Peter NOT "This Rock"???!!!

[jpusateri]

Myhrr:

I’m sorry then, I still don’t understand the point you’re making.

Peter describes the authority, that of elders and descriptions of bishops elsewhere describe them, good, sensible people. They’re an authority because they hold the flock together, is your doctor superior to you? In knowledge probably yes and of course if you were ill you’d submit to his authority, that in no way implies that he has the right to demand submission of intellect and will to him. Quite the opposite, his practice is subject to your consent.

That’s how authority is understood by the early Church, bishops are a specialisation, just as are apostles etc. But they are not dictators, they do not command inferiors, they are an authority for equal members. And they are not beyond reproach, as Paul reminds, if any teach something other than is handed down they should not be followed.

A bishop demanding obedience is teaching something other than that handed down and is not to be followed. The choice is of course yours, you have free will. If you want to submit to the authority of the Bishop of rome, but the Bishop of Rome does not have the right to demand submission to his authority, not of any Christian, not of anyone.

In terms of the early Church the RCC and those Churches submitting to his authority do not have the same sort of bishops as in the early Church, in real terms I suppose it could be described that the RCC has only one bishop, the other bishops subservient do not count as bishops.

I think we are close to agreeing. I believe however that IS the way the Church’s bishops actually ARE. They do not demand submission of intellect and will (that I am aware of).

Why would you say that the Church’s bishops are not teaching what is handed down or are demanding submission? What are they going to do to one who dissents? Declare that you are not in agreement with them? Oh no! If so, does that mean that they do not have the truth?

In what way are they condemning themselves? Because you think that they are not like the original bishops?

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

Show me some real proof that Rome has any right to claim Peter for itself only.

You’re all so keen on this supposed superiority of Peter then tell me how the See he first established in Antioch got cut out of his succession.

From the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs 1848 in reply to Pope Pius IX

[snip for space]

Isn’t that theft to claim that Rome is more venerable than Antioch?

Canon III 2nd Nicaen ecumenical council 381. You mention 1 Nicaea canons as being somehow pivotal in the papacy question.

***THE Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

---

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF*** CANON III.***

The bishop of Constantinople is to be honoured next after the bishop of Rome.

It should be remembered that the change effected by this canon did not affect Rome directly in any way, but did seriously affect Alexandria and Antioch, which till then had ranked next after the see of Rome. When the pope refused to acknowledge the authority of this canon, he was in reality defending the principle laid down in the canon of Nice, that in such matters the ancient customs should continue. Even the last clause, it would seem, could give no offence to the most sensitive on the papal claims, for it implies a wonderful power in the rank of Old Rome, if a see is to rank next to it because it happens to be “New Rome.” Of course
these remarks only refer to the wording of the canon which is
carefully guarded; the intention doubtless was to exalt the see of
Constantinople, the chief see of the East, to a position of as near
equality as possible with the chief see of the West.

ZONARAS.

In this place the Council takes action concerning Constantinople, to which it decrees the prerogative of honour, the priority, and the glory after the Bishop of Rome as being New Rome and the Queen of cities. Some indeed wish to understand the preposition meta were of time and not of inferiority of grade. And they strive to confirm this interpretation by a consideration of the XXVIII canon of Chalcedon, urging that if Constantinople is to enjoy equal honours, the preposition “after” cannot signify subjection. But on the other hand the hundred and thirtieth novel of Justinian,(1) Book V of the Imperial Constitutions, title three, understands the canon otherwise. For, it says, “we decree
that the most holy Pope of Old Rome, according to the decrees of the holy synods is the first of all priests, and that the most blessed bishop of Constantinople and of New Rome, should have the second place after the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome, and should be superior in honour to all others.” From this therefore it is abundantly evident that “after” denotes subjection (upobibasmon) and diminution.

And otherwise it would be impossible to guard this equality of honour in each see. For in reciting their names, or assigning them seats when they are to sit together, or arranging the order of their signatures to documents, one must come before the other. Whoever therefore shall explain this particle meta as only referring to time, and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of dignity, does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor good. Moreover in Canon xxxvj of the Council in Trullo,
meta manifestly denotes subjection, assigning to Constantinople the second place after the throne of Old Rome; and then adds, after this Alexandria, then Antioch, and last of all shall be placed Jerusalem.

to be continued

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

Show me some real proof that Rome has any right to claim Peter for itself only.

isn’t that theft to claim that Rome is more venerable than Antioch?

continued

HEFELE.

If we enquire the reason why this Council tried to change the order of rank of the great Sees, which had been established in the sixth Nicene canon, (1st Nicene council 325) we must first take into consideration that, since the elevation of Constantinople to the Imperial residence, as New Rome, the bishops as well as the Emperors naturally wished to see the new imperial residence, New Rome, placed immediately after Old Rome in ecclesiastical rank also; the rather, as with the Greeks it was the rule for the ecclesiastical rank of a See to follow the civil rank of the city. The Synod of Antioch in 341, in its ninth canon, had plainly declared this, and subsequently the fourth General Council, in its seventeenth canon, spoke in the same
sense. But how these principles were protested against on the side of Rome, we shall see further on in the history of the fourth General Council. For the present, it may suffice to add that the aversion to Alexandria which, by favouring Maximus, had exercised such a disturbing influence on Church affairs in Constantinople, may well have helped to effect the elevation of the See of Constantinople over that of Alexandria. Moreover, for many centuries Rome did not recognize this change of the old ecclesiastical order. In the sixteenth session of the fourth General
[179] Council, the Papal Legate, Lucentius, expressly declared this. In like manner the Popes Leo the Great and Gregory the Great pronounced against it; and though even Gratian adopted this canon in his collection the Roman critics added the following note: Canon hic ex iis est, quos Apostolica Romana Sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recepit. It was only when, after the conquest of Constantinople by the Latins, a Latin patriarchate was founded there in 1204, that Pope Innocent III, and the twelfth General Council, in 1215, allowed this patriarch the first rank after the Roman; and the same recognition was expressly awarded to the Greek Patriarch at the Florentine Union in 1439.

T. W. ALLIES.(1)

Remarkable enough it is that when, in the Council of Chalcedon, appeal was made to this third Canon, the Pope St. Leo declared that it had never been notified to Rome. As in the mean time it had taken effect throughout the whole East, as in this very council Nectarius, as soon as he is elected, presides instead of Timothy of Alexandria, it puts in a strong point of view the real self-government of the Eastern Church at this time; for the giving the Bishop of Constantinople precedence over Alexandria and Antioch was a proceeding which affected the whole Church, and so far altered its original order–one in which certainly the West might claim to have a voice. Tillemont goes on: “It would be very
difficult to justify St. Leo, if he meant that the Roman Church had
never known that the Bishop of Constantinople took the second place in the Church, and the first in the East, since his legates, whose conduct he entirely approves, had just themselves authorized it as a thing beyond dispute, and Eusebius of Dorylaeum maintained that St. Leo himself had approved it.” The simple fact is, that, exceedingly unwilling as the Bishops of Rome were to sanction it, from this time, 381, to say the least, the Bishop of Constantinople appears uniformly as first bishop of the East.

( You ask what happened to the status of Antioch? Well they were demoted by the bishop of Constantinople )

to be continued

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

Show me some real proof that Rome has any right to claim Peter for itself only.

[snip for space]

Isn’t that theft to claim that Rome is more venerable than Antioch?

continued

Cardinal Baronius in his Annals (A.D. 381, n. 35, 36) has disputed the genuineness of this Canon! As already mentioned it is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXII, c. iij. The note added to this in Gratian reads as follows:

NOTE IN GRATIAN’S “DECRETUM.”

This canon is of the number of those which the Apostolic See of Rome did not at first nor for long years afterwards receive. This is evident from Epistle LI. (or LIII.) of Pope Leo I. to Anatolius of Constantinople and from several other of his letters. The same thing also is shewn by two letters of Leo IX.'s, the one against the presumptuous acts of Michael and Leo (cap. 28) and the other addressed to the same Michael. But still more clearly is this seen from the letter of Blessed Gregory (xxxj., lib. VI.) to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, and from the letter of Nicholas I. to the Emperor Michel which begins “Proposueramus.” However, the bishops of Constantinople, sustained by the authority of the Emperors, usurped to themselves the second place among the patriarchs, and this at length was granted to them for the sake of peace and tranquillity, as Pope Innocent III. declares (in cap. antiqua de privileg.).(2) This canon Dionysius Exiguus appends to Canon 2, and dropping 5, 6, and 7 he has but three canons of this Synod.

( go back and refresh yourself on Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. ) see any symilarities? Peace was the goal of the pope, even though it didn’t happen in the East.

 

[Myhrr]

steve b:

When the second person of the Blessed Trinity, gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, And says He will build His Church on Peter, what authority do you think the Pharisees had at that point?

He said to Simon that on that revelation from the Father he would build his Church, the revelation that he is the Messiah, Son of the Living God. And he’s done so.

And he said to Simon that ’you are also called Peter’, giving him at that time thesurname he reminded Simon he’d already said he would be called in the future, at their first meeting when Andrew the First Called brought his brother Simon to meet Jesus*.***

You said in an earlier post in reply to my statement that Jesus never used the name Peter in addressing Simon,

Jesus probably called Simon, “Peter” many times that weren’t recorded. But the times Jesus did call Simon, “Peter” was in Mt 16:18, Lk 22:34, and Jn 1:42

The first is the when Simon barJonah has the revelation from the Father and is an explanation, the last is when Jesus tells Simon what he will be called in the future, so only the third is where Jesus addresses him directly as Peter, all the other times, as in the feed my sheep etc, he continues to call him Simon barJonah.

So the third is interesting, Jesus doesn’t waste words so why has he called him Peter here and not the usual Simon barJonah?

He said, “I tell you Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny me three times”

He’s reinforcing the connection between the revelation Simon had and his forthcoming betrayal. In the previous verse Jesus calls him, as usual, Simon.

“Simon, Simon! Indeed Satan has asked for you that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith shall not fail and when you have returned to me strengthen your bretheren”

There you have it, why Christ gave Simon the surname rock, for his confession of faith so that he would remember that revelation to help him return to Jesus at his betrayal of him, and, remembering this he would then strenghten his bretheren.

Not that he would rule over them or take the place of Christ or any of the other things the RCC has pretended to.

***So your question “***And says He will build His Church on Peter, what authority do you think the Pharisees had at that point?”

Has no base since Christ gave Simon the name to associate with the revelation from the Father that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the Living God which he reminds him to remember in his trial of betrayal.

Jesus said to do as the Pharisees teach from the seat of Moses, not as they do, interpreting the law without the spirit so that they would see their own parents starve rather them give them the shew bread to eat.

 

[Myhrr]

steve b:

continued

Cardinal Baronius in his Annals (A.D. 381, n. 35, 36) has disputed the genuineness of this Canon! As already mentioned it is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXII, c. iij. The note added to this in Gratian reads as follows:

NOTE IN GRATIAN’S “DECRETUM.”

This canon is of the number of those which the Apostolic See of Rome did not at first nor for long years afterwards receive. This is evident from Epistle LI. (or LIII.) of Pope Leo I. to Anatolius of Constantinople and from several other of his letters. The same thing also is shewn by two letters of Leo IX.'s, the one against the presumptuous acts of Michael and Leo (cap. 28) and the other addressed to the same Michael. But still more clearly is this seen from the letter of Blessed Gregory (xxxj., lib. VI.) to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, and from the letter of Nicholas I. to the Emperor Michel which begins “Proposueramus.” However, the bishops of Constantinople, sustained by the authority of the Emperors, usurped to themselves the second place among the patriarchs, and this at length was granted to them for the sake of peace and tranquillity, as Pope Innocent III. declares (in cap. antiqua de privileg.).(2) This canon Dionysius Exiguus appends to Canon 2, and dropping 5, 6, and 7 he has but three canons of this Synod.

( go back and refresh yourself on Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. ) see any symilarities? Peace was the goal of the pope, even though it didn’t happen in the East.

The canon is beyond dispute, Leo did ratify it, any changes to that in the West are probably part of the vast body of forgeries put in place later to give the impression that Rome’s claims to supremacy were genuine. The RCC has admitted to these forgeries, Baronius at the time of writing would not have been aware of this.

The 4th Council of Chalcedon gave Constantinople equal honour with Rome, where do you think your Church’s recent ‘two lungs’ theory comes from? The Vatican and Constantinople are trying to set up a scenario for the future where they are joint authorities. Constantinople is headed by Bartholomew and he is trying to claim supremacy over other bishops even as we speak here, he is being fought on this point, taken to court in both Istanbul and the US, and the name given to this pretention of his, that Orthodox canonicity depends on being in communion with him, is neo-papism. Read the signs of the times…

But, that doesn’t address my request which was:

Originally Posted by Myhrr
*Show me some real proof that Rome has any right to claim Peter for itself only.

Isn’t that theft to claim that Rome is more venerable than Antioch?*

Basil and other fathers called Antioch the most venerable of the Churches, what I’m asking is how do you claim that the First See of Peter lost its succession?

Why do you say that it moved from Antioch to Rome?

 

[francisca]

SteveG:

Somebody may have already addressed this, but just in case.

Francisca, you are quite wrong here. Even scripture confirms for us that Jesus gave the name Cephas (not Peter) to Simon…
John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).
…and the ‘which means Peter’ is actually part of the verse. Showing that John felt it necessary to clarify the naming as Cephas by translating it for his Greek readers.

Additionally, the name Cephas (for Simon) is preserved for us mutliple times in two of Saint Paul’s letters (Galatians and 1 Corinthians). Christ most certainly renamed Simon Cephas, not Peter as scripture EXPLICITELY tells us in John 1:42. Your premise that Cephas is a translation from Peter is incorrect.

The problem is the word ‘Cephas’ is an Aramaic-Greek transliteration, therefore is undecisive in showing which Aramaic word it really refers to.

Aramaic word Kepha means MASSIVE ROCK, but
Kephath means STONE/PEBBLE.

The word Chepas or Kephas cannot decide which one it refers to.

Therefore John clarify this by showing that the meaning of the Transliterated word is “Petros”. Petros is a Greek word written in Greek Alphabeth, and it means plainly “STONE/Pebble”.

 

[francisca]

AmandaPS:

Who says that Catholics must worship the Pope? And for that matter who says that Catholics believe that the Pope is the same as God?

Exactly, Amanda, I totally agree. Catholic doesn’t mean worshipping the Pope. I’m sure Pope JP II will be sad if we worship him.

He surely is God’s servant.

God bless you.

 

[Charbrah]

Hi Steve, thanks for the Canon information. I want to know why Myrhh thinks that the RCC forged a lot of the documentation and when the RCC admitted to the forgeries.

Also, I would like to know from where Myhrr is obtaining his arguments against the keys symolism. I read in a book by a man last-named Ray that the singular key in Isaiah and the plural keys in Matthew is a distinction which some have referred to before as indicating that the keys are not the same keys; however, Ray argues that multiple keys are mentioned in several places in the Bible, and the keys in Matthew would most definitly have been understood by the apostles and all Jews to represent the granting of royal authority from the King to the Prime Minister.

Ray argues that our modern democratic mind has a hard time comprehending the early Church. In the time of Christ, democracy was not a question, and Christ is establishing a new Kindgom, a new Monarchy with Him as the King as Peter as the prime minister. Christ was not establishing a democratic Church.

I appreciate all of the thoughtful argumentation and information. I am trying to find the truth just as we all are. Let us continue this dialogue with love and a genuine desire for the truth for us and for the all souls; we so desperatly desire and need the truth.

I think Myrhh raises an interesting question when he inquires why Rome claims sole succession from Peter. Is this just a custom, a tradition. Is there any hard evidence for Peter selecting a definite successor to the office of Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God.

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

The canon is beyond dispute, Leo did ratify it, any changes to that in the West are probably part of the vast body of forgeries put in place later to give the impression that Rome’s claims to supremacy were genuine. The RCC has admitted to these forgeries, Baronius at the time of writing would not have been aware of this.

The point is, Rome even in early council was considered in primary position of honor. After that, there was jockeying for position in the East for next place.

Myhrr:

The 4th Council of Chalcedon gave Constantinople equal honour with Rome, where do you think your Church’s recent ‘two lungs’ theory comes from?

Hey wait a minute. Weren’t you asking me a post or two back, what happened to Antioch? I thought you were just arguing for Antioch being the see of Peter. Constantinople wasn’t even an ancient see, unlike Alexandria and Antioch. How can Constantinople do this?

As for “two lungs”, the papacy is looking for ways to achieve harmony. The pope is extending the olive branch. The problem is, the East is not united. So while I think the “lung” image is a nice image, it’s not a perfect image for the East, because the East is not one lung but many. And they don’t work in harmony with each other.

Myhrr:

The Vatican and Constantinople are trying to set up a scenario for the future where they are joint authorities. Constantinople is headed by Bartholomew and he is trying to claim supremacy over other bishops even as we speak here, he is being fought on this point, taken to court in both Istanbul and the US, and the name given to this pretention of his, that Orthodox canonicity depends on being in communion with him, is neo-papism. Read the signs of the times…

That’s why I said, it all reminds me of the pattern that goes back to Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. The similarities are there for the pattern the East follows. BTW, Clements letter, was almost treated as scripture in the East. They had to refer to it many times. Jesus set up one prime minister among all His other ministers. He knew there would be fights over juristiction. It didn’t stop Him from setting up His kingdom with one prime minister among all His other ministers. Personally I think it’s His way to test our faith…

Myhrr:

But, that doesn’t address my request which was:
Show me some real proof that Rome has any right to claim Peter for itself only.

Isn’t that theft to claim that Rome is more venerable than Antioch?

Basil and other fathers called Antioch the most venerable of the Churches, what I’m asking is how do you claim that the First See of Peter lost its succession?

Why do you say that it moved from Antioch to Rome?

1. Peter ordained bishops in other places. It didn’t mean they were automatically all popes or successors to his chair. No one has EVER suggested that. Just like JPII has ordained lots of bishops in his pontificate. It doesn’t mean they are all popes, or will be popes once JPII dies. Jesus ordained 12 apostles. Clearly Peter got a different portion of authority than the others. That portion didn’t end with the death of Peter. That authority was to continue by virtue of Jesus saying my kingdom shall never end, and not even hell itself will prevail against my Church built on Peter…
2. You want to know, how we see this played out in history. Notice progression of thought. Ignatius refers to only Rome as the presider among all the other churches he mentions and writes to. And we see the exercise of authority*** during apostolic times***.of Rome to a church in another country. So as we read the chronology of thought, Rome is synonimous with Peter’s chair.
   to be continued

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

Why do you say that it moved from Antioch to Rome?

continued

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

we’ve gone over this one already,(Epistle to the Romans 3:1 A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter **A.D. 180-190]).

---

---

---

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], 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, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all 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 [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 A.D. 251]).

to be continued

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

Why do you say that it moved from Antioch to Rome?

continued

Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 A.D. 350]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa **A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 A.D. 379]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 A.D. 416]).

Should I continue?

 

[Charbrah]

You have made the point well, now, how do we know that a legitimate succession to Peter was established in a singe successor. For instance, the second Pope was the Bishop of Rome? Yes, I think that may answer the question, the successor to Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and to this day, the successor of Peter is the Bishop of Rome.

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

He said to Simon that on that revelation from the Father he would build his Church, the revelation that he is the Messiah, Son of the Living God. And he’s done so.

It’s not either Peter or his revelation, it’s Peter AND his revelation.
It’s both.

Myhrr:

And he said to Simon that ’you are also called Peter’, giving him at that time thesurname he reminded Simon he’d already said he would be called in the future, at their first meeting when Andrew the First Called brought his brother Simon to meet Jesus***.***

And it is at Ceserea Phillipi where Jesus gives Simon the name Rock (Peter).

Myhrr:

You said in an earlier post in reply to my statement that Jesus never used the name Peter in addressing Simon,
The first is the when Simon barJonah has the revelation from the Father and is an explanation, the last is when Jesus tells Simon what he will be called in the future, so only the third is where Jesus addresses him directly as Peter, all the other times, as in the feed my sheep etc, he continues to call him Simon barJonah.

Mt 16:18 Jesus says you are Peter

Lk 22:34 Jesus calls him Peter

Jn 1:42 Jesus says He will be called Peter.

The Bar Jonah (son of John) issue, is a play on formalities. Peter says to Jesus, you are son of God, Jesus says to Simon, you are son of John.

Myhrr:

So the third is interesting, Jesus doesn’t waste words so why has he called him Peter here and not the usual Simon barJonah?

“Simon, Simon! Indeed Satan has asked for you that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith shall not fail and when you have returned to me strengthen your bretheren”

One of those great and intimate moments right? Here’s something you may not have seen in that statement. Jesus in front of all His desciples again, tells Peter, Satan has asked to sift “you” plural in Greek. Meaning all the apostles are included. But then Jesus changes tense, when He says, but I have prayed for “you” singular in Greek, namely for Peter. The one He has given the keys of the kingdom of heaven to, will be expected to not only recover from his impending denial of Jesus, but will have to do his job as leader and prime minister of the kingdom, to lift the others. And again, the others are in full ear shot of this statement. As an aside, if I was in that room, I’d be thinking, hey Jesus why are you only praying for Peter? Why not me too? What am I, chopped liver? Peter’s primacy is again, so clear if one is willing to look at the evidence

Myhrr:

There you have it, why Christ gave Simon the surname rock, for his confession of faith so that he would remember that revelation to help him return to Jesus at his betrayal of him, and, remembering this he would then strenghten his bretheren.

Not that he would rule over them or take the place of Christ or any of the other things the RCC has pretended to.

after the resurrection. Jesus asks Peter, in front of all the apostles, do you love me more than THESE? Then feed and ***rule ***my sheep. The Greek word for (tend/rule) is “poimaino.”. That’s the Greek word used in Jn 21:21. It means to rule. I’m not making this stuff up.

Myhrr:

***So your question “***And says He will build His Church on Peter, what authority do you think the Pharisees had at that point?”

Has no base since Christ gave Simon the name to associate with the revelation from the Father

You’re dismissing the importance of Peter alone, being given the keys of the kingdom. Review the quotes I gave you in the another
posts from the Early Church Fathers.

Myhrr:

Jesus said to do as the Pharisees teach from the seat of Moses,

Now we have the chair of Peter. He holds the keys to the kingdom. Not the Pharisees. Peter is the prime minister. Where Peter is, there is the Catholic Church.

 

[Philthy]

Many thanks to Myrrh and Stevieb - your insights and historical references are incredible. And to think with all of that you still can’t agree on very much! I’ll try to stick to the thread and limit my discussion to “Peter NOT this Rock!!?” Most of what I summarize below comes from David Curry’s Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic.

A couple of simple observations:

From the text of Scripture debated (Matt 16:13-20) and knowing Christ spoke in Aramaic it seems most logical and apparent that Christ gave the keys (ie authority) to Peter. *Why *they were given to Peter - whether because of his faith or any other reason - is secondary. Any attempt to minimize the significance of Christ’s statement “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah” is to not recognize that:

• This is not a customary address. Christ only said this once,ever - to Peter. The only other time this phrase was ever used was when Elizabeth, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said the same to Mary (Luke 1:42,45)
• He was drawing the other’s attention to what he was about to say so they too would recognize its importance.
• The statement didn’t come out of the blue - there was a precedent from Isaiah 22:22

Compare Isaiah 22:22 to what Christ said:

“I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” Sounds a lot like ‘I give you the keys…whatever you bind…whatever you loose…’ doesn’t it? Jesus was borrowing the words of Isaiah to give meaning to his words to Peter. What did Isaiah mean when he used those words? Well he was speaking to Eliakim a new “prime minister” in Israel. He was taking over for an unworthy PM. Isaiah uses 2 images in the discussion: a key and a peg. The key is a symbol of the power to rule(authority) and it symbolizes permanence; the key existed prior to Eliakim and it would exist after he passed on - from mortal to mortal. The peg relates to Eliakim on a personal level, but the key denotes an *office , *both powerful and permanent. It’s significant that Christ only chose to use the key element of the anology. The fact that Jesus gives Peter the keys of the Kingdom symbolizes Peter’s power to rule, just as it did in Isaiah. This is the authority of Peter’s office. His authority will be passed down just as the authority of the other apostles will be passed down as they die. This is the intergenerational succession of Peter’s See. Again all of this is from Currie’s book referenced above.

 

[Philthy]

Wow- my first post to exceed the 4000 word limit. I’d like to make a couple comments regarding some of Myrrh’s statements. Here are some of the things Myrrh said through various posts on this topic:

1. 
   *]“it’s actually pretty obvious that Christ never intended the Church to be where one person has authority over another.”
   *]“His arrangement was to send the Holy Spirit from the Father to lead into truth and everyone baptized was baptized into that relationship with the Holy Spirit”
   *]"what I object to is your Church’s imposition of its organization onto other Christians not of your flock while claiming that it is the only true Church which by its organization she shows its not.
   
   "With respect to comment 1 I think you misrepresent the nature of the Pope’s position. You seem to confuse the Office of the Pope with the Pope as a person. There is no person, per se, that has any authority over another, just the Official capacity of the Pope that has authority. It therefore doesn’t reperesent a conflict as you present it. And besides it isn’t as obvious as you say that “no one was to have authority over another”. Didn’t St.Paul say: “Likewise you younger members be subject to the presbyters…” in Philippians 2:3-4? Sounds like a hierarchical authority to me.
   
   With respect to comment 2: What does this have to do with the organization of the Papacy? Are you trying to say that no earthly organization is required and that through Baptism alone we will all know the truth in areas of faith and morals? If so, the evidence is obviously to the contrary. I mean, come on, re-read Acts and the epistles. They’re all about baptized people having different ideas of what the Christian Truth is. And simply following “Scripture alone in conjunction with the Holy Spirit” has not led to a unification of truth by any means. It’s led to quite the reverse. No??
   
   With respect to comment 3: What you view as an “imposition” may also be seen as the obligation of the Papal office to which was entrusted exactly that purpose for the benefit of the faithful.
   
   Your multiple-flock concept is a little over exaggerated. I mean how is it possible to have a bunch of theologically different flocks all unified into one truth? Does that really make any sense to you or do I not understand what you mean?
   
   Well just my 2 cents, and I don’t even pretend to have the informational knowledge that either of you 2 do. This much I will say though, don’t get too caught up in “intellectual Christianity”- try being Christ-like instead. I think we can all agree on that. Now I don’t mean that you shouldn’t ignore your intellectual talents
   just don’t spend all your time with that single element of Christianity. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, **on your own intelligence rely not. **In all your ways be mindful of Him and He will make straight your paths.” Proverbs 3:5-6

 

[GAssisi]

There are two conditions for succession:

1. The choice of successor/ the granting of succession
2. The death of the person who grants succession.

St. Peter died in Rome. It is a tradition that he assigned Linus the bishopric of Rome on the eve of his martyrdom. In any case, it is an ancient tradition of the Church that the life of the Church is sown by the blood of its martyrs. What does it imply that the two greatest Apostles shed their blood in Rome? It is logical that Rome has a spiritual primacy, and that she can claim the succession in a way that Antioch could not.

God bless all,
Greg

 

[Myhrr]

Hello all, lots more posts and I haven’t finished answering some, will read but I might not have time to answer for a couple of days or so, but maybe just the last, short, one… Keep well

GAssisi:

There are two conditions for succession:

1. The choice of successor/ the granting of succession
2. The death of the person who grants succession.

St. Peter died in Rome. It is a tradition that he assigned Linus the bishopric of Rome on the eve of his martyrdom. In any case, it is an ancient tradition of the Church that the life of the Church is sown by the blood of its martyrs. What does it imply that the two greatest Apostles shed their blood in Rome? It is logical that Rome has a spiritual primacy, and that she can claim the succession in a way that Antioch could not.

God bless all,
Greg

Rome was the capital city of one of the vast Roman Empire, lots of martyrs were brought to Rome from all corners of that empire to die horrible deaths for the amusement of the masses. Jesus died in Jerusalem, trumps your Rome any day.

 

[KennySe]

Myhrr:

He said to Simon that on that revelation from the Father he would build his Church, the revelation that he is the Messiah, Son of the Living God. And he’s done so.

That is YOUR interpretation of the verse, but is not verbatum.

 

[Thomas2]

One point I think you guys n gals are overlooking that is reeeeeeeeallly important - the change of Simon’s name to Cephas. Think about it just for a little while.

How many folks in the Bible ever had their names changed by God Himself? Hmmmmmm…what’s in a name anyway?

Peace and all good,

Thomas2