Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

[benhur]

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.

“Either/ or” again. So if we don’t believe Peter was a pope but first amongst equals we believe, " no one(was) in charge". Easy to win that debate, just don’t know who you are debating against.

 

[Melchior_1]

This is a long thread, so I may have missed if someone posted this. But if "Paul did NOT see Peter as head of the Church, then why still refer to him as “Cephas”? Why continue the “charade”?

 

[benhur]

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.

Understand. Thank you.

Trouble is that the good Jews that heard this “familiar” key giving (the apostles) were quite unaware of its import, given their following behavior, even bickering.

The other problem is that many agree the other apostles also shared in the keys.

And finally they (Jews) would not be familiar with the succession of the “keys”, especially modern day succession.

The fact of twelve apostles is also Jewish, and they had much time without a king. It was out of their carnality that they insisted on having a visible ruler - Jehovah was not enough (and they did not even have the more superior ministry of the Holy Spirit as we do today).

Blessings

 

[Rohzek]

In all honesty, if you’re trying to question certain aspects of papal primacy, then going back to the apostolic era is probably the least productive route to take. The evidence is so vague that practically everyone can interpret things how they please. Your efforts are best spent elsewhere, such as somewhere between the sixth century and the Gregorian Reform Movement.

 

[benhur]

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.

Kathleen,yes that is true, and again, the first Passover did not need priests (they were all priests still at that point), nor would they need one for the New unbloody Passover. It could be done at home, with one family or several, like the first.

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

The question was where do you see it as an actual sacrifice, then requiring a priest ? The Last Supper was not a sacrifice, but a looking forward to a future sealing of the new covenant the next day at Calvary. We look back at it in like fashion as they looked forward. Both were/are not bloody sacrifices requiring an old testament priest.

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.

I do not believe that the way it is today (Mass)is the way it was back then. Priests were not required to transubstantiate. The Mass then did not ask for an acceptance of the re-offering of Calvary back to the Father, but was a* thanksgiving* to the Father for Calvary.(paradoxically different to OT, thankfully so).

 

[Jon_S_1]

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.

Ben hur…

Again I ask…

 

[YADA]

Kathleen,yes that is true, and again, the first Passover did not need priests (they were all priests still at that point), nor would they need one for the New unbloody Passover. It could be done at home, with one family or several, like the first.

The question was where do you see it as an actual sacrifice, then requiring a priest ? The Last Supper was not a sacrifice, but a looking forward to a future sealing of the new covenant the next day at Calvary. We look back at it in like fashion as they looked forward. Both were/are not bloody sacrifices requiring an old testament priest.
I do not believe that the way it is today (Mass)is the way it was back then. Priests were not required to transubstantiate. The Mass then did not ask for an acceptance of the re-offering of Calvary back to the Father, but was a* thanksgiving* to the Father for Calvary.(paradoxically different to OT, thankfully so).

And where is your proof for the new unbloody Passover being celebrated in homes without a priest? Source? you have said this many times - but Paul describes the people coming together - to s sacrificial Eucharist … one where you could not bring your gifts without first reconciling - one that if you partook of it unworthily could cause you to sicken and even die …

But your romanticizing the ancient ‘house’ churches into something that resembles the Protestant services with their symbolic grape juice and no priest officiating is not found in scripture nor the early Church

 

[Jon_S_1]

Kathleen,yes that is true, and again, the first Passover did not need priests (they were all priests still at that point), nor would they need one for the New unbloody Passover. It could be done at home, with one family or several, like the first.

The question was where do you see it as an actual sacrifice, then requiring a priest ? The Last Supper was not a sacrifice, but a looking forward to a future sealing of the new covenant the next day at Calvary. We look back at it in like fashion as they looked forward. Both were/are not bloody sacrifices requiring an old testament priest.
I do not believe that the way it is today (Mass)is the way it was back then. Priests were not required to transubstantiate. The Mass then did not ask for an acceptance of the re-offering of Calvary back to the Father, but was a* thanksgiving* to the Father for Calvary.(paradoxically different to OT, thankfully so).

The early church fathers disagree with your personal beliefs, as does the historical tradition of every church catholic or not with historic roots to the time of Christ.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[ericc]

If so, it is only in rebuke. Clearly he was one who was loudly proclaiming he was the greatest.

You cannot claim from this that Peter was the leader. Argument from silence. Did he say one would? No. He rebuked them for this attitude.

I don’t see any way you can legitimately draw this from this passage.

And today Rome, Moscow and Constantinople are STILL at the “who’s the greatest” game. Some evangelicals join in. Everyone wants their guy to be the one who is in with God more than anyone else. It gives their spiritual pride a thrill to think that they follow the Right One on Earth. It is of the flesh and Jesus utterly rebuked it.

Unfortunately you cannot see it.

…of the Club ?

Mickey Mouse

Donald Duck

Mickey Mouse

Tomyris, benhur

So based upon your interpretation of your Bible, after Jesus established his Church on Peter did Jesus leave a single leader to lead his Church after his ascension? Yes or No? If yes, who? And do all Protestants have the same view as yours?

And if no, in the event a dispute arises in the Christian religion, how would Protestants resolve it? I mean really resolving it, not hurl interpretations at each other. The solution that is binding to all parties and persons to be excommunicated if they refused to be bound by the solution in the manner of Matthew 18:17-18.

 

[DCNBILL]

“Either/ or” again. So if we don’t believe Peter was a pope but first amongst equals we believe, " no one(was) in charge". Easy to win that debate, just don’t know who you are debating against.

So it is your contention that we have a careless God who does not understand His creatures? Since when does any organization survive without leadership?

 

[benhur]

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.

nor do i. My post was tongue in cheek.

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? :

Well he tells us. They were quite carnal, thinking only of themselves, in factions. They had love feasts, where the rich ate richly and the poor poorly, quite un-Christlike, quite not discerning the gracious gift of Calvary (where no one is “worthy”), nor discerning the Body of Christ, brothers and sisters in the faith…

Folks who hold to Orthodox, spiritual, or symbolic view of eucharist have no problem with Paul’s admonition.

I understand the CC position that he was reminding them of the transubstantiated elements. If I believed transubstantiation before hand, I would also rest on that scripture to evidence my faith. But,as as i said ,it can evidence most eucharistic views.

 

[benhur]

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

Now I am curious as to why you ask. it seems what is more important is the post correct, if not, what parts ?

 

[PRmerger]

Folks who hold to Orthodox, spiritual, or symbolic view of eucharist have no problem with Paul’s admonition.

I understand the CC position that he was reminding them of the transubstantiated elements. If I believed transubstantiation before hand, I would also rest on that scripture to evidence my faith. But,as as i said ,it can evidence most eucharistic views.

I don’t think it makes sense to admonish folks who act sinfully if they are merely partaking in a symbolic ceremony.

Would you admonish folks who came to, say, your daughter’s play and had been fornicating the night before?

 

[benhur]

I don’t think it makes sense to admonish folks who act sinfully if they are merely partaking in a symbolic ceremony.

Would you admonish folks who came to, say, your daughter’s play and had been fornicating the night before?

So it is ok to fornicate then go commemorate Calvary, even symbolically ? Of course not Why , because it is wrong to fornicate period. For a Christian to do so is to tread upon the grace of God,even forgetting Calvary itself, which we commemorate by eucharisting. Like saying thank you Jesus for covering my sins and giving me new life though I return to my vomit. ?? And we want to quible on defintion of Eucharisting ?

 

[PRmerger]

So it is ok to fornicate then go commemorate Calvary, even symbolically ? Of course not

Ok. Fair enough. I get that.

So you see the Last Supper re-enactment that your pastor does as a commemoration of Calvary?

 

[benhur]

So it is your contention that we have a careless God who does not understand His creatures? Since when does any organization survive without leadership?

Who says the Church is without organization with out the evolved modern day papacy ? Last I heard many folk have no problem calling Peter a rock, or that he had keys, that he was even a type of leader of the twelve, yet do not see the CC view of institutionalized papal leadership.

 

[benhur]

Ben hur…

Again I ask…

Sorry Jon for not answering sooner,but thanks for responding. Notice Christ does not say take it to Peter,not even to an apostles (not that they are not included in “church” and are shepherds). But notice also the dignity, even capacity for an individual to “judge/admonish”, then for several brethren, then the church. In that there is a grain of salt in Luther’s hot remark that we are all popes.

However, it seems the council at Jerusalem is a good playing out of working out contentions, of “taking it to the church” (though Christs remarks were in context of personal offense). I know even the CC had struggles (culminating in1400’s) with balancing final authority being in pope and/or councils.

 

[SteveVH]

nor do i. My post was tongue in cheek.
Well he tells us. They were quite carnal, thinking only of themselves, in factions. They had love feasts, where the rich ate richly and the poor poorly, quite un-Christlike, quite not discerning the gracious gift of Calvary (where no one is “worthy”), nor discerning the Body of Christ, brothers and sisters in the faith…

Folks who hold to Orthodox, spiritual, or symbolic view of eucharist have no problem with Paul’s admonition.

I understand the CC position that he was reminding them of the transubstantiated elements. If I believed transubstantiation before hand, I would also rest on that scripture to evidence my faith. But,as as i said ,it can evidence most eucharistic views.

How does one discern the body and blood of Christ in a symbol? You have as much as admitted that your interpretation is based upon your preconceived notion that Christ is not truly present (i.e. "I know that Christ is not truly present therefore this verse cannot mean what it says.)

 

[Per_Crucem]

How does one discern the body and blood of Christ in a symbol?

One of the more popular views on the passage from 1 Cor. 11 among Baptists and non-denominational Protestants is that the “body” not being discerned in that passage is not Christ’s body in the Eucharist. Rather, it is not discerning the Body of Christ in the poor among the congregation who the rich are spurning and treating badly.

 

[SteveVH]

One of the more popular views on the passage from 1 Cor. 11 among Baptists and non-denominational Protestants is that the “body” not being discerned in that passage is not Christ’s body in the Eucharist. Rather, it is not discerning the Body of Christ in the poor among the congregation who the rich are spurning and treating badly.

Kind of amazing that the Church didn’t pick up on this for 1500 years.