Peters Keys to the Kingdom

[Sellers1]

To base an argument on someone not saying what you think they should have said in a particular case is not putting forth a reasonable argument.

The word pope was not used by the early christians, Peter was though considered the leader of the early christian church and there is more than enough evidence that places him as bishop of Rome.

Apostolic succession has plenty of biblical support as well. Timothy is a great example.

How so? Peter was the Bishop of Jerusalem way longer than he was in Rome and in fact went to Rome to be martyred which brings me to the point that the Scriptures are silent on this note from St. Pauls letters to the Romans. He never mentioned it period! Why would the Scriptures be so eerily silent on something that Caholics believe was so iminent? You still haven’t answered that.

 

[Sellers1]

Sellers1;5425252:

I wouldn’t call you rude. I would say that you are stating your opinion.

right.

 

[j2c99]

I know I said earlier that this thread was great, but I just wish it didn’t have all the protestant troll posts. The mature protestant posters have been great , though, for providing their current prospective and maybe even thinking more intently about the Catholic interpretation.

 

[pete_29]

pete 29;5425264:

right.

Now thats rude.

 

[Sellers1]

I know I said earlier that this thread was great, but I just wish it didn’t have all the protestant troll posts. The mature protestant posters have been great , though, for providing their current prospective and maybe even thinking more intently about the Catholic interpretation.

You are assuming much. I have known many more Catholics who turned Protestant than Protestants who turned Catholic.

 

[Louie1983]

I appreciate what you did here, but still the question begs: how does any of this establish the so called succession of popes from St. Peter? Scripture doesn’t piece any of this puzzle together in how Catholics define it. In fact during the time Peter was to be martyred in Rome, St. Paul was preaching to the Romans (around 35 or 40AD) and never once mentioned it in any of his letters to the Romans. I find this very strange given the supposed great position given St. Peter.

I’m glad you appreciate it.

How does this establish the sucession of popes? It’s clear Jesus wanted to leave someone in charge of his church here on earth to always guide it in truth and faith, otherwise if untruth and error is taught then it’s not really god’s church is it? God does not teach untruth or error, this is why the catholic church has not changed it’s teachings in 2000 years! Jesus promised he would never leave his church and he hasn’t as he is always present to us in the eucharist.

The succession of popes is supported in scripture (by the way did you know that the next pope after peter is actually named in the bible? -clement I). Here are some passages that support the sucession of popes:

• Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. The Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority
• Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”
• Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

 

[cascherman]

How so? Peter was the Bishop of Jerusalem way longer than he was in Rome and in fact went to Rome to be martyred which brings me to the point that the Scriptures are silent on this note from St. Pauls letters to the Romans. He never mentioned it period! Why would the Scriptures be so eerily silent on something that Caholics believe was so iminent? You still haven’t answered that.

Peter was never the Bishop of Jerusalem. From the beginning of the church James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. But, Eusebius does tell us that James was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by Peter (interesting that Peter had the power to appoint fellow apostles as Bishops)

Peter was first the Bishop of Antioch and then went to Rome and became Bishop there.

I have told you that Paul’s silence does not prove that Peter was not in Rome. You are going to have to come up with evidence that shows he was never there. On the flip side, here is plenty of historical evidence that Peter was indeed Bishop of Rome:
catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

 

[cascherman]

You are assuming much. I have known many more Catholics who turned Protestant than Protestants who turned Catholic.

lol, thats like saying I know a whole lot more Russians who moved to America than I know Americans who moved to Russia. I wonder why?

 

[Louie1983]

continued…

I know you don’t pay much attention to tradition but at least consider this, Clement was mentioned in the bible and he was Peter’s successor. Now have a look at this quote below from clement who was a direct student of the apostles and tell me what you think. (i’ve also added other quotes from other early church fathers.

• “The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
• “Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).
• “Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Come on my friend, you are not serious are you? I mean you are parsing the words in Mathew and you are not using the original Greek.

But can we at least agree that the original Greek should be read.

Gabriel of 12;

Now here is a new innovative idea; read the bible from its oringinal Greek? The Greek recorded from the New Testament is a transcription from the Hebrew mindset from an Aramaic speaking community written in Greek.

Now if you can translate the original Greek with this understanding, you will conclude with Apostolic Catholic interpretation every time. For example Jesus will build his church upon “Cephas” an Aramaic term which Jesus spoke which means “Rock”. Paul refers to Peter from his confined epistles as “Cephas” in the New Testament. We are not discussing Latin/Greek yet from Petra/Petros to Peter.

Luke’s Gospel is one good example of this. Luke a Gentile Christian was a disciple of Paul, who transcribed his Gospel from Aramaic/Hebrew thought into his Greek. His Gospel is part of the synoptic Gospels recorded with many similarities that exist between them. We also know that Luke lived during the time of the first eyewitnesses, who were still living, including the blessed Virgin Mary from which he was able to get more detail information of the “annuciation” birth of Jesus Christ than the other synoptic Gospels.

So if you think to translate or read the bible from its original Greek only; you will miss the original interpretation from the Aramaic speech combined with Hebrew thought and belief system. Just because the New Testament came down to us in Greek, does not mean the authors of the New Testament were of a Greek mindset and belief system.

The Catholic Church qualifies as Teacher and interpreter of the bible because she (was there) canonized the bible, and the Apostles belief’s are still practiced in the Catholic Church today unchanged, besides the Catholic Church members were present during Oral Apostolic Teaching when it was handed down through Apostolic Tradition, along with the written Apostolic letters.

No other Christian faith can trace their history that far back except for the Catholic Church built upon “Cephas” Rock.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sellers1:

I hardly think that your explanation and belief here is credible. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ and the son of God and almost immediately following that confession made a grave error in judgment and was told, ‘get behing me Satan’ by Jesus to signify that error. Peter was wrong just as much as he was correct and was even confronted by St. Paul on doctrinal issues.

You’re right but what are you trying to say? Being wrong does not disqualify Peter as the leader or Jesus’ representative.

Sellers1:

Leadership role, yes; because he understood much deeper and Jesus knew that.

The wisdom that came to Peter came from God, so it’s not a matter that he understood much deeper.

Sellers1:

But to use all of this to appoint one denomination as God’s only Church and give it exclusivity is absurd. The Scriptures do not support this at all.

There was no denomination as far as Jesus is concerned. There was only One Church. The reality of the many denominations today which is so prevalent that it is spoken of as if it is meant to be that way by Jesus was not supported by scripture.

Sellers1:

First of all you are putting an ownership statement with the keys of the Kingdom. We simply do not agree there.

There is no other way that the verse can be understood other than what it says, “to thee I give the key …”

Sellers1:

Next, you are seriously downplaying that Jesus founded the Church upon himself (the stone which the builders rejected becoming the chief Cornerstone) with Peter being given the leadership role. The Scriptures are very clear.

No Catholics would say that Jesus did not found the church. It was Jesus Church, founded by Jesus with Peter as the leader. When Jesus ascended to heaven, Peter became his Vicar on earth. And so the Church built upon him (Peter), with him as the visible head.

Sellers1:

As far as denominations go, we can debate who is THE Church and I will tell you that the Catholic church is a denomination and NOT The only true Church all day long.

Prove it!

There being no other Church that Jesus founded, therefore the idea that his Church is riddled with multitude of denominations is truly not Scriptural.

 

[Reuben_J]

Worthy5:

Come on my friend, you are not serious are you? I mean you are parsing the words in Mathew and you are not using the original Greek. You have to be kidding right? Here is one for you, let us say that when Christ said " You are Peter and on this…" at the same moment Christ placed his hands on Peter to indicate " this " referred to Peter. I do not know? Where you there? I was not.

I not sure why it is so difficult to understand that you cannot definitively interpret written language-this is why you need an authority to do so. Who is that authority? Was one established? Well let us see, we can at least say at the minimum (to even have a discussion) that Christ appeared on earth, suffered, died, rose again and left the earth. We seem to know this from 12 apostles that He selected. Well, if Christ made an authority that He is speaking through, it would seem to be the decendants of those apostles.

How could it be literal blood descendants? As it could not have meant blood brothers and sisters when Jesus said,” these are my brothers and sisters, these who listen and do the word of God”, it could not have meant blood descendants.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sellers1:

Bind and loose are legal terms. They have nothing to do with exclusivity or the Catholic church for that matter.

Then to what else it got to do with? We believe it certainly got to do with the leaders of the church to whom this legality had been conferred to.

Sellers1:

And by the way, why don’t you explain for me and everyone else here how it is the papacy is supported by Scripture.

Mathew 16 is clear enough. And I thought some of the posts by Gabriel of 12 is very clear in explaining this and they make excellent reading. Maybe you should refer to them again.

Sellers1:

Tradition is something that has been severely manipulated by Catholics for centuries so I’m not really interested how you tie it together through your so called tradition.

Too bad there is only one official tradition and the Universal Church is its keeper. Protestants have to deal with this and whether you like it or not, it will not go away.
Anyway, it’s interesting if you can give proof where the manipulations are so that we can think about it too.

Sellers1:

How so? Peter was the Bishop of Jerusalem way longer than he was in Rome and in fact went to Rome to be martyred which brings me to the point that the Scriptures are silent on this note from St. Pauls letters to the Romans. He never mentioned it period! Why would the Scriptures be so eerily silent on something that Caholics believe was so iminent? You still haven’t answered that.

For someone who has said this,

**Tradition is something that has been severely manipulated by Catholics for centuries so I’m not really interested how you tie it together through your so called tradition, **

it not likely you will take history seriously from the Church either.

You sit on the premise that everything was to be found in the Bible, and as we know, it certainly is not. Only if you appreciate history, then all your doubts will be cleared and answered. Sadly, however, you would not, as someone has said, it will be fatal to your present belief system if you do. You see, the Church is not just something being set up today; it is and has been full of history.

Sellers1:

You are assuming much. I have known many more Catholics who turned Protestant than Protestants who turned Catholic.

Yes there are many Catholics who turned Protestant but there are quite a big number of prominent Protestant theologians who turn Catholic as well. I don’t know what this proves, do you?

 

[Worthy5]

How could it be literal blood descendants? As it could not have meant blood brothers and sisters when Jesus said,” these are my brothers and sisters, these who listen and do the word of God”, it could not have meant blood descendants.

No one said anything about blood descendants.

 

[ParkerD]

I’ll jump in real quick…

Has anyone shown you how the peers of Matthew interpreted what he wrote concerning “what” the rock is? Unfortunately, it will not go in your favor on this one. The early christians are almost unanimous on this.

Not to mention, even modern protestant biblical scholars are shying away from the interpretation that the rock was not Peter because they view it as not necessarily adhereing to truth wherever it leads, but simply being reactionary against anything Catholic. Which they very wisely see is a fallacious way to discern truth.

Cascherman,
I respect the Catholic beliefs and oral tradition that has done amazing things, but I disagree that Christ was talking about Peter when He said “prevail against it.”

Christ continued to refer to Peter as Simon, even after His resurrection.

Peter referred to Christ as the rock, the foundation stone. He never referred to himself as that.

It appears to me in reading the early historical writings that there was obviously a “power struggle” in the early church, and of course those wanting to establish their own primacy of power would use whatever scriptures they could come up with to establish their position. The leaders in Rome “won” the power struggle, and were able to consolidate the power and carry it forward. They had a lot going for them. Intellectual tradition carried the day, and the church gained more followers because the truths of the gospel do bring people greater happiness and peace, when followed.

 

[Sellers1]

You’re right but what are you trying to say? Being wrong does not disqualify Peter as the leader or Jesus’ representative.

The wisdom that came to Peter came from God, so it’s not a matter that he understood much deeper.

There was no denomination as far as Jesus is concerned. There was only One Church. The reality of the many denominations today which is so prevalent that it is spoken of as if it is meant to be that way by Jesus was not supported by scripture.

There is no other way that the verse can be understood other than what it says, “to thee I give the key …”

I have the keys to a vehicle that I drive for the company that I work for. I have the keys but I don’t own the vehicle.

 

[Sellers1]

Then to what else it got to do with? We believe it certainly got to do with the leaders of the church to whom this legality had been conferred to.

Mathew 16 is clear enough. And I thought some of the posts by Gabriel of 12 is very clear in explaining this and they make excellent reading. Maybe you should refer to them again.

Too bad there is only one official tradition and the Universal Church is its keeper. Protestants have to deal with this and whether you like it or not, it will not go away.
Anyway, it’s interesting if you can give proof where the manipulations are so that we can think about it too.

For someone who has said this,

**Tradition is something that has been severely manipulated by Catholics for centuries so I’m not really interested how you tie it together through your so called tradition, **

it not likely you will take history seriously from the Church either.

I know far more history from your church than you believe I do

 

[Louie1983]

Cascherman,
I respect the Catholic beliefs and oral tradition that has done amazing things, but I disagree that Christ was talking about Peter when He said “prevail against it.”

Christ continued to refer to Peter as Simon, even after His resurrection.

Peter referred to Christ as the rock, the foundation stone. He never referred to himself as that.

It appears to me in reading the early historical writings that there was obviously a “power struggle” in the early church, and of course those wanting to establish their own primacy of power would use whatever scriptures they could come up with to establish their position. The leaders in Rome “won” the power struggle, and were able to consolidate the power and carry it forward. They had a lot going for them. Intellectual tradition carried the day, and the church gained more followers because the truths of the gospel do bring people greater happiness and peace, when followed.

Jesus referred to st peter as peter as well as simon. And that has nothing to do with anything anyway!

Jesus changed his name, gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He did not give to all the apostles he only gave it to peter as he said “Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven” our lord is quite clear who he is talking to here.

Just to be 100% sure our lord entrusts his church again in John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.

Jesus has put peter as the head of his church on earth and the catholic church is the only church that can show apostolic succession all the way back to the apostles.

 

[ParkerD]

Jesus referred to st peter as peter as well as simon. And that has nothing to do with anything anyway!

Jesus changed his name, gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He did not give to all the apostles he only gave it to peter as he said “Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven” our lord is quite clear who he is talking to here.

Just to be 100% sure our lord entrusts his church again in John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.

Jesus has put peter as the head of his church on earth and the catholic church is the only church that can show apostolic succession all the way back to the apostles.

Louie1983,
The reason I had brought up Simon and Peter is that others had used the supposed “name change” as a foundation for their belief that Peter is the rock Christ was referring to in the verse in Matthew 16:18. The verse you quoted, John 21:15, shows that Christ called him “Simon, son of Jonas.” I agree that Peter was being asked to shepherd the church, but I disagree with your last sentence, for the reasons I have already noted.

Thanks for sharing your perspective on this.

 

[Louie1983]

Louie1983,
The reason I had brought up Simon and Peter is that others had used the supposed “name change” as a foundation for their belief that Peter is the rock Christ was referring to in the verse in Matthew 16:18. The verse you quoted, John 21:15, shows that Christ called him “Simon, son of Jonas.” I agree that Peter was being asked to shepherd the church, but I disagree with your last sentence, for the reasons I have already noted.

Thanks for sharing your perspective on this.

Yes i read your “reasons” and to be honest your argument was pretty hallow for me personally. You said that you believed there was a power struggle with the early church…has there been no struggle in the church you belong to? between people who accept the teachings against those that don’t? that’s all that happened for 2000 years but the catholic church can prove that it has never changed it’s teachings since christ and that it has direct succession from the apostles!

There are thousands of early church father quotes that support the primacy of Peter and the Catholic church but again this is simply cast aside.

You also stated “the leaders in rome” won that battle. All it is was the church defending itsef from heretical teachings and error, yet you make it sound like much more than that when i believe you (non-catholic denominations) have greately exagerrated this to justify your current position.