Protestant arguments against the primacy of Peter

[Gorgias]

I would think that the Vicar of Christ, having supremacy and universal jurisdiction over all other bishops, would be mentioned first?

Did you read my two posts above?

Apparently not. Nor mine.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Which version is that? not the Catholic Douay Rheims and several others I have checked.

Older texts. So you’re making a mole out of a mole hill.

 

[AlNg]

Older texts.

Which text specifically?

you’re making a mole out of a mole hill.

I don’t think that is an appropriate analogy when speaking about the Vicar of Christ who has supremacy and universal jurisdiction over all the bishops?

Did you read my two posts above?

Apparently not. Nor mine.

I did. But I did not find the explanations satisfactory because the Vicar of Christ is the Supreme head of the Church. I believe that listing the Vicar of Christ second, slights the office of the Supreme Pontiff who has universal jurisdiction over every other bishop. I don’t believe that this is a mole hill, as the position of the Supreme Pontiff of the universal Church is much more than that.

 

[dochawk]

Christ established a divine proxy , not petrine succession . You asserted that Christ established the latter, but it was an apostolic establishment – one that Christ ‘ratified’, as such (“what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”), but not ‘established’ by Him, directly.

if you can document this as actual teaching of the RCC I’ll be surprised. I’ve really never heard such an argument, ever. I’ve never heard anything but divine source for the primacy of Peter’s successors in Rome.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I don’t think that is an appropriate analogy when speaking about the Vicar of Christ who has supremacy and universal jurisdiction over all the bishops

You saying the doctrine isn’t true because of one list does just that. You strain at a gnat.

 

[mcq72]

suppose that the real question, perhaps, is “if there’s Biblical support for these, then why do Protestants deny them?”

If there is biblical support for these differences, why would the church (as per her tradition/ magisterium) need to elevate themselve by saying “not everything is in the bible”?

 

[mcq72]

Maybe these fishermen were hung up on 'greatest ’ but still understood Peter’s role with the keys.

Did they also not know that when that supposedly when the king is away, the keyholder is greatest?

 

[AlNg]

Older texts.

Specifically, which older texts were there which put Peter first on the list in Gal 2: 9?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

If there is biblical support for these differences, why would the church (as per her tradition/ magisterium) need to elevate themselve by saying “not everything is in the bible”?

The Bible says the same thing.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

ArchStanton:

Maybe these fishermen were hung up on 'greatest ’ but still understood Peter’s role with the keys.

Did they also not know that when that supposedly when the king is away, the keyholder is greatest?

John knew. He plays Robin to Peter’s Batman.

 

[Gorgias]

I believe that listing the Vicar of Christ second, slights the office of the Supreme Pontiff who has universal jurisdiction over every other bishop.

To quote you, “I don’t find that explanation satisfactory.”

if you can document this as actual teaching of the RCC I’ll be surprised.

LOL! I literally quoted the catechism for you!

I’ve never heard anything but divine source for the primacy of Peter’s successors in Rome.

I’ve seen it asserted that it was Christ’s will, but not His personal establishment.

If there is biblical support for these differences, why would the church (as per her tradition/ magisterium) need to elevate themselve by saying “not everything is in the bible”?

Two thoughts:

• Nice deflection, there, in a non-responsive post.
• Your assertion doesn’t hold up, though. I’m not claiming that everything is in the Bible. You are.

 

[mcq72]

I’m not claiming that everything is in the Bible. You are

OK. So you rest a bit more on tradition (what is not in bible) calling it Tradition, and I rest a bit more on what is in Scripture for rule of faith.

I suppose that the real question, perhaps, is “if there’s Biblical support for these, then why do Protestants deny them?”

Well for starters, I believe the opening post’s cited article takes care of the authority reasonings.

As to the others, we only deny your (CC) interpretation of said proof texts, resting on a different biblical understanding.

There is no silver bullet to our quandry. Our differences are in how we react to to what the Lord has dealt us. ( life is 10% what happens, and 90% our reaction)…you will always have different convictions, understandings, even division, yet are prayed for to be " one" and indeed we may still be, based on our reaction… so different ways of answering the “now what” is how we both get to where we are.

 

[mcq72]

The Bible says the same thing.

Well by implication for some. Same thing happened in OT and Jews. They definitely “added’ and some lived by not just Scripture but by the” commentary" ( from "leaders’ or those in Moses seat) on it. That is OK, yet the Scripture is not “conditional” truth but the commentary is.

Again Jesus says listen, obey, but beware.( commentary from leaders)…no cherry picking of the first two only.

 

[mcq72]

John knew. He plays Robin to Peter’s Batman.

Well, Peter was also to be like the younger.

They were both "apostles’. Just because one is first to go through a door does not make them Batman.

Special yes in that honor ( first to preach to Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles).

Sure, a Batman to me was/is Peter , but so are all the apostles who also passed through such opened door, and with some of their own firsts.

The Batman Robin thing is like OT division of saints/priesthood, that Jesus fulfilled and did away with.

As the opening article of this thread points out, Paul, who listed church offices, does not cite head bishop, pope , chief, key holder etc., …no Batman.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

They were both "apostles’. Just because one is first to go through a door does not make them Batman.

And when before the Sanhedrin, Peter did the talking. John played second fiddle to Peter after Pentecost.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The Batman Robin thing is like OT division of saints/priesthood, that Jesus fulfilled and did away with.

Not entirely. Not every Christian has the priestly ministry of tending to the People of God.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

As the opening article of this thread points out, Paul, who listed church offices, does not cite head bishop, pope , chief, key holder etc., …no Batman

Paul didn’t have to. Jesus did.

 

[dochawk]

LOL! I literally quoted the catechism for you!

not in any way that suggests roman primacy was an apostolic choice, you didn’t.

that the apostles appoint their successors and add to their ranks was establishedlong before any catechisms circulated, and just isn’t an issue.

It’s the claim that continued primacy of peter’s successors is of apostolic, rather than divine, origin that is in question, and where the Church teaches that.

 

[mcq72]

Paul didn’t have to. Jesus did.

Ironic. Not sure Jesus ever mentions any offices that Paul mentions. Did He ever have an office name, even that of “apostle”? He commissioned yes, but did he have any specific name besides “disciple”?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Ironic. Not sure Jesus ever mentions any offices that Paul mentions.

“You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.”

“I have prayed for you so your faith will not fail, and when you have recovered, strengthen your brothers.”

“Feed my sheep.” (3x to boot)