by the former, which is a parallel to Apostolic Succession, but who ordained the former?

God did, directly.

Can I just say that I have the Authority to confect the Eucharist? To be a leader, on my own volition, of the Church, and demand obedience (see Heb 13:7,17; Titus 3:1, for instance)? No!

So, we have two legitimate possibilities:

1. God directly authorizes a person
2. A person is authorized by someone who has been given divine Authority

We have only one other (illegitimate) option:
3. the arrogation of divine authority without any legitimate basis.

See Numbers 16, referenced by Jude in 1:11.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Yes. I misspoke. He is supposedly considering allowing the divorced and remarried to receive communion. At least that is what I’ve gathered from all the confusion. I may be wrong. However, Raymond Arroyo on the World Over Catholic News station has suggesting that the Pope has been suggesting in a number of homilies that he will permit the divorce and remarried to receive communion and has predicted the change. We shall see.

 

[Mystophilus]

So you could consecrate a host, if someone–anyone– ordained you?

To be frank, any such person would have to be insane, and I would flatly refuse. However, in the hypothetical case of God deciding to imbue me with that charism, I could, as could anyone in the same situation, although I would still ask God to give it to someone else.

Or doesn’t the authority of the charism lie in the fact that this charism was received from someone who received it from someone <snip 2000 years> who received it from Christ?

Authority is something that operates within social structures, but even substituting “power” does not help here: you asked me about my view, and my view is that, of any such metaphysical power, **God **is the source, hence the imposition of hands and the invocation of the Holy Spirit in the rite of ordination.

Still, one of the things which it might be useful to recognise is that there are differences between Catholic and Anglican views of priesthood. If I recall correctly, ours are not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist when they are alone. The charism thus resides not in the person alone, but in the performance of the office.

Let me get right down to the basic element of this: do I believe that the Anglican, the Lutheran, the Catholic, or the Orthodox Church is inherently any more holy, upright, spiritual, or guarded against error than any other church on account of being able to trace a lineage of ordination back to the Apostles? No, I do not.

 

[SteveVH]

To be frank, any such person would have to be insane, and I would flatly refuse. However, in the hypothetical case of God deciding to imbue me with that charism, I could, as could anyone in the same situation, although I would still ask God to give it to someone else.

And how would God imbue [you] with that charism? IOW, how would one know that you have been imbued? How would you know?