Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

[Jon_S_1]

Sorry, I thought you knew that but not sure what posts you have read. I also see you have experienced authority outside CC paradigm.

We only dispute scripture/history,tradition of successive popes outright, and the rest only with variations (just how was Peter a leader, and the office of presbyter perhaps as sacrificial priest).
Which ever speaks the greater truth on a given matter.
Of course one is only authoritative in its own denomination. Even the CC is limited, as evidenced by Gnostics, Arians, Montanists etc etc.
The letter speaks for itself. It says it is authoritative, if I recall correctly, because it’s admonitions are Holy Spirit given. It is good counsel, on its own, without any institutional enforcement (save one church to another). Truth is its own way , is authoritative. At least it should be (free will).

Well it seems we can agree that the authority lies in the truth. But how do we discern the truth. We all read the Bible and form various opinions based on our world view. Is truth relative? Does the spirit guide us to different places? Seeing as Christ wanted us to be one I’d say there is one truth and he wants everyone to know it.

So I read John 14 and see this;

I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, **that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. “I will not leave you as orphans; **I will come to you. After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”

"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,** He will teach you all things, **and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful. (‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭16-21, 25-27‬ NASB)

So I see those words regarding the Holy Spirit and Christ saying that he would send the spirit to forever guide the church in ALL truth and then I see a church that has taught consistently since the beginning, and I want to belong to that church.

Set papal authority aside, look at the apostolic churches they have seven sacraments the real presence priests and bishops etc…

I cannot reconcile the idea of the church failing or the spirit leaving the church and it needing reinvention by Protestants with these verses.

 

[pablope]

If Peter alone without a council was protected by the Holy Spirit when preaching faith and morals, then how did he preach the Juadaizing heresy?

Look at Acts 10 to 11, the story of Cornelius. It was revealed to Peter already prior to the Jerusalem council…and Peter knew already what the decision was. No revelation was given to James, and James agree with Peter.

Here is what St. Jerome says: defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html

*it should be noted that James begins his discourse with a specific reference to Peter and his declaration. James assents to what Peter proclaimed, and then he just offers his best pastoral judgment on how to implement Peter’s decision.
*

And why then did Paul recognize no infallible authority in Peter when he came and rebuked him to his face?

 

[PRmerger]

Actually you can point to more a few more like father of my wife’s children, the orthodox "pappas’’/popes, and of course Father as in priest, and lastly God the Father. That is only four, and not as confusing as 30,000.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, ben.

Are you supporting my argument, or refuting it?

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Benhur…

Yes Peter said we are all priests.

Before God we are all equal. Through Christ we are priests to the world, we extend the holiness and sacredness of Christ into the world and as such we are also sharers in the priesthood.

but when it comes to the priesthood as in Holy Orders, we as lay and religious cannot make sacraments…we cannot make Eucharist…and so again, we have to go back to orthopraxis of the Church and it didn’t end with the Book of Revelations.

You have to go back to Church history to get the context…because as Fr Barrons has said, the Church started as a small seed and grew…there were about 10,000 Christians around 100 AD if I am correct.

And you have to look at the Mass in how it was prayed and celebrated going back way back…you had the bishop saying Mass or the presbyter…and the assembly.

Later I will come back with our understanding of what Church actually means…and what Peter was actually heading.

 

[Rasoleil]

Paul had Peter envy.

 

[benhur]

Well it seems we can agree that the authority lies in the truth. But how do we discern the truth.

Cool. There is personal discernment as there is corporate. I like Peter’s example. It shows first of all that individually we can have such discernment, and that others (parents ,pastors/priests, magisteriums, Word, Tradition, can only lead us to the Well, for it is the Father’s job, along with the Holy Spirits “unction to know all things given to us little children” (epistle of John). There is a sanctity to this individual, even private( personal) revelation, for without it no one can be saved. Without it we would not know which “church” or which tradition to obediently participate in. Free will must be engaged, and that by grace also.( private does not mean apart from Truth, or of the flesh, as Peter uses the term) .

We all read the Bible and form various opinions based on our world view. Is truth relative? Does the spirit guide us to different places? Seeing as Christ wanted us to be one I’d say there is one truth and he wants everyone to know it.

Agree. Truth is absolute, but wisdom must be applied also. We are not robots nor are we perfect, individually and corporately. He consequently does things as He sees fit. I would not shoe fit His plan in a “perfect” box yet. Israel was not perfect, was even divided, had various sects etc., yet she perfectly, in due time, delivered the Messiah, perfectly, with all promises kept.

So I see those words regarding the Holy Spirit and Christ saying that he would send the spirit to forever guide the church in ALL truth and then I see a church that has taught consistently since the beginning, and I want to belong to that church.

Set papal authority aside, look at the apostolic churches they have seven sacraments the real presence priests and bishops etc…

I cannot reconcile the idea of the church failing or the spirit leaving the church and it needing reinvention by Protestants with these verses.

As far as His guiding promises, I would not shoe-fit them in the “perfect”(infallible") box yet. Even with the supposed and real “chaos” of 3 major divisions (O, and P, and CC), somehow the kingdom work is sustainable. Vat 2 recognizes saving grace in the “other” 2 branches.

Thanks for sharing, especially the last sentence Jon. That is from the heart, to the core of the matter. You, like most here, have expressed yourself very well, and you can’t do it any better, nor say anything else. May I humbly and solemnly say it is almost impossible for you to see it any other way. However, many of those that have, give honor and thanks where due in the long history of the CC. Remember also, that if we take away infallibility from CC, we do not give it to ourselves either. May we show that we are all in this together, and soon infallibly, every promise kept .

Blessings

PS. Actually, like a good old politician once said,“Once you have them thinking your way, stop talking (posting)”.

 

[benhur]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, ben.

Are you supporting my argument, or refuting it?

Why, yes I am…??

Both.

He (Dronald) has a point about the terminology “choosing”, as you do also.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did Jesus Change Peter’s Name in Matthew 16?
By Joe Heschmeyer
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/03/pope-peter-part-v-upon-this-rock.html

This is one of the strangest arguments. To try and break the parallel with Abram/Abraham, Keith Mathison cites R.T. France to claim that “the name Peter ‘is not now given for the first time, for Matthew has used it throughout in preference to ‘Simon’ (which never occurs without ‘Peter’ until v. 17), and Mark 3:16 and John 1:42 indicate that it was given at an earlier stage’” (Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 188). Look at those examples. Matthew, in narrating the Gospel, calls Simon “Peter,” even before his name is changed by Christ. And Mark 3:16., in a list of Apostles, starts with “Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter).” In both cases, it’s a narrative technique to make sure the reader knows that Simon and Peter are the same guy. Likewise, if you say something like “when Bob Dylan was a child…” you’re not saying he was called Bob Dylan then; you’re just using the name everyone now knows him by (saying “when Robert Allen Zimmerman was a child” will just get you confused looks).

John 1:42 is even more extreme: Jesus looked at Simon and said, “‘You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas’ (which, when translated, is Peter).” Jesus depicts the changing of Simon’s name as a future event in John 1:42. In Matthew 16:18, that prophesy comes true, when He says “you are Peter.” And John makes clear the point that the name given by Christ is Cephas, not Petros, and that Petros is what Peter’s name is “when translated.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

Cool. There is personal discernment as there is corporate. I like Peter’s example. It shows first of all that individually we can have such discernment, and that others (parents ,pastors/priests, magisteriums, Word, Tradition, can only lead us to the Well, for it is the Father’s job, along with the Holy Spirits “unction to know all things given to us little children” (epistle of John). There is a sanctity to this individual, even private( personal) revelation, for without it no one can be saved. Without it we would not know which “church” or which tradition to obediently participate in. Free will must be engaged, and that by grace also.( private does not mean apart from Truth, or of the flesh, as Peter uses the term) . Agree. Truth is absolute, but wisdom must be applied also. We are not robots nor are we perfect, individually and corporately. He consequently does things as He sees fit. I would not shoe fit His plan in a “perfect” box yet. Israel was not perfect, was even divided, had various sects etc., yet she perfectly, in due time, delivered the Messiah, perfectly, with all promises kept.
As far as His guiding promises, I would not shoe-fit them in the “perfect”(infallible") box yet. Even with the supposed and real “chaos” of 3 major divisions (O, and P, and CC), somehow the kingdom work is sustainable. Vat 2 recognizes saving grace in the “other” 2 branches.

Thanks for sharing, especially the last sentence Jon. That is from the heart, to the core of the matter. You, like most here, have expressed yourself very well, and you can’t do it any better, nor say anything else. May I humbly and solemnly say it is almost impossible for you to see it any other way. However, many of those that have, give honor and thanks where due in the long history of the CC. Remember also, that if we take away infallibility from CC, we do not give it to ourselves either. May we show that we are all in this together, and soon infallibly, every promise kept .

Blessings

PS. Actually, like a good old politician once said,“Once you have them thinking your way, stop talking (posting)”.

Thanks for the good discussion. You make good points, and while we still disagree, I see nothing but fruit coming from such discussions.

I think my passion for this matter is twofold. The joy and security I have found in the sacraments and the authority behind them and second, my longing for my protestant/evangelical friends to experience something I feel they are really missing out on.

I found this article by Carl Truman on First Things today, interesting and related to the discussion.

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/03/history-evangelicals-and-protestantism

Blessings

 

[ericc]

Hi erric

No, not in the CC paradigm?
Forget Matt 18 (not the context) . A perfect context to your question is in Acts, with the Jerusalem council (except for the excommunication part).

It has been along time since the Catholics, Eastern church, and then P’s have been able to be Acts council-like.

C’s and Os’ are now councilled mostly by themselves, and P’s only within their denominational lines also.

If according to you Jesus did not intend to leave a single leader to lead his Church, why would Jesus tell Peter to tend /feed his lambs/sheep? John 21:15-17. This would put Jesus in a very bad light. He tells Peter he is building his Church on him, lead/tend his lambs/sheep and later telling him he has not been given the mandate to lead and manage and everyone can do what they like and he Peter has no say? And Jesus said all these in front of the other apostles and which will render all the other apostles of ignoring Jesus command to Peter to lead. It doesn’t seem plausible at all don’t you think? Imagine you are at a meeting, and the founder CEO of the company in the meeting just told you are to lead the team when he is gone and all the staff after the meeting just ignore the founder CEO instructions? Something doesn’t hold with your assertion.

For many hundreds of years, the still undivided Church convened ecumenical councils to resolved heresies and doctrines which were attended widely and excommunication orders were executed. Your version of history seems to be absent of this fact. The Bishop of Rome continued to enjoy pre-eminence of honor.

 

[Mousey]

If Peter alone without a council was protected by the Holy Spirit when preaching faith and morals, then how did he preach the Juadaizing heresy?

Would you document that 1. it is a heresy and two that he preached it?

And why then did Paul recognize no infallible authority in Peter when he came and rebuked him to his face?

Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior.

Also, I read that Peter was first bishop of Antioch, what makes the Roman pope infallible and not where Peter was bishop first?

Peter’s authority did not arrive from him being Bishop of Antioch. Where ever he would have gone he still would have been the leader of the Church. He died in Rome and was leader there when he died.

 

[KathleenGee]

Benhur, Rocks…

We have to go back to the topic in that Peter as Head of the Church…and what do we mean by Church?

Church essentially means ‘convocation’. This goes back to the event of the convocation of the gathering, Mt. Sinai in the Old Testament.

The Jewish people, because of their weak humanity, and ours included as church, needed beliefs and practiced defined through human structure.

Note Christ is both Human and Divine…so is His bride, the Church…

The Church is both divine and human, and Peter, as we saw prior to Pentecost, was weak and impulsive. He was working with the Jewish believers for some time but began to fall back based on human opinion rather than the inspiration he received in the dream regarding liberality.

Paul essentially told him that he was turning away from what the Lord had spoken to him, and then Paul asserted Peter’s authority again when he said, ‘And Peter said I was right’.

If Peter had no authority, Paul would have said, ‘See, I faced up to Peter and I was right’.

Paul was simply exhorting Peter to follow through with the practice of liberality…as the Lord gave Peter…

The Lord did not come to Paul in a dream to tell him to lead the Church into liberality.

 

[benhur]

Thanks for the good discussion. You make good points, and while we still disagree, I see nothing but fruit coming from such discussions.

I think my passion for this matter is twofold. The joy and security I have found in the sacraments and the authority behind them and second, my longing for my protestant/evangelical friends to experience something I feel they are really missing out on.

I found this article by Carl Truman on First Things today, interesting and related to the discussion.

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/03/history-evangelicals-and-protestantism

Blessings

Thank you also for the fruitfulness. Took a look at article, pretty good. Thanks

 

[benhur]

The Jewish people, because of their weak humanity, and ours included as church, needed beliefs and practiced defined through human structure.

Hi Kathleen,

This is a mouthful for thought.

I do like to "learn’’ from the older dispensation /covenant in Judaism.

That is the question,what human structure did God create for the church. To what point does He institutionalize the workings of the Holy Spirit, if at all ?

Both Israel and church start out as Jesus (Jehovah) as head, even king. Both have leaders (Abraham, Moses, Peter and apostles). The question is to what point was leadership institutionalized. To what point was the channeling of the Word institutionalized ? Was it always a leader, a judge, or a king, or a prophet in OT ? Did it change and why ? Did God “bend’’, adjust because of human"frailty” ? And finally, how are we the church the same and or different from Israel ?

Seems to me it is all in the eye of the beholder again. Our “learning”/conclusions will differ, though we look at same thing.

 

[Denise1957]

Seems to me it is all in the eye of the beholder again. Our “learning”/conclusions will differ, though we look at same thing.

Just want to add a thought to the above comment. Did/does God really intend for our conclusions to differ though we look at the same thing? Our Lord told His Apostles to go out to the nations and teach all that He had taught them. That’s what the Church has striven to do. Our Lord didn’t say to print up all that He said, then distribute it as a book, and let everyone decide for themselves what Truth is, and as long as they have faith, then it’s all good. In fact, He never wrote down anything, nor did He instruct the Apostles to do so.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Benhur,

You are coming to the crux of the issue of ecclesial vs personal interpretation of God given authority.

You have to look back at the OT, back to Exodus where the Lord Himself dictated the 10 commandments, the construction of the Covenant of the Ark, the development of the priesthood, where even their clothes to wear were defined.

The whole of Jewish belief and practice with its own hierarchy and authority came from God.

I will begin quoting the CCC: 760: Christians of the first centuries said, “The world was created for the sake of the Church.” God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life, a communion brought about by the ‘convocation’ of men in Christ, and this ‘convocation’ is Church.’ Footnote from Clement of Alexandria…‘Just as God’s will is creation and is called ‘the world’, so his intention is the salvation of men, and it is called “the Church”’.

The first goal of any Catholic…and many need catechesis in this to this very day…is that our calling is to enter into communion with the Holy Trinity.

We look then to Christ Who fulfilled the Law. He replaced the bloody altar of sheep and goats with the perpetual daily sacrifice that Melchizedek foretold, not by the blood of animals, but bearing the gifts of bread and wine, and then Jesus consecrating worship now to the Sacred Banquet, the Mass, with Himself as the Divine nourishment.

We go back more to what does the name, ‘Church’, mean…that which Peter headed.

“Church” is an assembly or a convocation…an assemblies of people…again referring to our CCC. So to have an assemblies…we cannot have a fractured people…but people who share the common …convocation used for that of religious purposes. Greek word ‘ekklesia’ is used to name the Chosen People before God…CCC 751…at their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people…’ 'church is calling together.

Continuing…752…church designates the liturgical assembly, the local, or the whole universal community…and the Church made real in the liturgy and above all, in the Eucharistic assembly…drawing her life from the Word and Body of Christ…to become Christ’s body’…

The Church was prepared for in the Old Testament…CCC 761…‘The gathering together of the People of God began when sin destroyed the communion of men with God and that of men themselves…The gathering together of the Church as it were, God’s reaction to the chaos created by sin.’

Here is the gist of the issue: CCC770: 'The Church is in history, but at the same time she transcends it. It is only “with the eyes of faith” that one can see her in her visible reality and at the same time in her spiritual reality as the bearer of divine life.

So we can look at the pope…not as an end in himself…but as a Servant of God…

And then finally, 771: “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy church, the community of faith, hope and charity…as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men.”

Just as in the Old Testament, 'a "society structured with hieraarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ;

The visible society and the spiritual community;

The earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches’. …all to make “One complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element”.

So no one can just go out and make sacraments and can make Eucharist. Our priesthood are Ministers of the Blood, they are walking sacraments so to speak. And the rest of the Church is supposed to fast and pray for our pope, bishops and clergy…which happens at daily Mass. There is more need for Catholics to pray for our hierarchy.

But the bottom line is you have to study Church history, the development of doctrine, which ended at the Council of Nicea, the development of the liturgy. The communion of saints…are the testimony to life after the Book of Revelations.

Saints give us the many diverse charisms of Christ for the times they live in…nothing detracting from Him but only enhancing our understanding of Him…the same with Blessed Mother that came down through time in the study of asceticism, of spirituality.

Vatican II allowed local churches to develop more liturgical ‘charisms’ within their worship to draw on the faith of the local people and integrate them into the universal Church. But doing so requires much reflection and study by the Church to ensure that such movements reaffirm our faith in Christ.

Our belief and form of prayer in the Mass must always point to the fullness of Jesus Christ.

Hope this is not too lengthy for you.

 

[benhur]

Just want to add a thought to the above comment. Did/does God really intend for our conclusions to differ though we look at the same thing?

No, but did He glorify us already, to the point that what else do we have to look forward to ? Why put the chaff in with the wheat, or the weak with the strong, mature with the immature ? Why would he allow false teachers to be amongst us, arise form us?Why would he allow free will ?

Of course the Lord wants us all to be one , but what does that mean? I know He wishes that none should perish, and come to know His Son , to be born of the Spirit. I know he wishes all to see the Truth in the apostles creed, and be one in this. But what, that is not enough ? But it used to be, but now some say we all have to see eucharist as transubstantiation, or consubstantiation or Mary as Immaculate and Assumed, and that Christ can only forgive post baptismal sins thru a priest, again, ala OT or that 2nd or 3rd Macabees is God -breathed, or that Rome or Constantinople is to be center of our faith etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ? And some say we are all to see the exact same thing from a to z, as if this were heaven already ?

Our Lord didn’t say to print up all that He said, then distribute it as a book, and let everyone decide for themselves what Truth is, and as long as they have faith,

Agreed. But he did say, even “instruct” to “print” a book as Word, and that what it contained could also travel to the ends of the earth, to every creature.(note I said also, not negating oral apostolic gospel). He did also say its truth must be individually discerned and required individually gifted faith.(and that not in a vacuum but into and thru the Body, the church.)

So we agree on much, a down payment on future perfect unity in Christ.

Blessings

 

[Jon_S_1]

Of course the Lord wants us all to be one , but what does that mean? I know He wishes that none should perish, and come to know His Son , to be born of the Spirit. I know he wishes all to see the Truth in the apostles creed, and be one in this. But what, that is not enough ? But it used to be, but now some say we all have to see eucharist as transubstantiation, or Mary as Immaculate and Assumed, and that Christ can only forgive post baptismal sins thru a priest, again, ala OT or that 2nd or 3rd Macabees is God -breathed, or that Rome or Constantinople is to be center of our faith etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ?
Blessings

No, he wishes that we all be one DESPITE our personal difficulties about doctrine. That we not just love Christ, but love his bride…the church. That we humbly submit to the church.

This is why it is so hard for us to see people outside the bounds of the church…because at some level they are trusting in themselves instead of Christ and the Bride of Christ.

“Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].”

ST Ignatius of Antioch…107AD

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course the Lord wants us all to be one , but what does that mean?

Romans 12:4-5
Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function,so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

Romans 15:5-6
May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”

Your Protestant forefathers CHOSE to disagree with the historical Church, the Catholic Church. They CHOSE to create division within the one body of Christ. They CHOSE to accept disunity in mind and thought.

And those choices are perpetuated by their descendants to this very day.

 

[Randy_Carson]

R. T. France

All this, and much more, comes to us from the gospels as a compelling portrait of a real man in the real world of first-century Palestine, and yet one who so far transcended his environment that his followers soon learned to see him as more than a man. It is a portrait which we have, in strictly historical terms, no reason to doubt; it is the philosophical and theological implications which cause many to question whether things can really have been as the gospels present them. But we have seen above sufficient reason to be confident that **the gospels not only claim to be presenting fact rather than fiction, but also, where they can be checked, carry conviction as the work of responsible and well-informed writers. **

**The basic divide among interpreters of the gospels is not between those who are or are not open to the results of historical investigation so much as between those whose philosophical/ theological viewpoint allows them to accept the testimony of the gospels, together with the factuality of those records in which it is enshrined, and those, for whom no amount of historical testimony could be allowed to substantiate what is antecedently labeled as a ‘mythical’ account of events. **(France The Evidence for Jesus, p.138.)