Protestants: Is Peter the first Pope?

[Contarini]

BibleReader:

And, it IS ironic that you are preferring the Fathers over Christ’s and the Holy Spirit’s Own approaches in Scripture.

I’m not sure that the OT arguments made in the NT are exactly allegorical. They are arguments from prophecy, and by modern standards of interpretation they would be very unconvincing. But it seems to me that they were intended to be literal arguments–in fact they often turn on hyper-literal readings of particular phrases (like the claim that “thou wilt not suffer my flesh to see corruption” can’t apply to David, since David “saw corruption”–that strikes a modern reader as an odd argument, but it is by ancient standards a literal one). Similarly, the author of Hebrews doesn’t rest his/her argument on the claim that Melchizedek is a “type” of Christ. Rather, the argument is that Melchizedek was a priest who stood outside the Levitical priesthood. Again, it might not be the kind of argument a modern Biblical scholar would tend to make, but it emphatically is an argument from the literal sense.

As I said earlier, the traditional understanding of the literal sense is not that of modern historical criticism. But there is still a difference between literal and spiritual/allegorical/typological readings.

Furthermore, I think there’s something to be said for the argument that we shouldn’t necessarily imitate the way inspired writers use Scripture. The Holy Spirit knows the true meaning of the texts He inspired, and can choose to reveal that meaning to other people. But we non-inspired folks don’t have the right to impose our meaning on the texts in that way.

BibleReader:

By the way, you KNOW that the Fathers made errors, right? They frequently squarely disagree with each other, enabling folks seeking to escape the implications of infallible Scripture to employ the “cafeteria” approach.

Look, if you find fundamentalist hermeneutics convincing, that’s between you and the Magisterium. I don’t, and I find it highly disappointing to see Catholics playing these games. At least you have given me a nice rejoinder the next time someone on these boards boasts about how Catholicism is rooted in the Fathers. I’ll say, “Go try to convince BibleReader.”

Of course the Fathers are sometimes wrong. But when they consistently hold up a principle of Biblical interpretation, I need more than the arrogant assertion of some guy I met on the Internet to justify me in going against them. I understand that you have cool interpretations you’ve come up with, and it’s tough to shelve your clever arguments just because some old dead dudes say they don’t work. It seems to me that that’s something you have to be willing to do as a Catholic. But apparently you think differently, and you’re the Catholic. I’ll just muddle along as a Protestant, not claiming that Tradition is infallible but paying it serious respect nonetheless. This argument has made me think that maybe this is not such an inadequate approach after all!

Edwin

 

[LSK]

RyanL:

Thank you, my brother, but I can only take so much credit - it was entirely comprised of material from www.scripturecatholic.com . You are too kind, and humble me with your humility.

May God bless you and keep you,
RyanL

Thank you to both of you! I was working on it and Ryan, you did the deal!
I LOVE being a part of CAF and a Catholic. You - my family - teach me so much and are so patient!!

 

[LSK]

Contarini:

I’m not sure that the OT arguments made in the NT are exactly allegorical. They are arguments from prophecy, and by modern standards of interpretation they would be very unconvincing. But it seems to me that they were intended to be literal arguments–in fact they often turn on hyper-literal readings of particular phrases (like the claim that “thou wilt not suffer my flesh to see corruption” can’t apply to David, since David “saw corruption”–that strikes a modern reader as an odd argument, but it is by ancient standards a literal one). Similarly, the author of Hebrews doesn’t rest his/her argument on the claim that Melchizedek is a “type” of Christ. Rather, the argument is that Melchizedek was a priest who stood outside the Levitical priesthood. Again, it might not be the kind of argument a modern Biblical scholar would tend to make, but it emphatically is an argument from the literal sense.

As I said earlier, the traditional understanding of the literal sense is not that of modern historical criticism. But there is still a difference between literal and spiritual/allegorical/typological readings.

Furthermore, I think there’s something to be said for the argument that we shouldn’t necessarily imitate the way inspired writers use Scripture. The Holy Spirit knows the true meaning of the texts He inspired, and can choose to reveal that meaning to other people. But we non-inspired folks don’t have the right to impose our meaning on the texts in that way.

Look, if you find fundamentalist hermeneutics convincing, that’s between you and the Magisterium. I don’t, and I find it highly disappointing to see Catholics playing these games. At least you have given me a nice rejoinder the next time someone on these boards boasts about how Catholicism is rooted in the Fathers. I’ll say, “Go try to convince BibleReader.”

Of course the Fathers are sometimes wrong. But when they consistently hold up a principle of Biblical interpretation, I need more than the arrogant assertion of some guy I met on the Internet to justify me in going against them. I understand that you have cool interpretations you’ve come up with, and it’s tough to shelve your clever arguments just because some old dead dudes say they don’t work. It seems to me that that’s something you have to be willing to do as a Catholic. But apparently you think differently, and you’re the Catholic. I’ll just muddle along as a Protestant, not claiming that Tradition is infallible but paying it serious respect nonetheless. This argument has made me think that maybe this is not such an inadequate approach after all!

Edwin

You need to calm down, take a deep breath, go say a prayer and come back when you are calm and Christ-like in your communication. It has been my experience that being sarcastic, rude, mean and downright nasty are really inefficient ways to have a theological discussion.:tsktsk:

 

[cjaubert]

Contarini:

Both Antioch and Alexandria have lines of succession from St. Peter and St. Mark respectively.

I give up. We can’t even agree on what “apostolic succession” means. Accordingly, I just started the Church of Louisiana, and I hereby claim that I was appointed by a successor of Peter; never mind that my appointment was in a different way than my predecessor. Therefore, my church now claims apostolic succession and, as such, is the one church Jesus Christ started on earth. Anyone wanna join?

 

[SpiritualBeing]

Freedom:

When I was growing up in a Protestant church, the emphasis of that passage was the different Greek words- petros/petra.

Common belief was that Jesus was saying the statement that Peter made that Jesus is the Christ is the foundation of the church- so the power came from the idea that Jesus is Christ, and believers (everyone) will have the powers mentioned in that passage.

Here is a site that has a sermon outline like one I would have heard growing up:

newtestamentchurch.org/outlines/expository_outlines/MATT/MT16_13.HTM

Peace.

Is there a God besides Me? and a Rock? I know not any (Isa. 44:8).

Who is God save Jehovah? and who is a Rock save our God? (Ps. 18:31).

William

 

[BibleReader]

Edwin, when you post…

Contarini: "I’ve been studying allegorical interpretations of Scripture for years and am quite aware how powerful they can be."

…and then you post…

Contarini: "It’s interesting (and rather disturbing) that you resort to the tired fundamentalist canard that disagreeing with your rather wacky interpretation of Scripture is ‘contradicting the Bible.’"

…you really do dramatize that you if you HAVE been studying Bible allegory for years, you were studying the wrong thing, and you do not know what I am talking about.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease be patient and learn some of the typology I review in my work. No one ever wants to do the work! Give it a shot! When typology is viewed as an organized system imposed on Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – not as a vast collection of poorly-perceived, randomly-structured symbols – the effect is remarkable.

 

[mercygate]

cjaubert:

I give up. We can’t even agree on what “apostolic succession” means. Accordingly, I just started the Church of Louisiana, and I hereby claim that I was appointed by a successor of Peter; never mind that my appointment was in a different way than my predecessor. Therefore, my church now claims apostolic succession and, as such, is the one church Jesus Christ started on earth. Anyone wanna join?

C’mon CJ. You know that apostolic succession doesn’t mean that all bishops descend from Peter. All the Apostles and apostolic lines contain it; the authentication of it comes from being in communion with the See of Peter.

 

[mercygate]

SpiritualBeing:

Is there a God besides Me? and a Rock? I know not any (Isa. 44:8).

Who is God save Jehovah? and who is a Rock save our God? (Ps. 18:31).

William

No Catholic denies the “Rock” image as applied to God or to Christ. That is why when Jesus calls Peter, “rock,” it seriously gets our attention. Moreover, Peter’s use of rock/stone imagery in his first epistle is a poignant reminder that Peter himself understands that his “rock-hood” stands upon the Rock of Christ.

The Petros/petra quibble has been discarded even by protestant scholars. Pay particular attention to posts by Huiou Theou and Itsjustdave1988 on this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=45207&highlight=petros%2Fpetra

 

[YADA]

To Kaycee (spelling ?) and others. Your interpretation does not mesh with the passage from Issiah that is being quoted in this discourse. It was the Prime Minister (not King David or his successor) who received the “Keys” It is the Prime Minister who “Opens” what no one shall close and “Closes” what no one shall open. And as to refering to the successors of Peter as Pope (Papa, Abba, Father) The people know the Prime Minster and call him “Abba”. Jesus is directly quoting Issaih, it seems prudent to read the text in that context. To force a different meaning is great injustice. What would a first century Jewish person (who knows his scriptures) hear? How would Peter and the others have understood this passage?

Siman bar Jonah is renamed Cephas and given the keys. Yes Jesus is the Head of the Church and ultimately the Church is founded in the recognition of the Messiah. Jesus left us leader and prayed for Christian unity. An “office” is filled when the position becomes vacant. The Church prevails even against the forces of Satan and Hell. The Church lives on beyond the Apostles. One of the first actions taken by Peter as the head of the Church was to convene the Apostles and fill the vacancy created by the betrayal and suicide of Judas. And so it has been through the centuries, even to this day…

The process by which we are all our own “Pope” has lead to disunity in Christian belief, worship and practice. That disunity in the Christian family is a scandal…something we should all spend time in prayer with…

Pax Christe

 

[sandusky]

This is a VERY interesting comment. Is there ANY legitimate historical evidence, Sandusky, that Peter is NOT the first pope? Assuming you cannot site any such evidence, why would you accept NO evidence over the mountain of evidence that exists?

Legitimate historical evidence?

In the early times, the word “pope,” which, as stated here on this thread means father, was used to refer to any important and respected bishop. Thus, we have reference to Pope Cyprian, of Carthage; Pope Athanasius, of Alexandria, etc. Whereas, in the West it eventually was reserved for the bishops of Rome, in the East it continued to be used with more liberality. What is important is not the origin of the title “pope,” but rather how the bishop of Rome came to enjoy the authority that he had in the Middle Ages, and still has in the RCC.

The origins of episcopacy in Rome are not altogether clear. Most scholars agree that Peter did visit Rome, and that there is at least a very high probability that he died there. But the various lists of the early bishops of Rome, mostly dating from late in the second century, do not agree among themselves. While some claim that Clement was Peter’s successor, others name him as the third bishop after the Apostle’s death. This has led some scholars to suggest the possibility that in the beginning Rome did not have a single bishop, but rather a “collegiate episcopacy”—a group of bishops who jointly led the church. While such a theory is open to debate, it is clear that during the early centuries the numerical strength of Christianity was in the Greek-speaking East, and that churches such as Antioch and Alexandria were much more important than the one in Rome. Even in the West, the theological leadership of the church was in North Africa, which produced such figures as Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine.

The point is, that the idea of the papacy as it has come to be known, was unknown from Peter to the Middle Ages.

 

[kaycee]

YADA:

To Kaycee (spelling ?) and others. Your interpretation does not mesh with the passage from Issiah that is being quoted in this discourse. It was the Prime Minister (not King David or his successor) who received the “Keys” It is the Prime Minister who “Opens” what no one shall close and “Closes” what no one shall open. And as to refering to the successors of Peter as Pope (Papa, Abba, Father) The people know the Prime Minster and call him “Abba”. Jesus is directly quoting Issaih, it seems prudent to read the text in that context. To force a different meaning is great injustice. What would a first century Jewish person (who knows his scriptures) hear? How would Peter and the others have understood this passage?

I strongly disagree on who is actually forcing a different meaning.

Revelation 3:7-13 7 "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The Holy One, the True One, the One who has the key of David, who opens and no one will close, and closes and no one opens says: 8 I know your works. Because you have limited strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name, look, I have placed before you an open door that no one is able to close.”

 

[LSK]

kaycee:

Revelation 3:7-13 7 "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The Holy One, the True One, the One who has the key of David, who opens and no one will close, and closes and no one opens says: 8 I know your works. Because you have limited strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name, look, I have placed before you an open door that no one is able to close.”

Which refers back to the throne of Peter - And this was written by an Apostle!

 

[kaycee]

YADA:

To Kaycee (spelling ?) and others. Your interpretation does not mesh with the passage from Issiah that is being quoted in this discourse. It was the Prime Minister (not King David or his successor) who received the “Keys” It is the Prime Minister who “Opens” what no one shall close and “Closes” what no one shall open. And as to refering to the successors of Peter as Pope (Papa, Abba, Father) The people know the Prime Minster and call him “Abba”. Jesus is directly quoting Issaih, it seems prudent to read the text in that context. To force a different meaning is great injustice. What would a first century Jewish person (who knows his scriptures) hear? How would Peter and the others have understood this passage?

Peter was sent to evangelize the Jews probably by James.

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),

Here is how Cyprian understood it

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).

Here is how Augustine understood it.

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ **that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed ** saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. **But ‘the rock was Christ,’ ** in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). **So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…**Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p.

 

[kaycee]

LSK:

Originally Posted by kaycee

Revelation 3:7-13 7 "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The Holy One, the True One, the One who has the key of David, who opens and no one will close, and closes and no one opens says: 8 I know your works. Because you have limited strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name, look, I have placed before you an open door that no one is able to close.”

Which refers back to the throne of Peter - And this was written by an Apostle!

Sorry, it is clearly the Lord Jesus speaking here. He is the one who opens and closes.He is the only one talking to the seven churches.

Rev 1: 17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and** I have the keys of death and of Hades**.

Rev 2:8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this:

Rev 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: 8 `I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name.

 

[E.E.N.S]

kaycee:

Here is how Cyprian understood it

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power**;** but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).

Here is how Augustine understood it.

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock**, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’** in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you**,** there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p.

Just re-emphasized your own post, kaycee, I hope you don’t mind.

And you are partially correct about it being built on Peter’s confession, as it was built on both as the Church still teaches today. There is no conflict with Catholics in this understanding.

Thank you!

 

[LSK]

nope, KayCee, you are incorrect. The section you posted from Revelations speaks to the Churches obedience to Jesus and to those to whom Jesus has designated as in authority. The Bishop of Rome is represented - St. John wrote of this specifically because of the problems (then - as NOW) with heretics and those who suffer the arrogance of disobedience.

 

[sandusky]

YADA:

When Jesus asks 'who do men say I am, and Peter responds with the Christ, the Son of the Living God" We have the discourse that follows where Simon is renamed Peter, the Rock. Peter becomes the Rock upon which the Church will be built. Peter is given the ‘Keys’ of heaven. With these keys Peter is promised that what is “bound on earth will be bound in heaven, what is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven” Peter (and the Church by extension) are promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against him (the Church).

Actually, Christ renamed Peter in Jn 1:42, and Mt 16 is not the first time that Peter made that confession (cf Jn 6:69).

As I have said, there is some truth to Peter as the Rock, but the building of the church is not solely on him, but also on his confession in v 16, as evidenced by the end of v17 and the beginning of v18. The end of verse 17 gives credit to God for Peter’s confession, and v18 begins, “And I,” Gr kago, the emphasis is on kago, and not on “you are Peter,” or “you are the Christ,” but on the Father’s revealing Christ’s truth to Peter (v17). So the building of the church is not on Peter alone, but on Peter (in some way), and the confession that God revealed to Peter (most importantly).

It clearly does not give Peter a prerogative. The other apostles did not understand that Peter was to have supreme authority, as they are seen arguing again in Mt 18:1 as to which one will be the greatest in the kingdom, and again in 20:21. As far as the binding and loosing, Jesus gave that to all the disciples in Mt 18:18. After the resurrection, in Jn 20:23, Jesus uses the same language again to all the disciples. In fact, I would go so far as to say that that anyone who teaches the words of Christ, ie., proclaims the gospel, has those same keys.

Also, the forgiveness of sins, absolution and such, are not in view at all in the passage.

Mt 16:16-18 falls short of convincing evidence that the Primacy/Papacy of Peter is there established.

 

[E.E.N.S]

sandusky:

Actually, Christ renamed Peter in Jn 1:42, and Mt 16 is not the first time that Peter made that confession (cf Jn 6:69).

It kinda downplays Christ building His Church strictly on Peter’s confession then, huh?

~Okay ladies and gents, I am really leaving this time!~

God bless!

 

[cjaubert]

mercygate:

C’mon CJ. You know that apostolic succession doesn’t mean that all bishops descend from Peter. All the Apostles and apostolic lines contain it; the authentication of it comes from being in communion with the See of Peter.

I certainly understand this, but it comes back to the most basic of my points: By what authority does any Church other than the Roman Catholic Church have the right to even CLAIM apostolic succession? I have yet to get a coherent answer to this question.

 

[cjaubert]

sandusky:

The point is, that the idea of the papacy as it has come to be known, was unknown from Peter to the Middle Ages.

No, this is not the point. The point is not the use of the word “pope” - it is true that that word was not used in the first century. The point IS, regardless of the title one gives to Peter, what evidence is there that Peter was NOT appointed by Jesus Christ as the head/CEO/boss/top dog/big Kahuna/Grand Poobah/Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler/whatever of the ONE Church that Jesus Christ - Almight God Himself - started on earth?