Peters Keys to the Kingdom

[Worthy5]

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.

Thanks Gabriel of 12 for this layer, all the more why such interpretation games are dangerous indeed

 

[cazayoux]

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.

Good analogy.
Jesus ‘owns’ the Catholic Church.

With the keys you have to that car, do you have the authority to drive it?
If you have passengers in the car, who decides which way the car moves … you (the driver) or them?

You’d better be sure you are leading them in the right direction.
Big responsibility you have there.

michel

 

[cascherman]

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.

Parker,

I do not claim that Jesus was talking solely about Peter when he was talking about hell prevailing against, I believe he was talking about the church in general. But, when Jesus was giving the keys, he gave them to Peter.

 

[bruno211]

Yes that is major obstacle between Catholics and non-catholics. Catholics believe that the Jesus handed the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter to govern his church here on earth! While non-catholics believe differently as you have stated when you said “which i would argue has been horribly taken out of context and personally would go as far to say Peter never intentioned any succession of a “seat” also that there are no other scriptures you can dig up to support that idea”

Well i have plenty of bible passages that prove the primacy of Peter, here are some:

• Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
• Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
• Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
• Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

 

[bruno211]

When Jesus asked Peter who do you say that I am. He answered you are the christ, the son of the living God. This is the rock that he would build his church. Not on Petros which means a little stone. The keys to the Kingdom was given to all the Apostles and all Christians. The Gospel is the power of god unto salvation. The Gospel is the Death, Burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You have to obey the Gospel in order to be saved. THE ROCK IS JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. Why would he build a church on a mortal man?

Bruce Pennington

 

[adstrinity]

When Jesus asked Peter who do you say that I am. He answered you are the christ, the son of the living God. This is the rock that he would build his church. Not on Petros which means a little stone. The keys to the Kingdom was given to all the Apostles and all Christians. The Gospel is the power of god unto salvation. The Gospel is the Death, Burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You have to obey the Gospel in order to be saved. THE ROCK IS JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. Why would he build a church on a mortal man?

Bruce Pennington

To show that no matter who is in charge of His Church, weather Peter, who was a bit…hot headed at times, those sinners in the middle ages, or Benedict XVI, the gates of hell will not prevail against it. It’s a testament to Jesus that He can put anybody in charge of His Church, and it will still be His.

Again, Jesus is not the rock in this scenario. Jesus is the builder. St. Peter is the Rock.

 

[Louie1983]

When Jesus asked Peter who do you say that I am. He answered you are the christ, the son of the living God. This is the rock that he would build his church. Not on Petros which means a little stone. The keys to the Kingdom was given to all the Apostles and all Christians. The Gospel is the power of god unto salvation. The Gospel is the Death, Burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You have to obey the Gospel in order to be saved. THE ROCK IS JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. Why would he build a church on a mortal man?

Bruce Pennington

Greetings Bruce,

Incorrect i’m afraid.

Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: 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. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church.

God bless.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Seller1,

Yes the scriptures are indeed very clear, The church is founded on Christ however he has passed this authority on to St Peter here on earth. This is why he said to him whatever you bound on eartn shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Why would Christ change his name and his status (by calling him the rock)? This seems to be a significant act if our lord was not bestowing some sort of role on Peter right?

Why did it take 1500 years until this was seriously (and incorrectly i might add) challenged? The Papacy is strongly supported both in scripture and in tradition.

It didn’t take 1,500 years to challenge the notion that the Bishop of Rome is the inheritor of Peter and that the keys were given to Peter as an infallible prince over the other apostles. The Orthodox took issue with this prior to the 1054 split and you can read a great deal of statements by early fathers and saints saying that they believed the rock to be the confession, not the person of Peter, etc. There were varying opinions on this long before Luther and the Reformation came into history actually.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hello ParkerD,

St. Peter’s name was changed to “Rock” by Christ Himself. There is a reason for it. If you look in the Bible, you will notice that God changes the names of people, and there are reasons for it. A change of name is a change of personality and a new mission. It means that the man will henceforth be a vassal (2 Kings 23:34; 24:17). To indicate that God is taking possession of their lives, God changes the name of Abraham (Genesis 17:5) of Sarah (Genesis 17:15), and of Jacob (Genesis 32:29).

St. Peter is the new Abraham, a quarry from which living stones are hewn (see Isaiah 51:1-3 and Matthew 3:9) , and the foundation on which Christ builds His community (the Church), Peter received a mission which was to be for the good of the whole people. Against the forces of evil, which are the powers of death, the Church builds on Peter and is assured of victory. Thus is confided to Peter, who recognized in Jesus the Son of the living God, the supreme mission of gathering men into a community in which they may receive a blessed and eternal life.

Alluding to Peter’s name “rock,” Jesus announces to Peter that, after he has repudiated his denial, he must strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32). This is really then the mission of St. Peter described by Luke in Acts: he finds himself at the head of the group gathered together in the Cenacle (Acts 1:13); he presides at the elction of Matthais (Acts 1:15); he judges Ananias and Sapphria (Acts 5:1-11); in the name of the other apostles who are with him, he proclaims to the crowds the Messianic glorifiication of the risen Christ and announces the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:14-36); he invites all men to baptism (Acts 2:37-
41) including the pagans (Acts 10:1-11:18).

Jesus entrusted to St. Peter the care of the entire flock, lambs, and sheep. It is in the light of the parable of the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-28) that we understand this mission. The good shepherd saves his sheep, gathered in one flock (John 10:16; 11:52) and they have life in abudance. Yes, it is true that Christ is the Rock and the Good Shepherd, but that mission was also given to St. Peter whose name was changed to “rock” and whom Christ instructed to be a “shepherd” to his flock (John 21).

Peace be with you,
Selene

This is an outstanding post and a well-reasoned argument. Kudos, nicely-done.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nothing to offer in refutation?? Why don’t you try proving the validity of the popes by Scripture for starters. There’s some solid refutation right there my friend because you cannot do it. You haven’t been able to do it in 500 years. This is one big reason (amongst many) why the Reformation was so successful and big.

This is a weak argument IMO. Just because Catholics cannot produce any other quotes besides the Matthew 16 and “Feed My Sheep” passages does not necessarily mean the papacy is illegitimate and made-up. The HOLY TRINITY is never spoken of in Scripture either as being one God, co-equal, etc. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality either, it’s only in the Old Testament. So does that mean Jesus condoned it?

To understand a Christian doctrine one must take Scripture, Tradition, and add some reason and authority behind things. The validity of popes as bishops that hold a special primacy over the other churches can be well-traced to the early Church Fathers, the first generation of men to follow after the Apostles and so on…And the view of the RCC as having a primacy carries into the Nicene period and beyond. Whether the Pope was infallible or above the other bishops in a superior state able to have universal jurisdiction, that’s another matter. But the primacy and idea that the bishops of Rome carry on his mantle have historical precedents. But many Orthodox writers like John Meyendorff and some of his scholarly friends feel that Peter was a first among equals and that Rome as well as Antioch and other sites deserve the keys as well if the apostolic character of the apostle carried on to the next successor. There is a variety of opinions about Peter’s role and his successors. But to say that nobody has been able to prove or argue in an intelligent and convincing manner that the popes are the decedents of St. Peter and hold a special primacy, that’s just not accurate at all.

 

[Louie1983]

It didn’t take 1,500 years to challenge the notion that the Bishop of Rome is the inheritor of Peter and that the keys were given to Peter as an infallible prince over the other apostles. The Orthodox took issue with this prior to the 1054 split and you can read a great deal of statements by early fathers and saints saying that they believed the rock to be the confession, not the person of Peter, etc. There were varying opinions on this long before Luther and the Reformation came into history actually.

Hi gurneyhalleck1,

There are many church father quotes that showed that yes there were different opinions but that the church taught that peter and his successors were the head of the church here on earth.

I understand there may have been differing opinions (just like there is today!) but the church has always taught that st peter is the head of the church regardles of when any split occurred.

God Bless.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi gurneyhalleck1,

There are many church father quotes that showed that yes there were different opinions but that the church taught that peter and his successors were the head of the church here on earth.

I understand there may have been differing opinions (just like there is today!) but the church has always taught that st peter is the head of the church regardles of when any split occurred.

God Bless.

I respectfully disagree, Louie. If you read books like “The Primacy of Peter” by John Meyendorff, a masterful Orthodox priest and author of a vast array of Orthodox literature as well as dean of a major Orthodox seminary, you’ll see that the East had the Coryphaeus approach much of the time that Peter was the big brother, the first among equals of the apostles. So many early fathers can be read saying that the “rock” was not Peter but his confession. Many Orthodox writers long ago even disputed Peter as founding the Church at Rome. Meyendorff’s book contains many writers and they make the argument that Peter was also the founder of the Church of Antioch so why do they not possess the keys? The Orthodox have always felt that the keys were handed to ALL of the apostles, which of course, they were. The Orthodox view is that all bishops contain the authority of all the apostles in each man. The Roman view is that the charism of one man travels to the next man. It’s quite a different view. And seeing that the Bishop of Rome was not present at the first four major ecumenical councils and that the Emperors, most notably Constantine, were calling the shots, it shows that there was not an infallible, papal-dominated Church like you contend. And we can see many “Rome has spoken” quotes like Irenaeus states, but we can also read someone who seems pro-papacy like Cyprian having severe disagreements and divergent relations with the papacy. And then we can read Augustine making statements that make the pope sound just like you say. The Orthodox did not just break away from Rome because of the filioque, but rather a festering relationship that had been brewing for a long time in which they didn’t see eye to eye with what Rome claimed the pope to be. I disagree that this was a slam dunk and that day one all churches acknowledged one infallible, Petrine, universal leader. It seems more a development than a day one de facto reality?

 

[Louie1983]

I respectfully disagree, Louie. If you read books like “The Primacy of Peter” by John Meyendorff, a masterful Orthodox priest and author of a vast array of Orthodox literature as well as dean of a major Orthodox seminary, you’ll see that the East had the Coryphaeus approach much of the time that Peter was the big brother, the first among equals of the apostles. So many early fathers can be read saying that the “rock” was not Peter but his confession. Many Orthodox writers long ago even disputed Peter as founding the Church at Rome. Meyendorff’s book contains many writers and they make the argument that Peter was also the founder of the Church of Antioch so why do they not possess the keys? The Orthodox have always felt that the keys were handed to ALL of the apostles, which of course, they were. The Orthodox view is that all bishops contain the authority of all the apostles in each man. The Roman view is that the charism of one man travels to the next man. It’s quite a different view. And seeing that the Bishop of Rome was not present at the first four major ecumenical councils and that the Emperors, most notably Constantine, were calling the shots, it shows that there was not an infallible, papal-dominated Church like you contend. And we can see many “Rome has spoken” quotes like Irenaeus states, but we can also read someone who seems pro-papacy like Cyprian having severe disagreements and divergent relations with the papacy. And then we can read Augustine making statements that make the pope sound just like you say. The Orthodox did not just break away from Rome because of the filioque, but rather a festering relationship that had been brewing for a long time in which they didn’t see eye to eye with what Rome claimed the pope to be. I disagree that this was a slam dunk and that day one all churches acknowledged one infallible, Petrine, universal leader. It seems more a development than a day one de facto reality?

Thanks Gurneyhalleck1.

I have to disagree with what you have said there. The reason why antioch didn;t have the keys was because it wasn’t something that can be passed onto a place or have anything to do with any region. Jesus made peter and his successors the head of his church (i won’t go into scriptural passages as i’m sure a learned and articulate person like you would know them already) It so happened that Peter was martyred in rome and the church grew there to what it is today.

You seem to favour the orthodox view more than the catholic side even though you have acknowledge that early church fathers both great and small accepted the peter and his succesors as the head of the church? Yes constatine did show favourtism to catholics but the faith of the church and it’s teachings were decided by the councils headed by the pope and no-one else.

Yes all apostles have recived the authority to forgive and retain sin but not all of them were given the keys of the kingdom of God. Jesus specifically meant this for peter, if he didn’t then why did he single him out? why didn’t them all with this? I think Jesus was definately making it clear here what he was doing - instilling peter as the head of the church.

Yes some of these fathers argued with the church on certain things but that doesn;t mean they were challenging their authority! It was seeking the truth and the church has this because Jesus promised he will never leave his church.

In regards to the first 4 councils not having popes, i’m not sure about this i’m quite certain that the popes were present. But i will read up on this. However there are many examples where the issues have been dealt with by the pope e.g pope clement I letter to the corinthians in regards to ordination when they had john the evangelist living cose by!

Ofcourse the orthodox hold a differing view afterall, they are not united with the pope!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks Gurneyhalleck1.

I have to disagree with what you have said there. The reason why antioch didn;t have the keys was because it wasn’t something that can be passed onto a place or have anything to do with any region. Jesus made peter and his successors the head of his church (i won’t go into scriptural passages as i’m sure a learned and articulate person like you would know them already) It so happened that Peter was martyred in rome and the church grew there to what it is today.

You seem to favour the orthodox view more than the catholic side even though you have acknowledge that early church fathers both great and small accepted the peter and his succesors as the head of the church? Yes constatine did show favourtism to catholics but the faith of the church and it’s teachings were decided by the councils headed by the pope and no-one else.

Yes all apostles have recived the authority to forgive and retain sin but not all of them were given the keys of the kingdom of God. Jesus specifically meant this for peter, if he didn’t then why did he single him out? why didn’t them all with this? I think Jesus was definately making it clear here what he was doing - instilling peter as the head of the church.

Yes some of these fathers argued with the church on certain things but that doesn;t mean they were challenging their authority! It was seeking the truth and the church has this because Jesus promised he will never leave his church.

In regards to the first 4 councils not having popes, i’m not sure about this i’m quite certain that the popes were present. But i will read up on this. However there are many examples where the issues have been dealt with by the pope e.g pope clement I letter to the corinthians in regards to ordination when they had john the evangelist living cose by!

Ofcourse the orthodox hold a differing view afterall, they are not united with the pope!

Hey Louie,

Thanks for the post. I am most definiely sure about the first councils not having the pope present. He sent legates. There was no papal presence at those councils despite the papacy giving its blessings to them. And I would emphasize that the Pope was not in charge of councils under Constantine like you said he was. During the Constantine, Theodosius, etc. years you see a more ecumenical, conciliar form of Christianity. Often times a disagreement would occur between a bishop and his flock or between two bishops and they would ask for arbitors. Sometimes third party bishops like Cyprian would intervene and sometimes they would take it to the Bishop of Rome. I have many books on this and many quotations and situations where you read different bishops making different claims about the papacy. It’s fascinating and not a slam-dunk like you characterize it IMO. But I respect your firm view of course. Rome especially grew in stature due to the fact that the Roman Empire was divided in to and the capital was transferred to Constantinople under Constantine. Subsequently Rome was in a “when the cat’s away…” de facto state of leadership in the West. And after the barbarian onslaught and the horrific sacking of Rome, the papacy did a wonderful job of politically keeping the West from total chaos and armageddon. Popes were able to Christianize guys like Clovis and Charlemagne and bring Catholicism to all of Europe that was barbarian. The papacy grew in scope and power to unprecidented levels while the East was surrounded by barbarians and eventually ISLAM! The Orthodox Christian world was bottled in for a long time and contained while the West was able to expand all over the place. And we see much Petrine doctrine and papal claims come out of the Middle Ages when East and West were world apart, growing apart, and there was no united church anymore…it’s complicated…Then Spain and Portugal spread Catholicism all over North and South America and the Philippines, you name it. All loyal to the pope. Orthodoxy spread more to Baltic and Russian territories…And the argument that Peter died in Rome, from the Anglican and Orthodox perspectives, doesn’t mean his own personal charism transferred to those in charge at Rome itself. The episcopal office is not a personal one but rather a universal one in scope. The episcopate of Andrew didn’t make the next successor another Andrew or James in Jerusalem’s successor wasn’t James part II. This has been the opinon of many Biblical scholars who advocate monarchical episcopacy. Peter was viewed by men like Meyendorff, as an itinerant missionary. He travelled to many cities and baptized and consecrated many men. He wasn’t believed to have held a see by many scholars, but rather was a floating bishop of sorts. And the fact that Peter did not assume authority at the first great Council of Jersusalem shows more of an Orthodox or Anglican approach in that he yielded to the man in charge of that see–James. And at that council Peter is rebuked by Paul. I know there is a counter-argument to that statement, that Peter, in the end, succumbed to Paul and realized his mistake and through the charism of infallibility made the right decision about table fellowship with gentiles. I’m shaky about that. If popes had universal jurisdiction, why didn’t Peter assume authority over James’s See at Jerusalem and preside as a modern pope would at a major event or council worldwide? In any case, fascinating theories…

 

[peary2]

Ok clearly and let me know if im the only one that thinks this or…? but it seems to me that the major dif between the Catholics and protestants is clearly Peter and his keys to the kingdom which i would argue has been horribly taken out of context and personally would go as far to say Peter never intentioned any succession of a “seat” also that there are no other scriptures you can dig up to support that idea.
your thoughts?

Acts 1: 26 says this: “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Thus quite clearly Matthias was the replacement for Judas who was already dead before Jesus as he hanged himself in despair as recorded.

When the apostles began to pass on, replacements were made. This is only normal. ‘Leaders’ of the early Church held particular ‘offices’ which needed to be filled. Whether or not Peter ever intentioned any succession of a ‘seat’ is irrelevent. It was very important in the early Church that replacements were made as the apostles and disciples would die. According to Church tradition, it was Linus who succeeded Peter as the head of the Church in Rome.

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of Peter as bishop of Rome. Irenaeus wrote that Linus is the Linus mentioned in the Bible by Paul (2 Timothy 4:21).

There is nothing in the bible to contradict the process of succession.

 

[Worthy5]

When Jesus asked Peter who do you say that I am. He answered you are the christ, the son of the living God. This is the rock that he would build his church. Not on Petros which means a little stone. The keys to the Kingdom was given to all the Apostles and all Christians. The Gospel is the power of god unto salvation. The Gospel is the Death, Burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You have to obey the Gospel in order to be saved. THE ROCK IS JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. Why would he build a church on a mortal man?

Bruce Pennington

 

[josethomas2005]

I respectfully disagree, Louie. If you read books like “The Primacy of Peter” by John Meyendorff, a masterful Orthodox priest and author of a vast array of Orthodox literature as well as dean of a major Orthodox seminary, you’ll see that the East had the Coryphaeus approach much of the time that Peter was the big brother, the first among equals of the apostles. So many early fathers can be read saying that the “rock” was not Peter but his confession. Many Orthodox writers long ago even disputed Peter as founding the Church at Rome. Meyendorff’s book contains many writers and they make the argument that Peter was also the founder of the Church of Antioch so why do they not possess the keys? The Orthodox have always felt that the keys were handed to ALL of the apostles, which of course, they were. The Orthodox view is that all bishops contain the authority of all the apostles in each man. The Roman view is that the charism of one man travels to the next man. It’s quite a different view. And seeing that the Bishop of Rome was not present at the first four major ecumenical councils and that the Emperors, most notably Constantine, were calling the shots, it shows that there was not an infallible, papal-dominated Church like you contend. And we can see many “Rome has spoken” quotes like Irenaeus states, but we can also read someone who seems pro-papacy like Cyprian having severe disagreements and divergent relations with the papacy. And then we can read Augustine making statements that make the pope sound just like you say. The Orthodox did not just break away from Rome because of the filioque, but rather a festering relationship that had been brewing for a long time in which they didn’t see eye to eye with what Rome claimed the pope to be. I disagree that this was a slam dunk and that day one all churches acknowledged one infallible, Petrine, universal leader. It seems more a development than a day one de facto reality?

Read the following carefully.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Read the following carefully.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

Ok josethomas, as per instructions, I read both “very carefully.” Please now make your point about these two links. What is your point and what is your analysis of the donation of Constantine?

 

[jpaul1953]

To show that no matter who is in charge of His Church, weather Peter, who was a bit…hot headed at times, those sinners in the middle ages, or Benedict XVI, the gates of hell will not prevail against it. It’s a testament to Jesus that He can put anybody in charge of His Church, and it will still be His.

Again, Jesus is not the rock in this scenario. Jesus is the builder. St. Peter is the Rock.

Maybe he picked a mortal because Jesus, the Captsone, was being called home by his father.

Petros is the Greek translation for Kephas-Aramaic- which means ‘Great Rock’. Do you really think your relationship with the Holy Spirit is so great that you are allowed to out-think the Apostles and First Fathers of the one Church. Remember Jesus did say HIS CHURCH, NOT PETER’S CHURCH (remember Church not churches, like one you belong to)

Would you prefer that Jesus leaves his only Church to the care of an elephant or a Martian. Or maybe he was telling Peter to take care of his Church until your church came along to replace it. Oh, that’s it. Peter and us Catholics were only stewards of his Church awaiting your congregations arrival.

Come on get real! The Church completed the books of the New Testament and gave it to the world, including your congregation, who has accepted all the books of the bible, rewritten into the KJV, translation incredibly close to the original, accepted Catholic bible for the first 1100 years (bible completed by St Jerome by the late 300AD in Latin called the Vulgate).

Now you and your fellow congregation want to tear apart verses in the bible that are only Catholic, when it was practiced for all those years. Remember, the reformation was to straighten out the disgraceful individuals who controlled the Church at the time. God will deal with those evil Catholic men.

But the reformers believed in the Real Presence, Mary’s perpetual Virginity, andd several other Catholic held beliefs. So you’re not really splitting from us. The reformers did that in the 1500’s. You are really splitting from them - Protestants splitting away from other Protestants, that’s what all of you congregations are doing.

God will give you the truth if you humbly open your health. May God bless you everyday.

jpaul1953

 

[Louie1983]

Hey Louie,

Thanks for the post. I am most definiely sure about the first councils not having the pope present. He sent legates. There was no papal presence at those councils despite the papacy giving its blessings to them. And I would emphasize that the Pope was not in charge of councils under Constantine like you said he was. During the Constantine, Theodosius, etc. years you see a more ecumenical, conciliar form of Christianity. Often times a disagreement would occur between a bishop and his flock or between two bishops and they would ask for arbitors. Sometimes third party bishops like Cyprian would intervene and sometimes they would take it to the Bishop of Rome. I have many books on this and many quotations and situations where you read different bishops making different claims about the papacy. It’s fascinating and not a slam-dunk like you characterize it IMO. But I respect your firm view of course. Rome especially grew in stature due to the fact that the Roman Empire was divided in to and the capital was transferred to Constantinople under Constantine. Subsequently Rome was in a “when the cat’s away…” de facto state of leadership in the West. And after the barbarian onslaught and the horrific sacking of Rome, the papacy did a wonderful job of politically keeping the West from total chaos and armageddon. Popes were able to Christianize guys like Clovis and Charlemagne and bring Catholicism to all of Europe that was barbarian. The papacy grew in scope and power to unprecidented levels while the East was surrounded by barbarians and eventually ISLAM! The Orthodox Christian world was bottled in for a long time and contained while the West was able to expand all over the place. And we see much Petrine doctrine and papal claims come out of the Middle Ages when East and West were world apart, growing apart, and there was no united church anymore…it’s complicated…Then Spain and Portugal spread Catholicism all over North and South America and the Philippines, you name it. All loyal to the pope. Orthodoxy spread more to Baltic and Russian territories…And the argument that Peter died in Rome, from the Anglican and Orthodox perspectives, doesn’t mean his own personal charism transferred to those in charge at Rome itself. The episcopal office is not a personal one but rather a universal one in scope. The episcopate of Andrew didn’t make the next successor another Andrew or James in Jerusalem’s successor wasn’t James part II. This has been the opinon of many Biblical scholars who advocate monarchical episcopacy. Peter was viewed by men like Meyendorff, as an itinerant missionary. He travelled to many cities and baptized and consecrated many men. He wasn’t believed to have held a see by many scholars, but rather was a floating bishop of sorts. And the fact that Peter did not assume authority at the first great Council of Jersusalem shows more of an Orthodox or Anglican approach in that he yielded to the man in charge of that see–James. And at that council Peter is rebuked by Paul. I know there is a counter-argument to that statement, that Peter, in the end, succumbed to Paul and realized his mistake and through the charism of infallibility made the right decision about table fellowship with gentiles. I’m shaky about that. If popes had universal jurisdiction, why didn’t Peter assume authority over James’s See at Jerusalem and preside as a modern pope would at a major event or council worldwide? In any case, fascinating theories…

Hi gurneyhalleck1,

After doing some more reading yes it became clear to me that the popes were not present there (thanks for showing me this:thumbsup but it also became clear to me that he did not need to be there. There is no valid ecumenical council until the pope approves the final documents. but it is irrelevant because the pope approved the conciliar documents.

The fact that “the papacy giving its blessings to them” (councils) shows the importance and the authority of the pope. Would they have continued or would the council have been valid if the pope had not giving them his blessing? Did they seek his blessing because this would show that they required his authority to have the council?

Regarding peter and the council of jerusalem - If we go to Acts 15, we read that there was a lot of debate in the Church about whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. After the debate, Peter “rose” and declared that circumcision was not necessary. James was not even in the picture at this point. Peter made an authoritative decision about the doctrinal question, and no one questioned him. In fact, after Peter spoke it says “all kept silent.” this silence was a result of Peter’s comment. This shows his authority.

After Peter settles the issue, Paul and Barnabas speak in favor of Peter’s teaching. Only then does James come in. A few things about James’ discourse. First, James was the bishop of Jerusalem during the council, and it is common for a bishop to speak in favor of the pope’s teaching at a regional or ecumenical council. This is what James does. He agrees with Peter’s definitive teaching. Second, James begins speaking, not about the doctrinal issue, but about whether the Gentiles should obey the Noachide laws.

Continued…