Peter

[Quizling]

So I’m looking into this whole Papacy thing, and I gotta say that some of it makes sense. But some of it doesn’t.

F’rinstance …

The Christ appoints Simon as the authoritative voice of God on Earth. But Peter isn’t the authoritative voice in the Scriptures. Paul is. Very little of what we have in writing from Peter could be considered to be Doctrine. Paul, on the other hand, sets out the majority of doctrinal statements in the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, Paul has to correct Peter on at least one occasion in regard to relations between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

So if Peter is the Vicar of Christ, why does God address us primarily through Paul?

 

[NotWorthy]

So I’m looking into this whole Papacy thing, and I gotta say that some of it makes sense. But some of it doesn’t.

F’rinstance …

The Christ appoints Simon as the authoritative voice of God on Earth. But Peter isn’t the authoritative voice in the Scriptures. Paul is. Very little of what we have in writing from Peter could be considered to be Doctrine. Paul, on the other hand, sets out the majority of doctrinal statements in the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, Paul has to correct Peter on at least one occasion in regard to relations between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

So if Peter is the Vicar of Christ, why does God address us primarily through Paul?

Hmmmmm…

First of all, where do you get the claim that little or no doctrine is found in Peter’s words?

1. Who is it that establishes Apostolic Succession in the Church? Peter with the need to replace Judas in Acts 1.
2. Who establishes the means of entry into the Church? Peter in Acts 2 - Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.
3. Who opens the doors for Gentiles into the Church? Peter in Acts 9 (?).
4. Who declares dogmatically that Gentiles must not be saddled with the Jewish Law? Peter in Acts 15.

Paul does correct Peter, but not Peter’s doctrine. Simply Peter’s inability to “practice what you preach”.

Paul does not go an preach the Gospel to anyone until he’s “checked his facts” with Peter.

And finally, who does Jesus, our Lord and Savior, give the keys to? Peter. Notice that Jesus doesn’t say, “… I will give you the keys to the kingdom to hold until I send your replacement…”.

 

[Pax]

Paul did not correct Peter on doctrine. Instead, Peter, himself, had established the doctrine on circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter acted hypocritically in the presence of the circumcision party and Paul corrected him for doing so.

Paul is the most prolific writer in the NT. His letters are largely corrective instruments for problems in local Churches that he worked in. It is important to note, however, that Paul made a special trip to Jersusalem to check with James, John, and Peter to make sure that his teaching was correct and that he was not running in vain. After consulting with them, he was given the right hand of fellowship.[see Galatians 2:1-9]

As an apostle Paul had tremendous authority, but he was not the head of the Church. Everything in the NT makes it clear that Peter was the chief apostle.

Perhaps as we go along in the discussion there will be some other things that you will find to be very interesting and informative concerning the papacy and OT parallels.

 

[fellowChristian]

I can not explain why God did what He did, I can only say He did.

Cyprian of Carthage

“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 [Peter] 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; 1st edition A.D. 251]).

CHURCH & PAPACY
catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

THE PRIMACY OF PETER
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html*

 

[TheDoctor]

…So if Peter is the Vicar of Christ, why does God address us primarily through Paul?

I think it is easier to see (at least for me) if you take a step away from Scripture.

God’s gives each of us unique gifts to aid in the salvation of our fellow brothers and sisters. Peter was a simple Jewish fisherman, not well educated nor well traveled (as far as we can tell). God’s gift to him was leadership and the passing on of Jesus’ words and actions through teaching and oral tradition.

Paul on the other hand was a Roman Jew, a Pharisee, well traveled and versed in a number of languages. God’s gift to him was evangelization through both the oral tradition and the written word (I’m sure we all agree there is much more Paul taught the Corinthians and Ephesians than are contained just in his letters).

Where does it say anywhere in Scripture where Paul learned the doctrines and traditions he taught? It does not say Jesus gave these to him, only that Jesus opened his eyes (no pun intended) to the truth.

Is it then not reasonable to assume that Paul knew about the teachings of Jesus by what he learned from the Apostles and disciples during his persecution of the faith? And who was the one through whom Jesus ensured that these teachings would be passed on correctly? I will humbly contend it was his vicar, Peter.

 

[meaprilrain]

Since you are on the subject of peter, I as an investigator do have a question about Peters authority ?

The Catholic church claims that there is only 1 person on the face of the earth to receive revelation from God at any given time, thus the Pope.
However, They claim that one of these two men, Either Linus or Clement received the keys from Peter to become the 1st Pope .

Of course documents can’t clearly tell us which one it is because there is conflicting evidence as to who really received the keys? But lets look a little farther shall we…

John the disciple and “disciple whom Jesus loved” The last living disciple, is spending time on Patmos from 81 to 96 AD writing the book of Revelations. He then comes back and writes the 4th gospel in 96 AD.

Now how could the Catholic church have gone through 3 or 4 popes by now from 64 to 100 AD when John died , claiming to have authority from Peter, While Jesus’ most beloved apostle John was still receiving revelation and writing gospels from the Lord , which the Catholic church acknowledges to be genuine thus their includance in the bible ?

This would mean that Peter gave keys to no one, as John still held them until he died in 100AD…. And as the Apocryphon of James states, the authority for prophecy is cut off with John !!

Of course I understand how this scripture could not make it into the big book as it would totally debunk the Catholic claims to the see !
Nevertheless the scripture does exist….

From the apocryphon of James
“Then I asked him, “Lord, how shall we be able to prophesy to those who request us to prophesy to them? For there are many who ask us, and look to us to hear an oracle from us.”
The Lord answered and said, “Do you not know that the head of prophecy was cut off with John?”
But I said, “Lord, can it be possible to remove the head of prophecy?”
The Lord said to me, "When you come to know what ‘head’ means, and that prophecy issues from the head, (then) understand the meaning of ‘Its head was removed.’

So can any Catholic set me straight and show me otherwise ? thank you

Besides the Apocryphon of James all references and information are taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[clmowry]

Since you are on the subject of peter, I as an investigator do have a question about Peters authority ?

The Catholic church claims that there is only 1 person on the face of the earth to receive revelation from God at any given time, thus the Pope.

Where does the Church make this claim?

Chuck

 

[adstrinity]

This would mean that Peter gave keys to no one, as John still held them until he died in 100AD…. And as the Apocryphon of James states, the authority for prophecy is cut off with John !!

John never had the Keys. John was never Pope. That’s why we believe in the Papacy, because John, whom Jesus loved, was around through Peter, Linus, Cletus, and Clement. These are the men who had the Keys. Neither Peter nor Jesus gave John the Papacy.

All revelation ended with Christ, and, as such, all revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, i.e., John, because he was the last to die who was a direct follower of Christ. There is no new revelation. Everything we have has already been.

But, once again, John was NEVER given the keys. He was subject to Peter, Linus, Cletus, and Clement. He had his diocese in Asia; he was not the Bishop of Rome.

 

[meaprilrain]

John never had the Keys. John was never Pope. That’s why we believe in the Papacy, because John, whom Jesus loved, was around through Peter, Linus, Cletus, and Clement. These are the men who had the Keys. Neither Peter nor Jesus gave John the Papacy.

All revelation ended with Christ, and, as such, all revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, i.e., John, because he was the last to die who was a direct follower of Christ. There is no new revelation. Everything we have has already been.

But, once again, John was NEVER given the keys. He was subject to Peter, Linus, Cletus, and Clement. He had his diocese in Asia; he was not the Bishop of Rome.

John was the last Apostle, he already had the keys of revelation thats why he was still writing revelations and gospels ! Peter would not give the keys to a pope over the last disciple John the beloved.

Your encyclopedia says there is no proof ? that because peter lived and died in rome, he MUST have left the keys there ? ther is NO documentation that Peter left keys to anyone ? because he didnt have them, John still had them as he was the one receiving revelation and writing the gospel still.

 

[adstrinity]

John was the last Apostle, he already had the keys of revelation thats why he was still writing revelations and gospels ! Peter would not give the keys to a pope over the last disciple John the beloved.

Your encyclopedia says there is no proof ? that because peter lived and died in rome, he MUST have left the keys there ? ther is NO documentation that Peter left keys to anyone ? because he didnt have them, John still had them as he was the one receiving revelation and writing the gospel still.

But, it’s not the keys for revelation, it’s the keys for leading Christ’s Church. And, yes, men who weren’t the 12 did become Pope while John was still alive. John was subject to the Pope after Peter died. He didn’t have the authority of the Keys Christ left. I never mentioned anything about an encyclopedia. There is an entire list of Popes, meaning, that there is documentation that the Keys of The Office of The Vicar of Christ, went from Pope to Pope.

 

[meaprilrain]

But, it’s not the keys for revelation, it’s the keys for leading Christ’s Church. And, yes, men who weren’t the 12 did become Pope while John was still alive. John was subject to the Pope after Peter died. He didn’t have the authority of the Keys Christ left. I never mentioned anything about an encyclopedia. There is an entire list of Popes, meaning, that there is documentation that the Keys of The Office of The Vicar of Christ, went from Pope to Pope.

The person leading Christs church is the person with the presithood keys, that is ALL keys, for revelation, for authority, for laying on of hands, for guiding Christs followers etc. EVERYTHING ! The catholic church usurped Johns power and gave it to some guy called a pope either linus or clement your not even sure which one it is ??

 

[NotWorthy]

The person leading Christs church is the person with the presithood keys, that is ALL keys, for revelation, for authority, for laying on of hands, for guiding Christs followers etc. EVERYTHING ! The catholic church usurped Johns power and gave it to some guy called a pope either linus or clement your not even sure which one it is ??

You are the only one making this claim. No one else does.

Jesus gave the keys to Peter. Peter established that the Apostles held an office. Offices remain after the person leaves (or dies). Hence, the office, with the keys, is still there.

Let me ask you. Has the need for the keys been relinquished? Or are the gates of hell still attacking Christ’s Church?

 

[adstrinity]

The person leading Christs church is the person with the presithood keys, that is ALL keys, for revelation, for authority, for laying on of hands, for guiding Christs followers etc. EVERYTHING ! The catholic church usurped Johns power and gave it to some guy called a pope either linus or clement your not even sure which one it is ??

What power? John didn’t have any power. Linus came after Peter.

 

[NotWorthy]

What power? John didn’t have any power. Linus came after Peter.

As is evidenced in St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. Something the Church in Corinth recognized.

So, who am I going to believe? The Church’s that learned from the Apostles and their successors? Or someone with faulty information, an axe to grind, and 2000 years later?

Hmmmmmm…

 

[JimG]

The Catholic church claims that there is only 1 person on the face of the earth to receive revelation from God at any given time, thus the Pope.

Actually, the Church does not claim that the pope receives revelation from God.

The Church teaches that divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

The function of the Apostles was to hand down the teachings of Jesus through the Church, through the ages. And the Pope’s function is to act as head of the Church and to confirm that what continues to be handed down is the Apostolic tradition.

 

[Quizling]

…. And as the Apocryphon of James states, the authority for prophecy is cut off with John !!

Of course I understand how this scripture could not make it into the big book as it would totally debunk the Catholic claims to the see !
Nevertheless the scripture does exist….

From the apocryphon of James
“Then I asked him, “Lord, how shall we be able to prophesy to those who request us to prophesy to them? For there are many who ask us, and look to us to hear an oracle from us.”
The Lord answered and said, “Do you not know that the head of prophecy was cut off with John?”
But I said, “Lord, can it be possible to remove the head of prophecy?”
The Lord said to me, "When you come to know what ‘head’ means, and that prophecy issues from the head, (then) understand the meaning of ‘Its head was removed.’

So can any Catholic set me straight and show me otherwise ? thank you

Besides the Apocryphon of James all references and information are taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Thread-jacking aside , I don’t know that it would be any more appropriate to ask a Christian to answer for a statement in the Secret Book of James than it would be to ask him or her to answer for a statement in the Book of Mormon.

This Apocryphon, like most of the Gnostic writings, isn’t particularly inspired or authoritative. It’s old, but not as ols as the canon. Linguistic clues indicate that it was composed aroujnd the time of Constantine. I would sooner base my faith on the writings of Josephus than the Secret Book of James. Fortunately I don’t have to, since I have a perfectly good canon already.

Now, back to the original topic:

Here’s the thing. In most of the really significant events detailed in the Gospels we see repetition. It makes sense, considering that Mosaic Law insisted that a thing should be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. But the establishment of Peter as the sole leader of the Church is based on two verses. It only appears in the Gospels once. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe it happened. I believe in the inerrency of scripture. Where my apprehension lies is in building a theology on two verses.

I absolutely agree that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built. He was, after all, a fantastic mass evangelist. Were it not for Peter’s willlingness and obedience the church would have been limited to the thousand or so believers it had at the outset. But I don’t see all that much evidence that the Christ intended for him to be the authoritative voice. In Acts 15, for example, Peter addresses the Jerusalem Council, but it is clearly James who makes the doctrinal statement.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

So I’m looking into this whole Papacy thing, and I gotta say that some of it makes sense. But some of it doesn’t.

F’rinstance …

The Christ appoints Simon as the authoritative voice of God on Earth. But Peter isn’t the authoritative voice in the Scriptures. Paul is. Very little of what we have in writing from Peter could be considered to be Doctrine. Paul, on the other hand, sets out the majority of doctrinal statements in the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, Paul has to correct Peter on at least one occasion in regard to relations between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

So if Peter is the Vicar of Christ, why does God address us primarily through Paul?

Good to see you here Quizling.

Peter got the “chair” (the office) because Christ considered him the best one for the job.

End of story.

Are you going to argue with Christ, with God, as to what is the most wise thing to do in this instance, or any other instance, for that matter?

Paul had his mission. Peter had his mission. John had his mission. You have your mission. I have my mission.

Must the “CEO” of a company be the absolutely most competent at EVERY function within a company to be “justified” to be chosen by a “wise board of directors” as the CEO?

But, that was a good question in showing where you’re coming from quite well indeed!

Please remember you’re here to learn, and listen (and ask questions) to understand us better. We’re all here to find out what our mutual “non-negotiables” are, and when those are exposed are obliged to agree to disagree about what we axiomatically won’t agree about.

:shamrock2:

 

[NotWorthy]

Now, back to the original topic:

Here’s the thing. In most of the really significant events detailed in the Gospels we see repetition. It makes sense, considering that Mosaic Law insisted that a thing should be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. But the establishment of Peter as the sole leader of the Church is based on two verses. It only appears in the Gospels once. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe it happened. I believe in the inerrency of scripture. Where my apprehension lies is in building a theology on two verses.

So, how many times does Jesus have to say something to make it true?!?

Seriously, I get your point about repetition. But you say only once is the Papacy discussed in the Gospels? What about John 21? What about Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemene that Peter will turn back and strengthen his brothers after Satan tries to sift through them like wheat? What about the repetitions of Peter’s demonstrations in establishing Law.

Remember, Paul is re-emphasizing what is already Church doctrine in his Epistles. In Acts, we see Peter establishing Church Doctrine numerous times. There’s that repetition of his role which you asked about.

I absolutely agree that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built. He was, after all, a fantastic mass evangelist. Were it not for Peter’s willlingness and obedience the church would have been limited to the thousand or so believers it had at the outset. But I don’t see all that much evidence that the Christ intended for him to be the authoritative voice. In Acts 15, for example, Peter addresses the Jerusalem Council, but it is clearly James who makes the doctrinal statement.

And James bases it on what? On Peter’s pronouncement. Remember, James is the local bishop, so he has a real authority. But his doctrinal statement will be revoked later. I believe Galatians discusses that.

But Peter’s dogmatic statement that the Gentiles will NOT be saddled with the Mosaic Law has remained unchanged.

 

[meaprilrain]

Actually, the Church does not claim that the pope receives revelation from God.

The Church teaches that divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

The function of the Apostles was to hand down the teachings of Jesus through the Church, through the ages. And the Pope’s function is to act as head of the Church and to confirm that what continues to be handed down is the Apostolic tradition.

well then this explains why there are corrupt Popes all throught the ages and why they can not keep the fundamental principles the same ? because The Lord is not directly directing the Catholic church ? the MEN or popes themselves are making these decisions without revelation from the Lord ?

Why are the popes not set up like Christs church was set up on the earth ? with Jesus and then 12 apostles ? When the 1st Apostle dies, the 2nd succeeds him immediately, and the remaining apostles through prayer and revelation select the lowest incoming apostle ? There is NEVER a moment of not having a guiding Apostle ?

 

[Quizling]

What about John 21? What about Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemene that Peter will turn back and strengthen his brothers after Satan tries to sift through them like wheat? What about the repetitions of Peter’s demonstrations in establishing Law.

And James bases it on what? On Peter’s pronouncement. Remember, James is the local bishop, so he has a real authority. But his doctrinal statement will be revoked later. I believe Galatians discusses that.

NotWorthy;

Good point.





Let me get back to you after I do some reading and exegeting.