Peter's Role in Scripture

[zurbupar]

I was talking to a protestant friend of mine about the difference of our faiths, and he brought up the point that, “If what is said in Matthew 16:18 about Peter being the Rock upon which Christ builds his church is true, then that is a GIGANTIC doctrinal error that protestants have!” he followed up that statement asking, “So, why is this issue of Peter being the leader and rock of the church not explained more explicitly in scripture? If this is true, then why was it not written about more in Acts and other New Testament Books?” then he asked another question, “And IF Peter is the Leader of the church, then how do you support your doctrine of Apostolic Succession? How do you know that the powers invested in Peter and all the Apostles didn’t die off with them?” If you could give me scriptural and doctrinal advise on how to answer these questions, that would be amazing!

Thank You and God Bless!

 

[bzkoss236]

The issue with this is that not everything is in Scripture, there are some things that were taught only by Oral Tradition, and others where only a little bit is explained in Scripture and the rest by Tradition.

And if your friend thinks otherwise, then ask him, “Where in Scripture does it say it has everything?”

In fact, the opposite is true. There are verses that state that there were things that were left out.

Some protestants seem to think that the Catholic Church made stuff up as they went, when in fact, all the Church has done is affirm what was already being taught, which is the same stuff that was taught by Apostles.

 

[Cable]

I was talking to a protestant friend of mine about the difference of our faiths, and he brought up the point that, “If what is said in Matthew 16:18 about Peter being the Rock upon which Christ builds his church is true, then that is a GIGANTIC doctrinal error that protestants have!” he followed up that statement asking, “So, why is this issue of Peter being the leader and rock of the church not explained more explicitly in scripture? If this is true, then why was it not written about more in Acts and other New Testament Books?” then he asked another question, “And IF Peter is the Leader of the church, then how do you support your doctrine of Apostolic Succession? How do you know that the powers invested in Peter and all the Apostles didn’t die off with them?” If you could give me scriptural and doctrinal advise on how to answer these questions, that would be amazing!

Thank You and God Bless!

That’s just it. It doesn’t have to be in Sacred Scripture to be true (although Peter is, go to ScriptureCatholic.com re: primacy of Peter). God has revealed Himself in other ways in addition to the Bible. Your friend subscribes in the false notion of Sola Scriptura. He has to prove to you first that Bible alone is true, which he cannot. I’d be surprised if you told me your friend knows a lot about Church history. Maybe that’s a place to start, because he sounds interested in growing in his faith.

 

[zurbupar]

He is. I think that I was just looking for a scriptural way to address his question, but since it is a matter of Tradition it is something that I will just have to work with him on a little bit more. I tried to get into the topic of sola scriptura and its non-biblical basis, but he kept changing the subject. He did give me a few versus that he said proved sola scriptura, most of them were bad examples on his part because they said nothing about scripture ALONE, but one did stand out:

“I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written…” 1 Corinthians 4:6-7

This verse troubled me. I have tried to read it in context, but it hasn’t made much sense. I posted about it, but maybe you can help me here. Do you know how this verse DOESN’T prove sola scriptura? I know that it can’t, but I just need to how it can’t. Help here would be greatly appreciated.

After our conversation (which lasted about 3 hours) I actually gave him The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. I hope he finds it useful, and maybe it will bring him a step closer to realizing the Lord’s call to him to be in the Catholic Church. Who knows!

Thank You so Much!

 

[bzkoss236]

My bible’s comments on 1 Cor 4:6

That you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written: the words “to go” are not in the Greek, but have here been added as the minimum necessary to elicit sense from this difficult passage. It probably means that the Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation, contenting themselves with Paul’s proclamation of the cross, which is the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Old Testament (what is written).

 

[pablope]

I was talking to a protestant friend of mine about the difference of our faiths, and he brought up the point that, “If what is said in Matthew 16:18 about Peter being the Rock upon which Christ builds his church is true, then that is a GIGANTIC doctrinal error that protestants have!” he followed up that statement asking,

"So, why is this issue of Peter being the leader and rock of the church not explained more explicitly in scripture?

 

[COPLAND_3]

The Bible was compiled primarily for use in the Mass, to have a standard set of readings starting in AD393…not to be a handbook or source of doctrine.

 

[zurbupar]

The Bible was compiled primarily for use in the Mass, to have a standard set of readings starting in AD393…not to be a handbook or source of doctrine.

 

[Highwayhound]

I was talking to a protestant friend of mine about the difference of our faiths, and he brought up the point that, “If what is said in Matthew 16:18 about Peter being the Rock upon which Christ builds his church is true, then that is a GIGANTIC doctrinal error that protestants have!” he followed up that statement asking, “So, why is this issue of Peter being the leader and rock of the church not explained more explicitly in scripture? If this is true, then why was it not written about more in Acts and other New Testament Books?” then he asked another question, “And IF Peter is the Leader of the church, then how do you support your doctrine of Apostolic Succession? How do you know that the powers invested in Peter and all the Apostles didn’t die off with them?” If you could give me scriptural and doctrinal advise on how to answer these questions, that would be amazing!

Thank You and God Bless!

One idea you can look to is this: of all the times a discple of Jesus is mentioned it is Peter who is mentioned about 60% out all mentions (the number is 180 or 190 I cannot remember exactly). The next most mentioned apostle is John and he is mentioned about 29 times. Peter play a huge role by mere presence. Also, when the apostles had a disagreement it was always Peter that was their leader.

A much better source of information is a DVD titled What Catholics Really Believe by Ray Guarendi. Here is a link to his website:
ninevehscrossing.com/dvd.php

I will have my confirmation class watch some sections of this DVD as it is full of good information.

God bless

 

[chessmane4e5]

The following is taken from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible

Catholic tradition makes mighty claims for Simon Peter. It holds that Peter was lifted to an unrivaled position of honor and preeminence among the original apostles. It holds, too, that Peter was the chief shepherd and teacher of the early Church. Since these points have generated debate and even division among Christian groups, there is need to reexamine the biblical data that shapes the Catholic perspective on the primacy of Peter. Do these claims reflect the intentions of Jesus? Are they consistent with the evidence of the NT?

Peter in the Gospels
Simon Peter is at once the most visible and the most vocal apostle in the Gospels.
(1) When the evangelists recount how Jesus selected the Twelve, they put Peter at the top of the apostolic list (Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14), with Matthew even specifying that he was “first” (Matthew 10:2).
(2) When the evangelists mention the apostles together, Peter is often singled out from the group in a way that is not done with any other apostle (Mark 1:36; 16:7; Luke 9:32).
(3) When the collectors of the Temple tax approached the apostles for the annual half-shekel, they approached Peter as conspicuous representative of the group (Matthew 17:24-27).
(4) When Peter spoke with Jesus, he often did so on behalf of the Twelve (Mark 8:29; Luke 12:41; John 6:66-69)
(5) Peter was one of three apostles given special attention by Jesus. Together with James and John, the sons of Zebedee, he was chosen to witness the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:37), the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2), and the agony of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:33). These are also the only three disciples among the Twelve whom Jesus renamed – Simon being called “Peter” (the rock, Mark 3:16) and James and John being called “Boanerges” (the sons of thunder, Mark 3:17).
(6) On the night of his betrayal, when Satan was about to test the disciples, Jesus told Peter that he had prayed for him personally that he might turn again and steady the faith of his brother apostles (Luke 22:31-32).
(7) On Easter morning, Peter and John raced to inspect the empty tomb. Though John outran him, he waited for Peter to catch up and in deference allowed him to enter the tomb first (John 20:3-8).
(8) Later that Easter day, Jesus appeared privately to Peter, making him the first witness of the Resurrection among the apostles (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5).
(9) Lastly and most importantly, Jesus made promises to Peter that he never made to any other apostle. He promised to build his Church on Peter, so that he alone would be the foundation stone of Christ’s new and living Temple (Matthew 16:18), that he alone would be the keeper of the keys of Christ’s kingdom (Matthew 16:19), and that he alone would be the head shepherd in charge of Christ’s sheep (John 21:15-17).

Peter in the Book of Acts
This prominence of Peter in the Gospels continued into the earliest days of the Church. Here we see Peter exercising a level of authority and leadership that was unmatched in the ministry of any other apostle.
(1) Soon after Jesus ascended into heaven, it was Peter who initiated and oversaw the replacement of Judas Iscariot with another longtime disciple, Matthias, to complete the number of the Twelve (Acts 1:15-26).
(2) When the Spirit rained down upon the apostles at Pentecost, it was Peter who delivered the inaugural sermon of Church history to the throng in Jerusalem (Acts 2:14-36).
(3) When the crowds accepted his testimony and wondered how to respond, it was Peter who urged them to repent and receive Baptism (Acts 2:37-41).
(4) It was Peter who performed the first recorded healing in Church history (Acts 3:1-10).
(5) When Peter and John were arrested and asked to account for their actions, it was Peter who addressed the Sanhedrin and gave powerful witness to the gospel (Acts 4:5-12).
(6) It was Peter who handled the first recorded case of ecclesial discipline exercised in Church history (Acts 5:1-11).
(7) When the gospel first spread beyond Judea into the neighboring region of Samaria, it was Peter who brought the Spirit to endorse this new missionary development (Acts 8:14-17).
(8) When God arranged for the first Gentile conversions in Church history, he sent Peter to preach and administer Baptism (Acts 10:1-48).
(9) Lastly and most importantly, when the first recorded council in Church history convened in Jerusalem, it was Peter who stood up to end the debate with a solemn proclamation of Christian doctrine (Acts 15:6-11)
The sheer breadth and depth of this evidence is staggering. In passage after passage in the Gospels we see Jesus grooming Peter for a unique mission of leadership and service. In passage after passage in Acts we see Peter engaged in leadership as a spiritual father caring for the family of faith. The testimony of Catholic tradition is thus merely an echo of biblical tradition. No other apostle appears so prominently in NT history. No other apostle receives such honors and is asked to shoulder such responsibilities. Among the apostles, only Simon Peter holds a position of primacy.

So all this, with the writings of the Church Fathers is overwhelming evidence for the Catholic teaching about Peter

 

[steve53]

No doubt that Paul and Luke the Physician directed Christianity in the direction they wanted- with Luke writing a gospel and Acts.

Let us hope they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[chessmane4e5]

No doubt that Paul and Luke the Physician directed Christianity in the direction they wanted- with Luke writing a gospel and Acts.

Let us hope they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Steve, this might be true if it were not for the fact that the 12 Apostles had already gone out and started the Church. If Paul had preached a different gospel from that of the Apostles then their would have been a schism. But we actually have Paul saying "“thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation.” Romans 15:20

So Paul is acknowledging that the gospel has already been preached in Rome to the Jews, but Paul is preaching to the Gentiles. Who was the other man who had already preached in Rome? Peter of course. So again, if Paul was preaching a different gospel, it would have been chaotic and there would have been fighting amongst the Christians.

And yes, Luke did write a gospel and the Acts, but it then had to accepted by the Christians it was dispersed to. If what was written was not true, they would have discarded it. That is why Christ built the Church upon Peter the Rock (Matthew 16:18) with the Apostles as the foundation and Christ the Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).

 

[bmonk]

I was talking to a protestant friend of mine about the difference of our faiths, and he brought up the point that, “If what is said in Matthew 16:18 about Peter being the Rock upon which Christ builds his church is true, then that is a GIGANTIC doctrinal error that protestants have!” he followed up that statement asking, “So, why is this issue of Peter being the leader and rock of the church not explained more explicitly in scripture? If this is true, then why was it not written about more in Acts and other New Testament Books?” then he asked another question, “And IF Peter is the Leader of the church, then how do you support your doctrine of Apostolic Succession? How do you know that the powers invested in Peter and all the Apostles didn’t die off with them?” If you could give me scriptural and doctrinal advise on how to answer these questions, that would be amazing!

Thank You and God Bless!

As mentioned, while Matthew 16 is the major text that shows Peter’s authority as granted by Jesus, others scriptures do hint at this also:

The mention of Simon Peter much more than any other of the disciples or the Twelve points towards his preeminence.

The role Peter takes in the first baptism of a “full” Gentile, Cornelius and his household–the Ethopian eunuch seems to be a Jew or something similar, as he is reading the prophet Isaiah, and there was a long tradition of ties between Ethiopia and Jews. After he sets the “precedent” and explains it to the Church, they are willing to accept Barnabas’ and Paul’s ministry. Peter goes to Antioch, where Paul sees him as a leader of some kind–he even mentions his rebuke in Galatians.

Peter ends in Rome as a martyr–no other place claims him, and the Roman claim goes back very early, like to the early second Century, even if you discount the archeological evidence. Furthermore, a letter like 1 Clement already shows some sign of Peter’s role and reputation in the universal Church. Furthermore, while Rome also claims Paul, Peter is named first–Peter has the greater reputation.

 

[Jacob50]

I was talking to a protestant friend of mine about the difference of our faiths, and he brought up the point that, “If what is said in Matthew 16:18 about Peter being the Rock upon which Christ builds his church is true, then that is a GIGANTIC doctrinal error that protestants have!” he followed up that statement asking, “So, why is this issue of Peter being the leader and rock of the church not explained more explicitly in scripture? If this is true, then why was it not written about more in Acts and other New Testament Books?” then he asked another question, “And IF Peter is the Leader of the church, then how do you support your doctrine of Apostolic Succession? How do you know that the powers invested in Peter and all the Apostles didn’t die off with them?” If you could give me scriptural and doctrinal advise on how to answer these questions, that would be amazing!

Thank You and God Bless!

Try checking this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=631543

 

[Ignatius]

I was talking to a protestant friend of mine about the difference of our faiths, and he brought up the point that, “If what is said in Matthew 16:18 about Peter being the Rock upon which Christ builds his church is true, then that is a GIGANTIC doctrinal error that protestants have!” he followed up that statement asking, “So, why is this issue of Peter being the leader and rock of the church not explained more explicitly in scripture? If this is true, then why was it not written about more in Acts and other New Testament Books?” then he asked another question, “And IF Peter is the Leader of the church, then how do you support your doctrine of Apostolic Succession? How do you know that the powers invested in Peter and all the Apostles didn’t die off with them?” If you could give me scriptural and doctrinal advise on how to answer these questions, that would be amazing!

Actually the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity is far more central to the Faith; so why isn’t the Trinity isn’t even mentioned explicitely in Scripture?
Why are these things not spelled out explicitely? Because Jesus founded His Church to pass down the Gospel. Jesus knew that that it is The Church He founed is “The Pillar and Foundation of Truth”, as Scripture says.
You see, Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine invented by Protestants in the 16th century. Jesus nevertold anyone to write anything, He founded His Church for the faithful to follow.

 

[inkaneer]

I was talking to a protestant friend of mine about the difference of our faiths, and he brought up the point that, “If what is said in Matthew 16:18 about Peter being the Rock upon which Christ builds his church is true, then that is a GIGANTIC doctrinal error that protestants have!” he followed up that statement asking, “So, why is this issue of Peter being the leader and rock of the church not explained more explicitly in scripture? If this is true, then why was it not written about more in Acts and other New Testament Books?” then he asked another question, “And IF Peter is the Leader of the church, then how do you support your doctrine of Apostolic Succession? How do you know that the powers invested in Peter and all the Apostles didn’t die off with them?” If you could give me scriptural and doctrinal advise on how to answer these questions, that would be amazing!

Thank You and God Bless!

But it is in scripture. He just doesn’t see it. But the Apostles knew it. In Jpohn 21:15 and17 it is Peter who Jesus commands to “feed My sheep” But in John 21:16 Jesus commands Peter to “rule [or govern or tend] My flock”. In Acts 1 it is Peter who calls for a replacement for Judas and that is the scriptural precedent for apostolic Succession. In Acts 15, at the council of Jerusalem, scripture tells us there was much debate until Peter stood up and started to speak then scripture says, “12 And all the assembly kept silence;” [Acts 15:12] [RSV]. They were silent because they knew the boss was speaking.

As for all the powers invested in Peter and the Apostles dying off with them, that too is unscriptural. In Mt 23:2 Jesus spoke of the Pharisees sitting on “Moses seat” and therefore the Jews had to do as they said. Moses was long dead but his authority as a law giver was passed down to the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. So the authority was not attached to the person but rather to the office that the person held. The person assumes the authority of the office only when he is in the office. Much the same in our political world. Besides it would be awfully short sighted of Jesus to have His church last only one generation before it lost its authority. That doesn’t make any sense especially when Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the church into all truth and even said that He would remain with it until the end of the age.

 

[Josephene]

The grace to repent , not just on behalf of oneself but also on behalf of others, trusting in the goodness of God and thus asking for mercy , is a gift of The Spirit ; thus, it is likely that St.Peter did so to the utmost, after the Lord appears to the disciples and breathes on them .

The Lord had promised to Peter , on a previous fishing expedition, how he was going to make him a fisher of men , in answer to his acknowledgement of being a sinful man …and may be The Spirit stirred the heart of Peter to sense that , that promise was going to be fulfilled , in spite of his sin of denying The Lord, thus his decision to go fishing !

Thus, not catching any fish that night may not have disappointed him …but likely , only helped to remind him of the previous time , when the promise was made !

Having heard interpretations on how the Apostles following Peter that night was a temptation, seems the liklelihood of the occasion being more in line with the promptings of The Spirit is also good to consider , esp. from the point of the role of repentance as a precious gift ; St.Thomas is mentioned in that episode , right after Peter ; he too could have repented well , for leaving The Lord , like the others !

Interestingly, the Divine Mercy Sunday coincides now , with St.Thomas Sunday of Octave of Easter !

This grace of repentanace and the related gratitude could be what made Mary Magdalene also to have the privilege of being witness to The Resurrection , even before the disciples !

Tomorrow being All Souls Day, good day to repent on behalf of all in the family and many others, asking for mercy !

Such an attitude may be what could also foster unity in The Church - those who have fallen away from The Church , repenting on behalf of all those persons /Popes etc : who they have heard played a part , as the cause for the divisions/reformation and Catholics doing so , on behalf of those who took the misguided efforts , to bring about the divisions !

The prayers for holy souls, such as this one -

catholicspot.com/purgatory.htm is possibly another way of doing same !