Peter as the Rock

[pritchard85]

You know, it strikes me reading this thread, and I few others, that in order to understand another groups religious or world-view takes some imagination. If you can’t imagine yourself taking on the other system as a whole, you can never understand what they believe, because you only see it piecemeal and compare the bits to your own system of belief.

It isn’t clear to me that many people have actually attempted to engage in this type of imagination.

 

[pritchard85]

The century does not matter. Fourth, third, first, tenth it makes no difference. You misunderstand the meaning of the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It was not to introduce new doctrines that Jesus Christ somehow neglected to tell us.

I totally agree.

It was to help us hold fast to the Truth.

Jesus is the Master, the Teacher

Amen.

The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, the Advocate. The Holy Spirit is not with us to reveal new mysteries over time (as if the earlier generations were ‘not ready’)

That is absolutely right…

It is heretics who drive the development of doctrine, the councils acted as a remedial measure to limit the damages and prune out the dross. They were never called with the intention of defining new doctrines, but were often called to fight errors. In early times only heretics thought to define doctrine on their own authority, and we know them by name as the sources of their errors. No Orthodox bishop, not even the bishop of Rome ever tried it. Now it seems to be claimed as a right, and people even organize petition drives to encourage the Pope to name new dogmas

I absolutely agree.

If you open up to the possibility, even the expectation, that there will be more doctrine and new teachings coming along you potentially place yourself into the hands of heretics and false prophets. You are no better off than the JW’s with their ‘New Light’

I see it on the horizon in the Catholic church.

As to your other comments, heresies arose in the east and the west alike. And yes, there were more heresies arising in the east than the west in the early centuries, for it was in the east that the intellectual life and culture was the most advanced at the time, and where most of the Christians dwelled. It was the Orthodox who battled them all, won back the multitudes, endured the persecutions and survived.

We know the dangers, we have seen them all come and go. We have also seen the western church shatter into 30,000 pieces in spite of the confidence it has in itself, all due to this intellectual hubris, this thinking it has the monopoly on ‘the Rock’ and can do as it pleases.

Very insightful and truthful post.

 

[Bluegoat]

If you guys don’t know that a counsel has put itself in judgement of the orthodoxy of popes, then you are the ones that need to read more history.

I have to wonder what you mean by this.

Actually, I was the one who made the original statement - it just got quoted incorrectly in the post you quoted so it looked like part of the main text.

My point was simply that a few posters keep asking, when anyone says that the modern papacy is different from what we see in the early church, how it was different.

Since even a cursory glance at the history of the Church shows it to be true and uncontested, and it has been pointed out many times on CAF and this thread, I find myself disinclined to outline the point again.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

pritchard85;8290386]But that is how you get Peter being Supreme; one verse. I do read all of Scripture and it doesn’t equate to Catholicism. Just saying…

What you read from scripture does not equate to what Jesus builds or commands of Peter alone. IF you think one verse pertains to Peter’s role as chief shepherd take a look again at scripture that begins the Catholic teaching practiced from Apostolic Sacred Tradition.

Peter recieves revelation from heaven in order to allow pagan Gentiles into the body of Christ through the sacrament of baptism;

Acts 10: 9 … Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime…11 He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners.
12 In it were all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky.
13 A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.”
16 This happened three times, and then the object was taken up into the sky.

Peter’s infallibility is displayed from scripture just as Jesus Christ promised to never leave Peter when Peter “Rock” walked on water;

Matthew 14: 28 Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”
29 He said, “Come.” **Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus. **

Peter is always listed among first of the apostles, Andrew was first to meet Jesus who was Peter’s older brother, so Peter as being the eldest among the apostles is ruled out from an eldest to youngest list;

Matthew 10: 2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
3 Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus;
4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him.

Peter exercised his God given authority in binding and loosing on earth by allowing death to take a fellow member Ananias, and then later raise the dead in Tabitha from the book of acts.

Acts 5: 3 But **Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? **4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.”
5 **When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. **6 The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened.
8 **Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?” **She answered, “Yes, for that amount.”
9 Then Peter said to her, “Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
10 At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

cont;

 

[Nicea325]

Is Paul infallible?

What do you think? Was he fallible when wrote his epistles?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

Peter raises the dead

Acts 9: 36 Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated means Dorcas). 10 She was completely occupied with good deeds and almsgiving.
37 Now during those days she fell sick and died, so after washing her, they laid (her) out in a room upstairs…
40 **Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed. Then he turned to her body and said, “Tabitha, rise up.” She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up.
41 He gave her his hand and raised her up, and when he had called the holy ones and the widows, he presented her alive. **

Jesus builds his church upon Peter because he (Peter) hears from God, God has chosen who is to serve the servants of God Simon bar Jona renamed Peter (Rock), to be the leader (greatest).

Matthew 16: 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus commands Peter alone to shepherd his sheep on earth after the resurrection;

John 21: 15 … Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

In Paul’s letters, Peter is called the first witness to the Resurrection.

1 Cor 15:3-5
… Christ died … was buried … was raised on the third day … that he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve.

Paul repeatedly call Peter “Kephas,” the name given him by Christ translated from Aramaic = Rock
.
Gal 1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days.

Peter is the first to adminster Apostolic succession;

Acts 1;15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, 16“My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus…‘May another take his office.’o
*24Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” 26 q Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. **

Peter is first to proclaim Christ crucified;

Acts 2; 14* Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words…22You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.j 23This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.

Jesus confirms that there will be a GREATER, or LEADER, amongst the Apostles, otherwise Christ’s words could have no meaning here from Luke’s Gospel; but if there was a leader. Peter, and no other, was that man… Peter had a superiority over his brethren given him by Christ; for if he was only their equal, how could he confirm them back to the faith?

Luke 22: 25 He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’;
26 but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.
27 For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.
28 It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 **“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” **

 

[Hesychios]

Actually, I was the one who made the original statement - it just got quoted incorrectly in the post you quoted so it looked like part of the main text.

My point was simply that a few posters keep asking, when anyone says that the modern papacy is different from what we see in the early church, how it was different.

Since even a cursory glance at the history of the Church shows it to be true and uncontested, and it has been pointed out many times on CAF and this thread, I find myself disinclined to outline the point again.

I agree.

The bishop of Rome’s declarations were never taken at face value by the early councils, they were always scrutinized and judged for their orthodoxy first.

Some Popes were judged by Councils, not often but it did happen. And churchmen were not reluctant to criticize a bishop of Rome when they thought he was out of line.

That kind of thing is not possible today, which is why we see the peculiar phenomenon of the sedevacantists. Some Roman Catholics cannot believe that a Pope can err, but when they see what has happened to the church it gives them cognitive dissonance. The way out for them (it seems crazy) is to deny that the current bishops of Rome are really valid Popes!

But canon law (codified by the Popes) gives the church no option to judge the fitness of a Pope to serve, nor to chastise or remove him if necessary. Not even a Council can judge a Pope now, and Councils can only be called by Popes now.

It was not always so.

 

[Hesychios]

Peter was Orthodox.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hesychios;8287202]Actually, the author of that letter is not named, people assume it is Clement, but no one knows. It is not even clear that the author was a bishop

.

Interesting your of the opinion which removes St.Clement from his own writings? while those from antiquity who attest to St.Clement writings and including the great Saint who discussed this issue with St.Clement from his own hand writing places St.Clement in the event being discussed via letter.

In the first place Holy Orthodoxy has the magisterium. It has the teaching authority.

Reallly? Can Orthodoxy proclaim and defend against “contraception” within its teaching authority united to all the magisterium? Can Orthodoxy alone proclaim and defend against re-baptism of validly baptised Christians united in its magisterium? Without Peter you can not do it alone.

Holy Orthodoxy neither adds to the faith nor subtracts from it, it preserves and conserves the faith, teaching it continually. There is no expectation of new dogmas because none are needed, the Apostolic Faith saved souls in the first century and saves souls today.

Amen the Catholic Church has never detracted from this. I believe a more careful analysis may be needed in defining what is considered new dogma (heretical) and what is defended dogma by definition, clarification development against heretics and heresies within the body of Christ, which the Catholic Church has defended throughout the ages unchanged.

What makes you think your grandchild could know more about the faith than you can know? What makes you think that the future generations will be more knowledgeable and better prepared for salvation than the past generations? It seems rather, that the newer generations are forgetting what Truth they have been given, and clouding it over with myths and fables.

I think Paul explains this paradox very well in regards to Christians who remain on the milk and those Christians who move on to eat the meat of the Gospel into maturity, which has always been the Orthodox Catholic way of growth and defending the apostolic teachings unchanged.

Do you claim that the Catholic Church did not grow from infancy into maturity in understanding of the revelations of God given to the Church? Becuase this is developement of doctrine, not as you have proposed it to being a new revelation or some new doctrine. Here is Paul teaching what the Catholic Church has never detered from her understanding.

Eph. 4:12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry,* for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,* to the extent of the full stature of Christ,j 14so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.k 15Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head,l Christ, 16from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love*.

Hebrew 5:12 **Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, [and] not solid food.i 13Everyone who lives on milk lacks experience of the word of righteousness, for he is a child. 14But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties are trained by practice to discern good and evil. **

Do you deny that scripture teaches that one plants and another waters, this apostolic teaching has always been the Catholic position. Paul does well to serve notice on those who behave in rivalry, jealously of the flesh. The one that matters here is God, let us obey His Word which “Causes the Growth” in the church so as not to remain on the milk.

1Cor. 3:1* Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people,* as infants in Christ. 2I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now,a ***3for you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving in an ordinary human way?****b 4Whenever someone says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?

• 5What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers* through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth.d 7Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth. 8The one who plants and the one who waters are equal, and each will receive wages in proportion to his labor. 9For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

 

[guanophore]

You reject infallibility yet set up the opinion of one Saint as if infallible.

No, Hesychios does not “reject infalliblity”. It is understood as a gift for the Church, not centered around on individual. Besides that, Latin Catholics will also affirm when a saint writes in accordance with the infallible teachings of the Church, as this one has.

 

[guanophore]

What of issues like cloning, stem cell research, contraception, abortion, socialism, Freemasonry, etc. etc.
The Orthodox have no authority to speak on regarding these modern pitfalls.

How do you figure that?!

 

[guanophore]

You know, it strikes me reading this thread, and I few others, that in order to understand another groups religious or world-view takes some imagination. If you can’t imagine yourself taking on the other system as a whole, you can never understand what they believe, because you only see it piecemeal and compare the bits to your own system of belief.

It isn’t clear to me that many people have actually attempted to engage in this type of imagination.

I totally agree with you. I see this phenomenon all over this board. Many folks cannot put themselves in the other’s shoes to even understand their point of view. It is a tragic loss of critical thinking.

In high school, the debate team would often be given an opposing position just to practice the ability to conceive and make opposing arguments. It develops that flexibility of cognition that is often missing here.

I also think that is the phenomenon that caused the East West schism in the beginning!

 

[guanophore]

Is Paul infallible?

Glad to see you back, Pritch! Was afraid you fled the mobbing.

Paul, along with the other Scriptural authors, acted infallibly when writing the Scriptures. They are the product of the Gift of Infallibility God gave to the Church. That is why they are inspired, and inerrant. Infallible acts are from God, which is why they are inerrant.

 

[guanophore]

Ok, and we do not ever see Peter as Supreme anywhere. We keep going in these circles. It simply isn’t there.

Right, so would you consider giving up this carnal notion of “supremacy” and take an honest and unbiased look at the Petrine gifts?

No he didn’t. The Scriptures you point to to try and prove this are very ambiguous and don’t show what you claim.

Would you consider looking at the Scriptural referneces to see what they really do 'claim"?

It appears, in order to cling to the rejection of a carnal world view of “supremacy” you are unwilling, or unable to look at the evidence.

I know all about taking something and blowing it up to the point of it being no longer distiguishable from truth. i know all about that. I think you call that tradition. If you don’t like that, then stop being condescending to me.

What do you think Paul meant when he commanded that we should hold fast to the Apostolic Traditions?

What does that have to do with our conversation?? That is obviously for another thread.
But that is how you get Peter being Supreme; one verse. I do read all of Scripture and it doesn’t equate to Catholicism. Just saying…

I am sure it does not “equate”, Pritch, and you seem to be too hostile and closed minded to even try to understand how it DOES equate to Catholics. It is ok if you refuse to understand our point of view. It just begs the question as to why you have come to a CAtholic Answers Board.

I have said this before, but I will say it again for the lurkers, since it seems that it will have no effect upon you. Catholics do not extract their faith from Scripture like our separated brethren do. Our faith was delivered whole and entire to the Church before a word of it was ever written in the NT. We don’t “get that Peter is supreme” from Bible verses. We see the role of Peter reflected in the Scriptures because they were written by Catholics, for Catholics.

 

[benedictus2]

Holy Orthodoxy already understands. This is why it can challenge heresy, this is why it has the teaching authority … the magisterium.

But your church has introduced new dogmas that were not known to the early church, and continues to entertain the possibility of more such dogmas. Some of these are not universally understood in your own church, and are unknown in the rest of the Apostolic Christian world.

Saint Vincent of Le’rins had some intersting things to say on this very subject, which you seem to contradict:

We said likewise, that in the Church itself regard must be had to the consentient voice of universality equally with that of antiquity, lest we either be torn from the integrity of unity and carried away to schism, or be precipitated from the religion of antiquity into heretical novelties. We said, further, that in this same ecclesiastical antiquity two points are very carefully and earnestly to be held in view by those who would keep clear of heresy: first, they should ascertain whether any decision has been given in ancient times as to the matter in question by the whole priesthood of the Catholic Church, with the authority of a General Council: and, secondly, if some new question should arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse to the opinions of the holy Fathers, of those at least, who, each in his own time and place, remaining in the unity of communion and of the faith, were accepted as approved masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have held, with one mind and with one consent, this ought to be accounted the true and Catholic doctrine of the Church, without any doubt or scruple.
Commonitory cp 29 par 77

The fifth century saint appeals to what was already known, and does not endorse new interpretations nor seek new understandings. New thinking unknown to the rest of the Apostolic church or unknown to other generations cannot be endorsed as doctrine.

Actually that in no way contradicts what I have written since Catholic doctrine is true development of doctrine hence does not deviate from the teaching of General Councils and the teaching of antiquity. It must be remembered that the Church Fathers as brilliant and holy as they may be still do not form the magisterium of the Church. Take for example St Augustine. His formulations on Grace and Free will is not reconcileable with what the Church has come to understand more deeply about the nature of grace, free will, salvation and damnation.

So yes, I keep to what I have said before, it was a cessation of faith seeking understanding for fear of being contaminated by imagination. A decision reached in fear. Not exactly a sound basis for ceasing to inquire and ponder the mysteries.

 

[benedictus2]

Ok, and we do not ever see Peter as Supreme anywhere. We keep going in these circles. It simply isn’t there.

So you’ve lost the ability to read as well? What about the biblical support that others have provided you?

No he didn’t. The Scriptures you point to to try and prove this are very ambiguous and don’t show what you claim.

So not only have you lost the inability to read, you don’t even know the Bible?
Seriously, if you are going to reply, you better come up with support for your claims. The other’s have done some hardwork to give you Biblical support.

I know all about taking something and blowing it up to the point of it being no longer distiguishable from truth. i know all about that. I think you call that tradition. If you don’t like that, then stop being condescending to me.

As I said, you have no concept of development of doctrine. Plus the fact that you obviously don’t know the Bible either.

What does that have to do with our conversation?? That is obviously for another thread.

You don’t know? Let me use your own words: “I know all about taking something and blowing it up to the point of it being no longer distinguishable from truth” That is a very protestant failing. Grab a word or two and come up with their own doctrine which is so very far from the truth.

But that is how you get Peter being Supreme; one verse. I do read all of Scripture and it doesn’t equate to Catholicism. Just saying…

Well no. Nicea and the others have given you numerous verses. So my position is solidifying with every reply you post. You must have lost the ability to read.

 

[pritchard85]

Right, so would you consider giving up this carnal notion of “supremacy” and take an honest and unbiased look at the Petrine gifts?

Again, can you show me where they are in Scripture?

Would you consider looking at the Scriptural referneces to see what they really do 'claim"?

 

[pritchard85]

What do you think? Was he fallible when wrote his epistles?

I’m asking you.

 

[Hesychios]

Actually that in no way contradicts what I have written since Catholic doctrine is true development of doctrine…

The theory of ‘development of doctrine’ is a nineteenth century rationalization (and an admission really) for the fact that Roman Catholic doctrine has been added to in the last ten centuries, as if that has been necessary.

That is not ‘development’, it is more like ‘accumulation’ of doctrine. The church has no business doing that. Stick with the original deposit of Apostolic Faith and leave the ‘opinions’ out of dogma, and stop making new doctrines out of ideas that the Apostolic churches have never known to be doctrines.

It weakens the general credibility of the church in the public mind, divides Christians for no good purpose and abets the critical rejection of Christianity by modern sceptics.

We can see at least two new ones coming down the pike, and no one knows how many more you guys will declare in time. Your particular church couldn’t do that in the first millennium, because the bishop of Rome [indeed, no individual bishop anywhere, not even the real saint Peter]did not have such authority to proclaim dogmas in the first 18 centuries, and the western churches couldn’t dominate the Councils in the first ten.

I realize that you have no choice but to defend it, it is your church and you want it to be perceived in as good a light as possible. But it’s still wrong, and over the last few centuries your church has distanced itself further and further from the church of the Fathers, the Apostolic churches, raising new obstacles to church unity where there should be none.

You make it much harder for us to restore communion with you, for no good reason. It fills us with sorrow.

 

[pritchard85]

The theory of ‘development of doctrine’ is a nineteenth century rationalization (and an admission really) for the fact that Roman Catholic doctrine has been added to in the last ten centuries, as if that has been necessary.

That is not ‘development’, it is more like ‘accumulation’ of doctrine. The church has no business doing that. Stick with the original deposit of Apostolic Faith and leave the ‘opinions’ out of dogma, and stop making new doctrines out of ideas that the Apostolic churches have never known to be doctrines.

It weakens the general credibility of the church in the public mind, divides Christians for no good purpose and abets the critical rejection of Christianity by modern sceptics.

I realize that you have no choice but to defend it, it’s your church and you want it to be perceived in as good a light as possible. But it’s still wrong, and over the last few centuries your church has distanced itself further and further from the church of the Fathers, the Apostolic churches, raising new obstacles to church unity where there should be none.

You make it much harder for us to restore communion with you, for no good reason. It fills us with sorrow.

There seems to be no good and reasonable platform for the RCC to wish for unity with others. It seems only interested in division in its further exclusion. This is one of the main reasons I left 8 years ago.