Peter

[guanophore]

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.

This is a falsehood. The Catholic Church has never made any such claim.

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 ?

Because the Apostolic succession began some 50 years before the death of John and continued in every city in the known world where the Apostles planted Churches.

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 !!

The public revelation closed with the death of John. Private revelation continues to this day.

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 !

No.

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.’

The Head of the church is Christ, and prophesy will cease when He no longer has need to disclose anything to His people on earth.

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

This might be difficult. It appears you have been given to believe a great deal of misinformation.

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

Thank you for asking, instead of assuming that the things you have been told are true.

 

[guanophore]

 But the establishment of Peter as the sole leader of the Church is based on two verses.

This is not accurate. It is based upon the person and words of Christ, and was authoritative long before a word of the scripture was ever written.

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.

As well you should have apprehension about such a practice. It is gravely misguided.

All Catholic doctrine is based upon the Teaching of Jesus, and was delivered whole and entire to the Saints before any of it was written. Catholics don’g “base” their doctrine on scripture. On the contrary, the Scripture reflects what the church teaches, because it was produced by the doctrine that was taught by the Apostles.

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.

James commissions a letter, and makes pastoral statement, based upon the truths revealed by God through Peter and Paul. The church has always functioned in this way, listening to the voice of the Spirit speaking through all those that God has called. All those present were in union with Peter. This is how Jesus set it up.

 

[NotWorthy]

It is an error to believe that the bulk of Christian doctrine should be based upon the writings of Paul.

Correct. I think a bulk of Paul’s writings are based upon Christian Doctrine.

Too many people put the cart before the horse!

BTW, guanaphore, a little late to the party, eh?

 

[steve_b]

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?

Re: the issue of Paul correcting Peter

St Jerome responded to this charge ofPaul rebuking Peter by observing that,

1. 
   *]Peter was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him. Now look at what Paul did
   *]In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised. Then
   *]Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed
   **Paul ****rebukes **Peter while giving himself a pass on far more. But actually, Paul learned from Peter in this exercise that he would enjoin later in his ministry… Because Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved 1 Cor 9:20…]. This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul for it. Then Paul embraces this behavior for himself… St Jerome points out.“O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked **Peter **for hypocrasy because he withdrew himself from the Gentiles for fear of the Jews who’ came from James, why are you, not withstanding your own doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a Gentile, for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised? Will you answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.? If so, then forgive yourself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, and forgive Peter also, who has precedence above you, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews.” Jerome continues, “Why did you [Paul] shave your head, why did you walk barefoot according to the Jewish ceremonial law, why did you offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for you according to the law? Will you answer, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ To gain the Jews, you did pretend to be a Jew”. [snip]
   
   I tried to highlight and compress ( albeit a poor job on my part) what Jerome writes to Augustine concerning this subject. I focused particularly on paragraphs 4-18 of his letter. Here is Jerome’s full letter. Please read it. Forget my inept job at trying to summarize. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

 

[steve_b]

Alright, I went back over John 21. Post-crucifixion, the guys go fishing. Perfectly reasonable, considering that it was their vocation before they were called. Jesus, now resurrected, appears on the shore, gives them some fishing tips, and calls them to breakfast. Now the part that has to do with Peter and the Papacy start at verse 15:

John 21:15-19 (ESV)

15 When they had finished breakfast, 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 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 mysheep.”17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the 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. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

On the one hand I can see where this fits in well with the idea that the Christ was appointing Peter as his sole spokesman. But I think that perspective leaves out some of the context of the situation.

Again Jesus

• singles Peter out from the other disciples, when He refers to them as “these”., yet they are still in ear shot to hear what Jesus is going to do with Peter Just like Jesus did at Ceserea Philippi, and the upper room, etc etc
• The Greek word for tend in that passage is poimaino. It also means to rule. Jesus tells Peter to feed and rule His sheep. That’s not a local juristiction, but a universal juristiction
• And Jesus tells Peter that he would follow in Jesus footsteps to his own cross, signifying how Peter would ultimately die.

quiz:

5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

The bit there where it says “his disciples and Peter” is the relevant part in our discussion. The word “and” is sometimes interpreted “especially”. But the word there (καί) is never translated “especially” in any other place in the Bible. It just means “and”, like in “these guys and that other guy”, meaning that the other guy isn’t part of these guys.

If it was said go and tell the disciples and ended there, with no disciple being named, it would end right there. But Peter was specifically named because he is the leader.
quiz:

Add to that what Jesus had to say to Peter in Luke 22:
**31 “**Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

Jesus knew that Peter was going to turn away, obviously. He says “when you have turned again (επιστρεψας), strengthen your brothers”. The word there is usually translated “turn again”, “be converted”, or “return”. Peter left. Once he returned, Jesus spent some one-on-one time with him on the shore of Galilee. He didn’t do so with the others because none of them denied Him.

Back up a few verses. Lk 22:24-26 describes how they [the disciples] were discussing who was the greatest among them. And notice Jesus doesn’t correct this later. He acknowledges one would be the greatest among them.

When Jesus said that Satan would sift them ALL like wheat, Who again did Jesus pick to lead them? Jesus is very consistent. It’s Peter.

• which one(s) did Satan NOT sift? They ALL got sifted
• Who did Peter NOT have to strengthen? He strengthened them all.

quiz:

So I’m still in the same spot. As far as I am able to determine, everything hinges on Peter. I have other misgivings in regard to other teachings of the Church, but if this one thing is true, if Jesus did appoint Peter as the one and only man to carry His authority on the earth, then none of my other doubts mean anything because if this is true, then what Rome says is the way it goes and that is the end of it.

But if this one thing is true, then I have to disregard the priesthood of the believer, the statement that Paul made in 1 Timothy 5 regarding my relationship with Christ and God (5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. ), and a host of other cherished beliefs have to be re-thought.

And If one misinterprets that single verse, and isolates it, one might think that Paul is saying Jesus is only a man and not God also.

 

[guanophore]

Is there just one priesthood ?

No.

Who holds the priesthood in the catholic church ?

Jesus, our great High Priest who has passed through the heavens.

the pope, the priests, the fathers, all the individual males ??

Is this related to the topic? The Pope is, by definition, also a priest. Of course the priests hold the priesthood.

Not all the fathers are priests. Some were not ordained to the priesthood, although most of them were.

All individuals in Christ share in His royal priesthood, even as laypersons.

What powers does the priesthood give them , or what do they do with the priesthood ?

I think this is a very good question. I wonder if it does not need it’s own thread. How is it related to the topic?

What are the keys ? who holds them and what do they do with them ?

Also an excellent question. I think one must understand the Keys of the Davidic Kingdom and the Keys in the book of Revelation in order to grasp the importance of this.

How are you defining authority ? and what is the authority for ? who holds this authority ?

You are a veritable machine gun of good questions.

All Authority comes from God. God gives it to whom He desires. With regard to Peter, God made him a foundation stone of His Church, gave him the keys of the Kingdom, and authority over feeding and caring for the sheep. This includes the power to legislate (bind and loose).

Im just trying to understand because my priesthood is 2 fold. All Worthy males may hold both. With the highest they may perform all ordinaces, baptism, confirmations and laying on of hands for the holy ghost. Healing the sick etc. anyone may receive personal revelation from God for themselves and their family, but only the Prophet may receive revelation for the church and congregation as a whole.

Yes, I agree.

The keys are the keys to the priesthood which holds the key to the ordinances for eternal life.
Authority comes from having the ordinations performed by one with authority. Passed on and on.

Yes.

Example, your child may not go out to play without authority from you. Why you? You are his parent.

Well, he can, but there may be dire consequences.

The neighbor does not have the authority to tell him he can.

That may not stop neighbor from doing so!

Thus Someone holding the highest priesthood now is the only one that can ordane another with the priesthood. Their authority comes from already having the power and keys of the priesthood.

I think this is the main reason that the “Reformation” lost the sacraments.

How is the priesthood bestowed ? by oil anointing and laying on of hands by at least 2 others that hold the highest priesthood.

Have you been a recipient of this?

Now help me understand how your authority and priesthood operates.

Thanks for all your provocative questions. I look forward to reading the rest of the thread.

 

[mercygate]

No.

I don’t often quibble with you, guanophore, but I DO quibble with the assertion here that there is more than one priesthood. ALL priesthood derives from the perfect and eternal Priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priesthood of the Church participates in Christ’s Priesthood, and the Royal Priesthood of the whole Church also derives its character from Him. There is only one Priesthood and there is only one Priest.

Also, the Priesthood of the Church resides fully in the Bishop. Priests are ordained for ministerial and sacramental service, which they exercise at the pleasure of the Bishop.

 

[guanophore]

With the priesthood you have the keys or authority to receive revelation.

I don’t think this is correct. I think that God gives revelation to whomever He desires, often those without authority, sometimes to correct those who are holding the keys, as when Nathan confronted David about Bathsheba.

I am sorry I have no bible references to give you, all the scripture references I have come from other books and writings. honestly keys is only mentioned like 8 times in the bible and priesthood only like 10 times ?

Do you believe that all that God wants us to know about this is found in the Scripture?

I am not here to defend my faith, but to ask about yours. My faith does not stem only from the bible. But I understand that I must have only bible quotes for this forum to follow and believe 

No, this is not the case. The Catholic faith is not “bible based” or Sola Scriptura.

So now could you please explain how the priesthood works in your church ? If you are not interested in answering questions that is ok I will try another member that looks like they also have experience and knowledge.

The ordination to the priesthood comes from Jesus. “how it works” is quite broad…can you narrow it down a bit?

 

[guanophore]

I will go back and look through your posts on the priesthood. It is so extremely different from my understandings now. So which thread or forum or where should I go for the trinity since this is my hardest to swallow !!??

I recommend that you start in the library, read what the Apostles taught. The Catechism is also a good resoure for this. After you have done some reading, you can post your questions here. You can also search for threads on your topics of interest. It is likely that someone else has already posted the same question you have.

 

[mercygate]

I recommend that you start in the library, read what the Apostles taught. The Catechism is also a good resoure for this. After you have done some reading, you can post your questions here. You can also search for threads on your topics of interest. It is likely that someone else has already posted the same question you have.

Excellent suggestions. Also, meaprilrain, keep in mind that Mormons and Catholics sometimes use the same terms with siginificantly different understandings of what those terms mean. In this thread, some of those terms are:

Keys
Priest
Apostle
Prophet

We can’t have a lucid discussion until we drop our assumptions and dispassionately look at one another’s views *in themselves. *

 

[guanophore]

On the one hand I can see where this fits in well with the idea that the Christ was appointing Peter as his sole spokesman.

I am sorry, but I don’t see this at all. I don’t think that God used Peter any “more” than any of the other Apostles He chose. Peter was never meant to be a 'sole spokesman". His gift to feed and care for the sheep is a chief pastoral role, but this does not exclude others speaking for God.

7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

I have often thought that Peter did not consider himself any longer worthy of discipleship. He received Jesus’ teaching that anyone who denied HIm would be denied by Him. I am sure Peter believed that he was condemned by his betrayal. He did not even consider himself a disciple.

The bit there where it says “his disciples and Peter” is the relevant part in our discussion. The word “and” is sometimes interpreted “especially”. But the word there (καί) is never translated “especially” in any other place in the Bible. It just means “and”, like in “these guys and that other guy”, meaning that the other guy isn’t part of these guys.

I see your point, but given that Jesus had told them that those who denied Him were not worthy of Him it seems more likely that He no longer thought of himself as a disciple.

Add to that what Jesus had to say to Peter in Luke 22:
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

Jesus knew that Peter was going to turn away, obviously. He says “when you have turned again (επιστρεψας), strengthen your brothers”. The word there is usually translated “turn again”, “be converted”, or “return”. Peter left. Once he returned, Jesus spent some one-on-one time with him on the shore of Galilee. He didn’t do so with the others because none of them denied Him.

Yes! Peter required this special restoration as a result of his betrayal. But, Jesus gives and reinforces to him the Petrine gift, to feed and care for the sheep, and to strengthen the brethren. It is clear that this ability does not come from Peter, but from Christ.

Also it is important to note the referents to the subjects. Jesus declares that Satan has demanded to 'sift" all of them (plural). Yet Jesus only prays for Peter (singular). The strengthening gift is given only to Peter. Therefore, all of us that wish to be strengthened through the sifting better be in unity with Peter, so that we can be included in that prayer!

So I’m still in the same spot. As far as I am able to determine, everything hinges on Peter.

This is confusing to me. To me it seems that “everything” hinges on Christ. It was Christ who chose Peter. It was God who revealed to Peter the identity of Jesus. It was Jesus that gave Peter the keys, prayed for Peter, and gave Peter the gift to strengthen, feed and care. If not for Jesus, Peter is nothing!

I have other misgivings in regard to other teachings of the Church, but if this one thing is true, if Jesus did appoint Peter as the one and only man to carry His authority on the earth,

Well, this is just a misconception in my opinion. Jesus is Head of the Church, not Peter. Jesus grafted Peter into Himself, and Peter became part of the foundation upon which Christ built His Church. But Peter was never alone. The foundation of the Church is built upon all the Apostles and Prophets. Authority was given to all of the Apostles, and has been passed down from them through the Apostolic Succession. Furthermore, every believer has some degree of authority by virtue of our baptism.

then none of my other doubts mean anything because if this is true, then what Rome says is the way it goes and that is the end of it.

The primacy of Rome emanates from the fact that it had pre-eminence in Apostolic Teaching. Both Peter and Paul labored there to build up the Church. It is this solid foundation of doctrine that resulted in Rome becoming the source of grounding in the faith. There is no other city on earth where both Paul and Peter labored for so long. The other city where they both taught, preached, and ministered is Antioch, which is also a strong Apostolic see. But they both remained longer in Rome together.

But if this one thing is true, then I have to disregard the priesthood of the believer,

Why?

the statement that Paul made in 1 Timothy 5 regarding my relationship with Christ and God (5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. ), and a host of other cherished beliefs have to be re-thought.

Why?

 

[Fox]

Also, it was Peter, not Paul whom God came to in a dream to tell him that all creatures were acceptable eatings and that Christians were not bound to Levitical food laws anymore.

Yum!

 

[guanophore]

I don’t often quibble with you, guanophore, but I DO quibble with the assertion here that there is more than one priesthood. ALL priesthood derives from the perfect and eternal Priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priesthood of the Church participates in Christ’s Priesthood, and the Royal Priesthood of the whole Church also derives its character from Him. There is only one Priesthood and there is only one Priest.

Ok, I will concede this point. I was thinking that the priesthood after the order of Melchizedech is not the same one that was reflected in the Levitical priesthood. But I agree with what you have written here.

Also, the Priesthood of the Church resides fully in the Bishop. Priests are ordained for ministerial and sacramental service, which they exercise at the pleasure of the Bishop.

Yes, but there is a priesthood of all believers that are in union with the bishop. It is not an ordained priesthood, but one into which we are bapized.

 

[mercygate]

Ok, I will concede this point. I was thinking that the priesthood after the order of Melchizedech is not the same one that was reflected in the Levitical priesthood. But I agree with what you have written here.

Yes, but there is a priesthood of all believers that are in union with the bishop. It is not an ordained priesthood, but one into which we are bapized.

Exactly.