Primacy of Peter unimportant...

[joe370]

Hey Dok…

The NT does not proclaim Peter as the leader of the church.

Well, Peter, (as well as the rest of the apostles) - is no longer here, so of course he *(they) *- is not the leader of Jesus’ church anymore. But he did pass those metaphorical keys on to his successor, who no doubt did the same thing - right?

The authority to bind and loose, given to all of the apostles, was also passed on to their successors - right? Perhaps this would be a good starting point for finding said leaders?

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

I am not one of those who argues stridently that Christ is saying here he is bulding His Church on Peter’s statement of faith itself. I think the scripture clearly indicates He is also talking aboutthe man, Simon Peter. But there is a buffering here, Christ also says to Peter, “get behind me Satan.” So, Christ seems to elevate and put Peter in his place, so to speak.

Jesus put Peter in his place more than once. Keeping in mind that Peter also rejected Jesus 3 times, as predicted by Jesus, but Jesus also said to Peter: Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." However, all of this is irrelevant considering the fact that Peter became a brand new man, post Pentecost. Can you imagine how different they must have felt after the holy spirit descended upon them at Pentecost? Any doubt as to Peter’s intestinal fortitude and commitment to Jesus would have been a thing of the past, post Pentecost, and that is why Jesus told Peter to feed and tend to His sheep.

Your addition of “alone”, reveals your Lutheran past. I would dispute, scripturally and, considering the view of Orthodoxy and my own Tradition, that the keys are invested in Peter alone. The others were there, and there’s no reason to believe He wasn’t talking to them all.

Well, Jesus said to Kepha only, even though the others were present: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…**.I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…**But, in light of the view of Orthodoxy and your own Tradition, I can certainly understand your perspective. However, speaking from a strict sola scriptura standpoint, which says, if it’s not in the bible it’s not to be believed, that perspective is a hard pill to swallow.

.

…again, I don’t believe they were given to Peter, alone. I believe they were given to the others, and by extension, the Church. My point in mentioning how the others might respond was that Christ had told them not to consider a pecking order, so to speak. And I don’t get the feeling that Paul’s view of Peter would match that of the CC today.

I don’t believe there was a pecking order for the apostles either. I am sure they were all endowed with the same spirit driven authority, which is why they could split up and teach. The keys given to Peter were meant to be passed on to the next generation of teachers, (just as the authority to bind and loose was passed on from the rest of the apostles to their successors) - who would no longer be able to avail themselves of the wisdom of Peter or the rest of the apostles, and Jesus’ church, as per the keys, would be centered around the office of Peter, the hub of Jesus’ church, for the express purpose of preserving doctrinal truth, just as the old dispensation was centered around the seat of Moses, as per Jesus. The keys given to Peter were essentially the keys to the office, so to speak, and this office was to continue until the end of time, otherwise, why even give Peter a set of metaphorical keys?

 

[Dokimas]

Jesus was talking to Jesus specifically, not His disciples as a whole.

Jesus spoke to individuals throughout the NT. That doesn’t mean the info isn’t for others, including ourselves.

BTW, you haven’t answered the questions directly.

 

[StTommyMore]

Jesus spoke to individuals throughout the NT. That doesn’t mean the info isn’t for others, including ourselves.

BTW, you haven’t answered the questions directly.

Of course I have. These passages show the UNDENIABLE PRIMACY of Peter

 

[joe370]

Hey Dokimas…

;7126313]Jesus spoke to individuals throughout the NT. That doesn’t mean the info isn’t for others, including ourselves.

BTW, you haven’t answered the questions directly.

Good point Dok. For example, Jesus had a target audience in mind (the crowd) - in John 6 but His words were meant for all Christians:

"the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus…When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here… Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you…unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you…

However, in Matthew 16 Jesus directly addresses one person, Simon, due to the fact that His Father revealed something to him, and that revelation is the basis for renaming Simon. It wasn’t just a general statement made to the crowd, like that of John 6 directed toward you or me or all Christians.

Let’s to a comparison. Below Jesus says to one person:

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…"

Jesus also said to Peter only:

"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers…Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, **you will deny three times that you know me.” **

Certainly these words, spoken to Simon, like the words spoken by Jesus to Simon in Matthew 16, (unlike the words spoken by Jesus to the crowd in John 6, meant for all) - were meant for Simon alone as opposed to some crowd, or even all Christians in general, for that matter- right? Just as Jesus did not give me the keys to the kingdom of heaven, he also did not have me in mind when he told Simon, 2000 years ago, that Satan has asked to sift him as wheat. Jesus did not have me, or Christians in general, in mind when he said to Simon alone: “before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.” There are many examples like these. In both cases Simon is the intended sole recipient, just as the apostles are the sole recipients regarding the binding and loosing.

Dok, that that seem logical?

 

[Dokimas]

Which protestant Bible scholars?

Where specifically in John 21:15-19 does it say Peter was the chief shepherd?

I don’t believe you answered these questions, Tom.

 

[Dokimas]

Hey Dokimas…

Good point Dok. For example, Jesus had a target audience in mind (the crowd) - in John 6 but His words were meant for all Christians:

"the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus…When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here… Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you…unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you…

However, in Matthew 16 Jesus directly addresses one person, Simon, due to the fact that His Father revealed something to him, and that revelation is the basis for renaming Simon. It wasn’t just a general statement made to the crowd, like that of John 6 directed toward you or me or all Christians.

Let’s to a comparison. Below Jesus says to one person:

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…"

Jesus also said to Peter only:

"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers…Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, **you will deny three times that you know me.” **

Certainly these words, spoken to Simon, like the words spoken by Jesus to Simon in Matthew 16, (unlike the words spoken by Jesus to the crowd in John 6, meant for all) - were meant for Simon alone as opposed to some crowd, or even all Christians in general, for that matter- right? Just as Jesus did not give me the keys to the kingdom of heaven, he also did not have me in mind when he told Simon, 2000 years ago, that Satan has asked to sift him as wheat. Jesus did not have me, or Christians in general, in mind when he said to Simon alone: “before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.” There are many examples like these. In both cases Simon is the intended sole recipient, just as the apostles are the sole recipients regarding the binding and loosing.

Dok, that that seem logical?

Let me see if I understand your major point …

1. You have never believed Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
2. The devil does not want to sift all believers like wheat. If so, then Jesus doesn’t promise to pray and protect them to the glory of God and the feeding of God’s children.

 

[jmcrae]

Which protestant Bible scholars?

Where specifically in John 21:15-19 does it say Peter was the chief shepherd?

Jesus commands Peter to “feed My lambs (take spiritual care of all of the the lay people in the Church) shepherd My sheep (guide the other disciples and leaders of the Church).”

 

[joe370]

Dok, you said:

Let me see if I understand your major point …

Okay…

1. You have never believed Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Never…Just kidding. LOL…Below, Jesus is addressing his disciples, not just Simon, and they replied accordingly. Here the question is not directly addressed to Simon alone, but nonetheless, Simon chimes in and answers the question:

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” **Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” **

At which point Jesus proceeds to directly address Simon alone, as opposed to the other disciples:

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven…**.I will give you (singular) - the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” **

Is Jesus giving the keys to just Simon, or is Jesus giving the keys to Simon and the rest of the disciples in the region of Caesarea Philippi?

In the first instance Jesus is addressing his disciples which includes Simon of course; in the second instance Jesus is addressing just Simon. He was not telling the other disciples in the region of Caesarea Philippi that they too were blessed because of what was revealed to Simon alone, who alone was given the keys - right or wrong? I am just trying to be logical about the matter.

1. The devil does not want to sift all believers like wheat. If so, then Jesus doesn’t promise to pray and protect them to the glory of God and the feeding of God’s children.
   Reply With Quote

Sure, Jesus prays for everyone, and absolutely, Satan wants to sift all believers like wheat but that has nothing to do with what Jesus said to Simon. Jesus was referring to Simon alone, which is why He said to Simon alone:

*“But I have prayed for you, Simon, (as opposed to all those in the region of Caesarea Philippi at his particular time) - that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” *

The context of this passage is about how Simon’s faith will prove to be weak, but in the end Simon will prevail, and when he does he was to strengthen his brothers. To say that this passage is about anyone other than Simon is to betray the context of the passage, don’t you think? What was addressed specifically to Simon, (as was the case in Matthew 16) - was not directed to or intended for the other disciples in the region of Caesarea Philippi? Right, wrong, maybe?

*Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." *

*"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven…I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." *

Your thoughts Dok…

 

[joe370]

[COLOR="Red":

gurneyhalleck1

;7124950]My Bible must have some pages torn out. Can you point me to the verse that says this?

Gurney, do you believe that Peter spoke infallibly, regarding the teachings of Jesus? If so, then what is your take on why Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Simon alone, and what do these key signify, in your mind? Just trying to see things from all sides. In the end if we can’t see eye to eye, well, that’s cool.

Like JonNC so aptly reminded me once: we all bring our biases to the table when debating, so in the end, if we can’t agree, we should never let that divide us (us, as in all Christians, here at CAF, and in general).

 

[joe370]

Nine_Two - Jesus didn’t declare Peter’s words infallible, he proclaimed them correct. Just a few verses later Jesus tells Peter off for not understanding “the ways of God.”

Actually, Jesus didn’t declare either.

Infallible means error fee, and surely you believe that Peter taught error free doctrine, in spite of his shortcomings, inherent in all of us - right?

Peter failed Jesus in other ways as well, prior to His resurrection, just as the other apostles did, but that all changed on Pentecost, thanks to the power of the holy spirit. Simon, renamed Peter, was a beacon of light, no doubt, to Jesus’ fledgling church from there on out - right?

 

[joe370]

Dok you said to Tommy regarding the following:

I can see how you understand what you understand from these passages and it’s because of your presuppositions that lead you to make your claims.

Dok, do you believe that Simon is the rock on which Jesus built His church? By the way, as per all catholics, Jesus, who is God, is the divine Rock. You are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my church.

If not then I can certainly understand why you said what you said to Tommy, however, the same could be said about you - which is:

Dok, I can see how you understand what you understand from these passages and it’s because of your presuppositions that lead you to make your claims.

In the end, who has the authority to resolve this difference of opinion?

Is the following, said by Tommy, not true:

“Peter is charged by Jesus to tend the flock (Jn 21:15-19). He leads the disciples before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22). He is the first to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14-36). It is his decision, led by the Holy Spirit, to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-43), and makes the final decision at the Protocouncil of Jerusalem (Acts 15:7-11).”

 

[joe370]

Hey Imcrae, you said:

QUOTE=jmcrae;7125163]Given what we read in the Sermons of St. John Chrysostom, I can’t see how they would have not - he writes in great detail and very forcefully about the authority of Peter and his Successors, the Bishops of Rome - and he was quoted very extensively in Vatican I.

St. John was an Eastern Bishop, which makes his words all the more powerful - certainly, after reading his sermons, it seems impossible to think that the Eastern Church was not aware of the concept of Papal authority, as it is currently understood in the West.

I agree. Alas, many of our non-Catholic brothers and sister have not read his work. The ECF’s were instrumental in my choice to become catholic. Actually, it came down to either the EOC or the CC, but it was the subject of this thread that nudged me in the direction of the CC.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7125923]
Well, Jesus said to Kepha only, even though the others were present: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…**.I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…**But, in light of the view of Orthodoxy and your own Tradition, I can certainly understand your perspective. However, speaking from a strict sola scriptura standpoint, which says, if it’s not in the bible it’s not to be believed, that perspective is a hard pill to swallow.

Touche, Joe. Of course you know this is not how Lutherans define SS.

Jon

 

[rev_kevin]

When did Peter become a Catholic?
Wasn’t he Jewish?
How did Peter start the Catholic church?
Did he remain a Jew till his death?

 

[StTommyMore]

When did Peter become a Catholic?
Wasn’t he Jewish?
How did Peter start the Catholic church?
Did he remain a Jew till his death?

News flash. The entire early Church was Catholic! Don’t believe me? Read the Fathers! It wasn’t that he “became Catholic” but that modern Christians defected from the Catholic Church

 

[rev_kevin]

News flash. The entire early Church was Catholic! Don’t believe me? Read the Fathers! It wasn’t that he “became Catholic” but that modern Christians defected from the Catholic Church

Please answer all the questions.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

No doubt the power of the keys is vested in the Church even to today. I do believe it was His plan that this power exist in autonomous Churches, but with the understanding there would be unity of doctrine. What I mean is the various patriarchates were allowed to choose their own Bishops, etc. The hierarchy was in councils, not in one Bishop.

Did I state that clearly?

Yes. Jon, if it was Jesus’ plan to have united, albeit, autonomous churches then what would prevent one of these autonomous churches from deviating, doctrinally speaking, from another autonomous church, if in fact, by plan, there is no oversight for these autonomous churches? In the end, it would be up to the bishop(s) of each and every autonomous church to make authoritative decisions, and when these autonomous churches, comprised of their own authoritative leaders, disagree with one another regarding doctrine, and absolutely cannot resolve their doctrinal differences, division ensues. What’s there to stem the division before it gets out of hand? The idea of some sort of primacy charged with the mission to step in and settle the matter, once and for all of these autonomous churches just seems to make perfect sense to me, and a prudent way to structure a church in a way that doctrinal unity could be preserved - Maybe?

Like anything in life, regarding authority, the chain of command eventually coalesces, until you get to the top, at which point an individual in authority, in communion with a legislative body, makes an authoritative decision for the whole of the community. Maybe that is why Jesus said:

I don’t believe the chain of command was perceived in the early Church, as it has been these last 10 centuries by Rome.

There is a chain of command, so to speak, even in the bible, as you know. The term elder and bishop was used interchangeably in the bible, but, as Jesus’ church grew over time (and boy did His church grow) - and more catholic churches were cropping up everywhere, the more difficult it became for the residing bishop/elder to continue to manage and oversee each and every respective catholic church. So, out of necessity, elders were charged with the task of maintaining each and every church leaving the bishop in charge of a specific district. Logistically, when an entity gets so large, a hierarchy just makes good sense, don’t you think?

Quote:
One thing He did not say was: take it to scripture and if he refuses to to listen even to scripture, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Scripture, by itself, can determine nothing, outside of the purview of individual interpretation, in my humble opinion.
Well, you know how I feel about private interpretation. Clearly, hermeneutics is the role of the Church/

I do! Jon, when people start new churches, basing their teachings on their interpretation of their bible, as they have been doing for 500 years, they, ultimately, put themselves in charge of hermeneutics - right? How is that not private interpretation?

 

[StTommyMore]

When did Peter become a Catholic?
Wasn’t he Jewish?
How did Peter start the Catholic church?
Did he remain a Jew till his death?

He became a Catholic when Jesus told him “Follow me, and I will make you a fisher of men,” and he obeyed.
Yes he was Jewish, but Catholicism is the fullness of the Jewish faith. The Messiah is what the Law and the Prophets pointed to.
The Catholic Church was born on Pentecost. He was the de facto leader of the Church at this time.
He remained an ethnic Jew until he died, and he was a Catholic which is, as stated previously, the perfection of Judaism.

 

[jmcrae]

When did Peter become a Catholic?

When he began to follow Jesus.

Wasn’t he Jewish?

Yes.

How did Peter start the Catholic church?

He didn’t - Jesus started the Catholic Church, and set Peter up to be its Chief Shepherd after His ascension into Heaven. See John 21:15-19.

Did he remain a Jew till his death?

Actually, no, although in his generation he could have been both Jewish and Christian - however, he was excommunicated from the Temple when he began to break bread with the Gentiles.