P
- Status
P
pritchard85
Guest
Your arguments are merely cookie cutter arguments used over and over again to throw at anything that refutes Catholic doctrine. You have yet to show me one single Bible verse to prove that Peter is supreme and he was the first pope. You showed me 50 verses where Peter was a leader and how he shared authority amongst all the Apostles. Show me where the Bible says that he is the Supreme and Infallible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ. Show me…
P
pritchard85
Guest
H
hazcompat
Guest
from st. cyprian in the 3rd century De unitate ecclesiae
peace
- If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”
(5) And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,-when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.
The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church.
peace
R
Ron_Obvious
Guest
"“Your arguments are merely cookie cutter arguments used over and over again to throw at anything that refutes Catholic doctrine. You have yet to show me one single Bible verse to prove that Peter is supreme and he was the first pope. You showed me 50 verses where Peter was a leader and how he shared authority amongst all the Apostles. Show me where the Bible says that he is the Supreme and Infallible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ. Show me… “””
“Cookie cutter arguments”??? Really??? Nicea325 provided numerous scripture passages to demonstrate that Peter led the early church. Look at Matthew 16:18-19. This verse demonstrates that Jesus has given Peter a divine appointment, that is, to be the chief shepherd of the Church after Christ was no longer with them. Jesus only speaks about His death after appointing Peter the chief shepherd. When Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, Jesus is establishing Peter as the authority over the Church, and this also facilitates apostolic succession to his chair. See Isaiah 22:15,19-22 which is the only other place where “keys” are used to descibe dynastic succession to the Davidic kingdom, which Jesus came to fulfill in His Holy Catholic Church.
Also Pritchard85, you say “show me where the bible says…”. This may get a little off topic, but “show me where the bible says” it has to be explicitly in the Bible. This appears to be the premise of your whole argument… BTW, Peter was mentioned more in the New Testament than all other apostles combined. There have been countless verses thrown at you by Nicea325 that point to the primacy of Peter, yet you choose to ignore them. Why is that? Do they not jibe with your personal interpretation of those passages? By what authority do you say they don’t address Peter’s primacy?
.
“Cookie cutter arguments”??? Really??? Nicea325 provided numerous scripture passages to demonstrate that Peter led the early church. Look at Matthew 16:18-19. This verse demonstrates that Jesus has given Peter a divine appointment, that is, to be the chief shepherd of the Church after Christ was no longer with them. Jesus only speaks about His death after appointing Peter the chief shepherd. When Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, Jesus is establishing Peter as the authority over the Church, and this also facilitates apostolic succession to his chair. See Isaiah 22:15,19-22 which is the only other place where “keys” are used to descibe dynastic succession to the Davidic kingdom, which Jesus came to fulfill in His Holy Catholic Church.
Also Pritchard85, you say “show me where the bible says…”. This may get a little off topic, but “show me where the bible says” it has to be explicitly in the Bible. This appears to be the premise of your whole argument… BTW, Peter was mentioned more in the New Testament than all other apostles combined. There have been countless verses thrown at you by Nicea325 that point to the primacy of Peter, yet you choose to ignore them. Why is that? Do they not jibe with your personal interpretation of those passages? By what authority do you say they don’t address Peter’s primacy?
.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Great job… Great post… Thanks for all the effort here!
N
Nicea325
Guest
Cookie arguments? Well I rather have cookie cutter arguments as opposed to your SILENT proof Peter was NOT the Head.
Are you joking? I did not know 50 NT VERSES did not qualify?
WRONG! Those verses are in reference to Peter…not ALL 12.
And you have yet to show me where the Bible says he WAS NOT the Head? Second,show me where Jesus taught everything must be explicit in the Bible in order to be true. Show me…
N
Nicea325
Guest
P
pritchard85
Guest
.
No way! that’s not how it works my friend. You are ascerting that Peter is the first pope and the Supreme and Infallible Head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ. Prove it by Scripture. Show me where Scripture depicts Peter as such.
N
Nicea325
Guest
:dancing: What is the matter? Feeling the heat come on strong?
Infallible? Hey…I have news for you…did not Peter WRITE to letters? Are those two letters FALLIBLE to you…or INFALLIBLE? :ehh:
Feeling a bit cornered? You cannot answer because you have no answer for a false premise that EVERYTHING MUST EXPLICIT IN THE BIBLE TO MAKE IT TRUE. Assert? You have a lot to learn. I have provided plenty of NT verses which you clearly IGNORE & DODGE. Try reading history too and learn that your argument is false and absurd.
So do you plan to show me where Peter was NOT the HEAD and INFALLIBLE?
Hey…I am curious…why do you adhere to a NT canon with 27 books? Show me Scripture discusses a 27 NT canon?
P
pritchard85
Guest
You won’t show me by Scripture where and how it is that your church holds Peter in a Supreme and Infallible role. The heat Is On You my friend because you can’t prove it by Scripture. You won’t and you can’t. I say that as nicely as I can to you but it remains to be seen. Stop trying to play down Scripture. Just prove it.:dancing: What is the matter? Feeling the heat come on strong?
Infallible? Hey…I have news for you…did not Peter WRITE to letters? Are those two letters FALLIBLE to you…or INFALLIBLE? :ehh:
Feeling a bit cornered? You cannot answer because you have no answer for a false premise that EVERYTHING MUST EXPLICIT IN THE BIBLE TO MAKE IT TRUE. Assert? You have a lot to learn. I have provided plenty of NT verses which you clearly IGNORE & DODGE. Try reading history too and learn that your argument is false and absurd.
So do you plan to show me where Peter was NOT the HEAD and INFALLIBLE?
Hey…I am curious…why do you adhere to a NT canon with 27 books? Show me Scripture discusses a 27 NT canon?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think that you may be correct in that if Christ was speaking metaphorically, the reference to something abstract is ok. Someone with a really good knowledge of the language would be able to say if Aramaic was actually used that way, or Greek. But then, that might make it harder to discern whether he was talking about Peter himself, or his faith.
I think the problem is that even if this were cleared up, it isn’t all that helpful. Although some Catholics think this verse, and others up thread can “prove” the Catholic view of the papacy, they won’t bear the weight IMO. (Nor do they disprove it.) There are just too many questions. Is it Peter or his faith? If it’s Peter, what does that mean? Is it him personally, or his successors also? Or only his successors in Rome? What kind of power or privileged does it give? What are the keys about, and does he accept them personally on on behalf of all the Apostles? How do we decisions being made by the Apostles? (Please no one try to answer these questions to “help” me. I am simply showing that the verses themselves do not really answer the question so much as raise a lot of others.)
I think that you can’t say much from these passages alone. As far as I know serious scholars of Catholic history realize this, and also realize that the modern understanding of the papacy requires a belief in development of doctrine to justify it.
C
ChrisB103
Guest
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, and I sincerely agree with the point you made that this verse (by itself) does not necessarily prove as much as us Catholics would like for it to. I think this is true of almost any verse that any Christian quotes for any purpose, too, as I’m sure you’ll agree. I think the questions you raise are valid, and it makes me glad to have Sacred Tradition to go along with Sacred Scripture to help field questions such as these.
God bless you and your walk with the Lord.
Chris
C
ChrisB103
Guest
According to the Catholic understanding of the Pope’s role this does not show what you want it to. It does show that Popes can be wrong in their own personal opinions, but Catholics don’t claim infallibility for the Pope under these circumstances (the Pope is only infallible when he formally speaks on matters of faith and morals with his full authority as pope). What it also shows is that sometimes men in power can use their power unjustly. However, examples of this can be found within Protestantism just as easily as they can be found within Catholicism. John Calvin is an example of this, don’t you agree?
God bless you and your walk with the Lord,
Chris
N
Nicea325
Guest
You won’t show me by Scripture where and how it is that your church holds Peter in a Supreme and Infallible role. The heat Is On You my friend because you can’t prove it by Scripture. You won’t and you can’t. I say that as nicely as I can to you but it remains to be seen. Stop trying to play down Scripture. Just prove it.
I will not show you by Scripture? Are you truly that BLIND? SeriousIy? I cannot prove it by Scripture? Tell me where the following comes from?**50 New Testament **verses which show the ‘primacy’ of St. Peter. Here are just a few.
**Peter’s **name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him “the first” (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)
**Peter’s **name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (**162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas).**John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. All the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.
- Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” - an example of “binding and loosing.”
- Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (see, for example, Gal 1:18-19; 2:7-8). Taken in context, Paul is in Jerusalem (2:1), the See of James. Protocol, even to this day is for the Bishop of the diocese to be mentioned first before any visitor is mentioned, even for the Pope. Saint Paul is merely following proper protocol in vs 2:9.
- Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42;
Mt 16:18). - **Peter **is asked three times by Christ to feed His lambs, is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).
- Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith fail not” (Lk 22:32).
- **Peter **alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
- **Peter **first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
- **Peter **alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
- Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
- **Peter **is regarded by the common people in the same way (Act 2:37-41;5:15).
- Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money
(Mt 17:24-27). - Christ teaches from **Peter’s **boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11) perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a “fisher of men” (Mt 4:19).
- Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:5-6).
- **Peter **is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
- **Peter **leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
- Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).
- Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost
(Acts 1:15-22). - Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
- Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the Gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
- Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
- Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God
(Acts 5:2-11). - **Peter’s **shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
- Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
- Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1- 6).
- Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
- Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
- Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
- The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter “without ceasing” when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
- **Peter **presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
- Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29;
- Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments
(Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67). - Peter’s name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples
(Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37). - Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).
- Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
N
Nicea325
Guest
Here is more from the EARLY CHURCH…do not choke on them…You won’t show me by Scripture where and how it is that your church holds Peter in a Supreme and Infallible role. The heat Is On You my friend because you can’t prove it by Scripture. You won’t and you can’t. I say that as nicely as I can to you but it remains to be seen. Stop trying to play down Scripture. Just prove it.
Primacy of Peter as written by the Church Fathers…
St. Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 4. J555-556, 251 A.D.
On him He builds the Church and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep (Jn 21:17); and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.
Indeed the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too are all the shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by the Apostles in single minded accord.
If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?
If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?
Origen, Commentaries on John 5:3 J479a, 226 A.D.
Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ…
St. Cornelius I, Pope, Letter to Cyprian Epist 49. J546-546a, 252 A.D.
We are not ignorant of the fact that there is one GOD, and one Christ the Lord whom we confess, and one Holy Spirit; and there must be one bishop in the Catholic Church.
St. Cyprian, Letter to Quintas 71:1. J592a, 254 A.D.
For Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disagreed with him about circumcision, did not claim anything for himself insolently nor assume anything arrogantly, so as to say he held the primacy and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those more recently arrived.
Firmilian, Bishop, Letter to Cyprian 75:17 J602a, 255 A.D.
In this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and evident stupidity of Stephen; that although he glories so much in the place of his bishopric, and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church have been laid…
Eusebius, History of the Church 2:14:6. J651dd, 300 A.D.
In the same reign of Claudius, the all good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one of the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others to Rome.
Aphraates, Treatises 21:13 J693a, 336 A.D.
And Jesus handed over the keys to Simon, and ascended and returned to Him who had sent him.
St. Julius I, Pope, Letter to Bishops of Antioch 22:35. J806a, 337 A.D.
For what we have received from the Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you.
Damasus, Decree of Damasus 3. J910u,382 A.D.
The first see, therefore is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Catholic Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.
*St. Ambrose of Milan, On Twelve Psalms 40:30+. J1261, 387 A.D.
It is to Peter himself that He says; “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church (Matt 16:18).” Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal.
St. Jerome, Letter to Pope Damasus 15:2, J1346,1346a, 374 A.D.
I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness, that is the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails…He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me.
*St. Augustine, Letter to Generosus 53:1:2. J1418, 400 A.D.
If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, “Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it (Matt 16:18).” Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, etc…
See this complete listing of the unbroken line of Popes.
*Augustine, Sermons 295:2+. J1526, 391 A.D.
Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19).”
A
Ana_v
Guest
Hi Chris,
There’s only so much that can be said, in a Catholic-Protestant discussion that is (implicitly or explicity) under the “Scripture-alone” constraint. To make more progress, you’ll have to, I think, (eventually) start citing the Early Church’s teaching concerning Apostolic Succession and the Chair of St. Peter.
That said, here is a link that should prove helpful, in terms of explaining why there exists the Petros - petra distinction in Matthew.
**John 1:42 ** (NIV)
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
**Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” **
The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?”
He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.
The Greek verb for “take care” in verse 16 is “poimaino”, whose meaning is to “govern”. Hmmm …
There’s only so much that can be said, in a Catholic-Protestant discussion that is (implicitly or explicity) under the “Scripture-alone” constraint. To make more progress, you’ll have to, I think, (eventually) start citing the Early Church’s teaching concerning Apostolic Succession and the Chair of St. Peter.
That said, here is a link that should prove helpful, in terms of explaining why there exists the Petros - petra distinction in Matthew.
Two more things that may be useful to you, for future conversations with a Protestant on this topic:
**John 1:42 ** (NIV)
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).
- “Cephas” transliterates from the Aramaic “kepha”
-This revelation that Simon is to be renamed “Cephas” is given before Peter even confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus already had a purpose for Peter.
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
**Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” **
The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?”
He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.
The Greek verb for “take care” in verse 16 is “poimaino”, whose meaning is to “govern”. Hmmm …
P
pablope
Guest
C
campeador
Guest
Untrue.
Truth:
Joan of Arc was captured by the Burgundians during an attack near Compiègne. After the French King Charles VII failed to intervene, she was eventually purchased by the English government from Duke Philip of Burgundy. She was tried in a politically motivated ecclesiastical court and found guilty in spite of many irregularities. Her appeals to the Council of Basel and to the Pope should have stopped the proceedings, but were denied by Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais, an English partisan. She was condemned to death and burned at the stake on May 30, 1431. A posthumous retrial authorized by Pope Callixtus III declared her innocent on July 7, 1456 and implicated Bishop Cauchon with heresy for having convicted an innocent woman in pursuit of a secular vendetta.
P
pablope
Guest
- Status