N
NotWorthy
Guest
So again, the OP has been adequately addressed. From Acts, we certainly see Peter’s role of the Pope is evident. Is that correct?
- Status
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
On the other hand, the fact that the resurrected Jesus told Peter, when he was fishing in his fishing boat, to cast his net on the other side and draw fish, and the lines did not break and then Peter jumped out alone to swim to Jesus, leading the other apostles there by his action, is far more significant. The boat represents the Church, and Peter led the way for the Church to Christ.
myfavouritemartin:
Looking a little at Early Church tradition will swiftly show that they were all doing that.
Besides, I’m not sure this one is true.
myfavouritemartin:
I wonder who was putting together this dumb list?
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
.
myfavouritemartin:
First of all, point 14 is guesswork. Also, all the apostles were brutally killed, many tortured to death. It would be hard to say Satan put no thorns in any of their flesh.
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
Peter. The declaration that they are scripture requires more visible authority. This argument backfires royally.
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
myfavouritemartin:
I’m not going to bother taking the time to respond to all the rest- I hope you get my point. Each one of these things shows itself to be an absurdity, usually from the scripture itself, and if not from there, then obviously from Church tradition. Most of the arguments for Peter’s primacy do not weaken or fall apart either from comparison to Scripture or Tradition. You have to respond to the Peter arguments point for point rather than with a wash of what both sides know to be nonsense that only tries to argue, “you can prove anything from scripture.” That argument turns on its head the entire Protestant position anyway, for if anything can be proven from Scripture, then you need Tradition and a Magesterium to clarify the correct interpretations of Scripture.
Praise be to God.
But Peter was the one to whom the revelation that the Gentiles were to be accepted was originally given, and he was the original spokesman to the Jews and the Gentiles (Cornelius). So this point about Paul is completely irrelevant.
myfavouritemartin:
He actually refers to that himself as one “improperly born,” or terminology like that. If this was to be seen as an argument for or against him having primacy, it would be an argument against it.
myfavouritemartin:
Again, an argument against his primacy. He referred to his birth as improperly born.
myfavouritemartin:
Catholic teaching has always accepted that popes can make mistakes when not speaking infallibly, and many have welcomed correction. This says nothing about primacy.
myfavouritemartin:
Paul was in the business of starting new churches. It isn’t clear from these passages whether his authority is only over these churches or over the entire Church. We both know from history and church tradition that Paul did not have authority over all the churches. There was never any question over this, so bringing up these ambiguous passages about his authority is irrelevant.
On the other hand, the fact that the resurrected Jesus told Peter, when he was fishing in his fishing boat, to cast his net on the other side and draw fish, and the lines did not break and then Peter jumped out alone to swim to Jesus, leading the other apostles there by his action, is far more significant. The boat represents the Church, and Peter led the way for the Church to Christ.
myfavouritemartin:
Looking a little at Early Church tradition will swiftly show that they were all doing that.Besides, I’m not sure this one is true.
myfavouritemartin:
The scripture tells us all to be, “good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” The fact that Paul is one of these stewards says nothing about his primacy.
I wonder who was putting together this dumb list?
myfavouritemartin:
Untrue . . . Peter’s mentioned more. 195 times vs. 185.
myfavouritemartin:
And the Gospels mention him not at all. This is clearly completely irrelevant.
myfavouritemartin:
These arguments are somewhat better. They certainly can’t be seen as proof of anything, by themselves, but they might be seen as supporting evidences if there was something else to go on. Except of course for the fact that the Early Church universally felt this did not mean Paul was Pope.
myfavouritemartin:
And Peter, in his vision before Cornelius came, saw Heaven open up and come down to him
.myfavouritemartin:
First of all, point 14 is guesswork. Also, all the apostles were brutally killed, many tortured to death. It would be hard to say Satan put no thorns in any of their flesh.myfavouritemartin:
He encountered an enormous amount because he was a leading evangelist! This is not proof of anything.
myfavouritemartin:
We might expect an evangelist to do that. Which is what the Early Church acknowledged him to be.
myfavouritemartin:
Great knowledge does not a pope make on its own. It could be seen as a support, if there was something to support.
myfavouritemartin:
And who declared them to be scripture?
Peter. The declaration that they are scripture requires more visible authority. This argument backfires royally.myfavouritemartin:
This could be seen as a support. Not much of one, though, seeing as all bishops were standards of orthodoxy to those in their diocese, as long as they submitted to Rome.
myfavouritemartin:
We can agree he had authority- all bishops do and did, up to the Reformation.
myfavouritemartin:
These arguments are absurd. The verses say that the debate occurred and then Peter spoke, and then there was silence. And only after that, Paul, Barnabas and James made some concluding comments. It doesn’t say there was silence after Paul’s words, or that his words came at the end of the debate- it does say that about Peter’s.
I’m not going to bother taking the time to respond to all the rest- I hope you get my point. Each one of these things shows itself to be an absurdity, usually from the scripture itself, and if not from there, then obviously from Church tradition. Most of the arguments for Peter’s primacy do not weaken or fall apart either from comparison to Scripture or Tradition. You have to respond to the Peter arguments point for point rather than with a wash of what both sides know to be nonsense that only tries to argue, “you can prove anything from scripture.” That argument turns on its head the entire Protestant position anyway, for if anything can be proven from Scripture, then you need Tradition and a Magesterium to clarify the correct interpretations of Scripture.
Praise be to God.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Leif, myfavoritmartin agrees that these arguments are silly, because he feels that our arguments on Peter are just as silly.
I wouldn’t waste too much time researching this or the number of time Paul is mentioned, because it won’t further the point.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
No, he’s mentioned 185 times, whereas Paul is mentioned 195 times. They’re close numbers, of course.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
The best argument against his point from bringing that up is in the last paragraph of my sprawling post there:
M
Menorrah
Guest
Counting the times a name is mentioned in the scriptures to prove something is childish argument.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Not entirely. When the Gospel authors detail the lives of 12 men who followed Jesus religiously (I know, bad pun - insert your own groan here!), and they mention one man about 80-90% of the time, it should say something.
M
Menorrah
Guest
Alright, so when it mentioned “church of God” many times and ZERO for “Roman Catholic Apostolic Church”; that should say something?
That is childish and I don’t buy it…
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Well, I respect your decision, but I don’t think it’s accurate. Peter is also always mentioned first (I think one time he’s not). The first mentioned also carried weight, just as the last meant the littlest weight. For instance, did you ever notice that Judas is mentioned last whenever the twelve are listed. We ALL agree that Judas is the least, well, lower than the least.
But look at the Gospel of Matthew in the calling of the Apostles in Matthew 10:
*** The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter*, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John**;
We know that Peter was not the first Apostle called. Hence, “First” means something else. I wonder what it could be…
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
The word “Catholic” means “universal.” Paul talked repeatedly about how they were one Church, fully united, one Body of Christ. The interpretation that this was intended to be a purely mystical, spiritual unity is a product of the Reformation- it has no history prior to that date. Catholic is simply a word (dating from around 100 AD, a mere 10 years or so after the Gospel of John was written) expressing the truth that is clearly scriptural.
The particular significance of the church in Rome may not be mentioned in the Epistles, (I don’t know whether this is true or not) but as I pointed out, Peter’s significance is all over the scriptures. Especially in the Gospels, but in many other places too. And Rome is significant because it was Peter’s church and Peter’s authority passed on to his successors in that place.
Back to the numbers, it is clearly significant that of the 12, Peter is mentioned far more times than all the others put together. Also, it is important that, as NotWorthy has pointed out, he is named first in every list but one, and more important still, in several places the scripture refers to, “Peter and the apostles,” or, “Peter and his companions,” referring to the apostles. The angel in the end of Mark tells the women at the tomb to, “go and tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you to Galilee . . .’” The angel clearly designated Peter as having particular authority among the disciples, by singling him out. The Gospel writers did that repeatedly also, as I mentioned.
Also, there are all the other evidences I mentioned, the scripture passages I pointed out, which strongly suggest that Peter is the leader of the apostles.
M
Menorrah
Guest
In the account of the gospel writers, yes, indeed Peter was the leader of the apostles. However, Jesus was still with them at the time.
In the book of Acts, things have changed. It became “James and the apostles…”; “Tell James and the others…”; Paul “went to see James…”: In Pauline writings, Paul blamed Peter and went to see James.
James even said “It is my judgment…” to settle a dispute. In the Church History Book II of Eusebius, James was named as the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem.
Papacy started in Rome, not in Jerusalem.
So, after Christ, it wasn’t Papacy yet. Papacy started many years after James and maybe even after the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
S
SCALCO
Guest
So since you seem to think James was in charge then, who do you think is in charge now? Why?
B
BRB
Guest
Now you are suggesting a hypothesis.
First Church was built upon James, located in Jerusalem, and Peter/Rome/Papal connections are fabrications of man/Catholic Church.
Do we read you right ?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
God
S
SCALCO
Guest
M
Menorrah
Guest
B
BRB
Guest
Surely you are not serious ?
How can you read early Christian history and not see the Catholic Church linkage to apostles from day 1 ?
What church/sect did you recently start or join ?
Y
YADA
Guest
Well Jesus said … “Upon this Rock [Peter] I will build My church” …
Ergo, Jesus is the founder of the Church but Jesus built that foundation upon Peter …
and this conversation did not take place in Jerusalem but out side the city … so the church was not centered in Jerusalem but on the community of believers where those believers are found and we know from scripture and the early church fathers that where Peter is there is the Church …
Jesus is the King of kings, Lord of Lords and True God … The successor of Peter holds the authority given by Jesus from Peter to the present office holder Benedict XVI…
B
BRB
Guest
Christ is the eternal seed of life, He provides the rootstructure for the Church, Peter is the base of the tree [the first growth], all Christians eversince [branches] are linked back thru all the ages of Church’s structure [Apostles, Church Fathers, Martyrs, Bishops, laity] to the base of tree & it’s live nourishing roots.
Later Popes are annual tree rings of growth @ base of tree. Every aspect of Church builds upon Peter and Christ. All of Christian history is interconnected …
Deny Christ, Peter, and the Church … and you have no linkage to God the Father.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
I really, really wish you’d give me scripture verses rather than making me research it for you.
I can only presume your first reference, “James and the apostles,” is intended to be 1 Corinthians 15:7. There, it says, about Jesus’ resurrection appearances, “then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.” That in no way suggests seniority of James- it just says that Jesus appeared first to James and then to all the apostles together. Two distinct appearances that are referred to as two distinct appearances, and who the appearances came to is mentioned. That he made a separate appearance to James before making one to all the apostles doesn’t show anything particular about authority for James either, for this passage says Jesus appeared to Peter before he appeared to the twelve (v. 5).
I can’t find any scriptural reference to, “James and the apostles.” Only this reference to Jesus appearing to Peter, then the twelve, then to the 500, then to James, and then to the apostles. And, “last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me,” Paul says, very humbly. The special apparition for James came 4th in line
(after the visitation to the 500, too). By mentioning that the appearance to Peter came first, if this passage confers special authority to anyone, it confers it to him. But this passage is only talking about who the apparitions came to and in what order.Does more research to find the others.
Another passage you referred to is Acts 12:17. This reference, “Tell this to James and the believers,” proves nothing, obviously, as it is Peter who is speaking! In the lists of the apostles, Peter is always mentioned first and James is one of the first mentioned after him. Therefore if it is Peter that’s speaking, he might particularly single out one of the next greatest in seniority, but it’s obvious he won’t say, “Tell me and the apostles . . .” He’s the one who’s doing the speaking, so he wouldn’t be included in the list.
I suspect that these two passages I referred to above are the ones you were referring to. The other one, saying Paul went to see James (Acts 21), obviously could not be seen as an indication of authority for James above Peter, as Paul went to see Peter first thing, before BEGINNING his ministry. If late in his ministry he wants to visit and converse with an apostle, that’s one thing, but to go and talk with Peter first right before beginning his ministry is much more important.
Paul writes in Galations 1:15-19, 'But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.
“Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.”
Before beginning his ministry, he went away for three years and then went to Jerusalem with the purpose of visiting Cephas. Then he began his ministry.
A meeting much later in the game with James makes absolutely no difference. Apostles can meet with each other if they want. The fact that he went to Cephas before beginning his ministry does suggest Cephas’s leadership and authority, though. In fact, later on in chapter 2, we see Cephas’s authority again. 2:6-9 says that leaders in the churches did not accept Paul’s mission to the Gentiles until “James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me.” This also (like the lists of the apostles in the Gospels) suggests that James and John had particular authority in the Church, which might help to explain why Peter sent his letter to “James and the apostles (or ‘James and the believers,’ depending on your translation).”
None of this changes the fact that the Gospel references to Peter and the apostles, and Peter and his companions, confers clear authority to Peter. It’s obvious that a message Peter is sending wouldn’t include himself among those it’s addressed to, though it might single out the next highest in seniority, and it’s obvious that a visit of Paul to James doesn’t prove anything, as it’s late in his ministry and the visit to Jerusalem specifically to meet Peter before beginning his ministry is much more significant, and your reference to James being mentioned 4th in line to see the Christ (followed by a meeting with all the apostles), while the same passage says that Peter saw Him before anyone else in this list, proves nothing except possibly Peter’s particular importance.
These references do not in any way diminish the clear references to Peter’s authority from the Gospels.
Sure, they had one recorded quarrel. Bishops do that sometimes with popes. People often make too big a deal over that one case of clashing wills. Peter, in one of his own epistles, refers to Paul as “our beloved brother.”
In other translations, “I have reached the decision . . .” Everyone makes judgments about issues. Acts 15 actually puts more emphasis on Peter, whose words ended the debate. It says there was considerable debate, then Peter spoke, then there was silence, and then Barnabas, Paul and James made concluding and confirming remarks to what Peter had declared. Peter’s words, according to this chapter, ended the debate. "The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them . . . (Acts 15:6-7)
Because that was the seat of Peter
. The Early Church Fathers repeatedly confirm this. The authority, right from the beginning, was in Rome because that was the Chair of Peter, and his authority was the place “in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Cyprian of Carthage), the church with which, “all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world,” (Irenaeus), “the church . . . which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans” (Ignatius [110 AD]). This presidency existed in Rome because that was where the Fathers agreed Peter had led as bishop.Papacy, as the scripture references I’ve shown you have shown, started when Jesus said to him, “Your are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.” And the Gospels hail him as the leader, and the angel at the resurrection of Jesus called him leader, and he is spokesman for the disciples, held primarily responsible for the faults of the disciples, singled out as first amongst them in every list, and shown clearly as leader when the scripture repeatedly refers to “Peter and the apostles,” or “Peter and his companions.” Jesus also paid taxes for both himself and Peter, but not for the other disciples, because Peter was his special representative, and the man who came to collect taxes from Jesus and his disciples went to Peter, as Peter was Jesus’ representative and spokesman. Note that he didn’t go to Matthew, who was the most skilled at business, taxes and money, nor to Judas, who kept the money bags if I recall correctly. He went to Peter, and Jesus paid for both Himself and Peter.
There are so, so many references to Peter’s special authority, which was universally accepted and hailed among the Early Church Fathers. That was the teaching of Christ Himself, praise be to God. “You will be called Peter, and on this Rock I shall build my Church.”
- Status