Protestants: Is Peter the first Pope?

[RyanL]

Please forgive this quick diversion post, but I can’t resist:

For more insight from BibleReader on Typology, see the thread BibleReader’s Typology Class. I slip into a side discussion on that thread, which I am trying to sort through here (with little success), but ignore all of that and focus on the typology - there’s really some good stuff!

So you know the idea isn’t “out there”, see the following:
[%between%](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/128.htm’)

[128](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/128.htm’) The Church, as early as apostolic times, and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God’s works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

[129](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/129.htm’) Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such **typological **reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when “God [will] be everything to everyone.” Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God’s plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.

{/End Diversionary Post}

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[sandusky]

BibleReader:

Edwin,

Re 1, up above…

You might be interested in considering the quiet word-picture at Luke 5:1-3:

**1 ****While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret. ****2 ****He saw two boats there alongside the lake; the fishermen had disembarked and were washing their nets. ****3 ****Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. **

Here are the types making-up the word-picture…

**1 ****While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret. ****2 **He saw two boats there alongside the lake; the fishermen had disembarked and were washing their nets. **3 **Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat.

The Lake of Gennesaret is an analog of the Abyss Type for “the sea of damnable souls.” Below I highlighted “shore” because in a sense it’s part of the Abyss Type: The crowd is not in the Lake, but on the shore. I.e., those folks hearing the word of God are no longer part of the sea of damnable souls, but rather are saved. Suddenly, they are among the countless spiritual descendants of Abraham, as countless as “the sands of the seashore.” Genesis 22:17.

Jesus gets into one of “two” “boats.” “Two” = the Two Type = Church. “Boats” = the Boat Type = “the Church.” So, we are looking at a picture of Jesus in the Church, and His true word coming out of the Church.

Jesus is sitting in the boat. The Sitting Type = “presiding.”

So, the story is a wonderful quiet picture of Jesus presiding in the Church, His true word issuing from the Church to the saved.

Now, here’s the crux of the matter: Whose boat is it?

Answer: "**3 **Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. "

You are looking at a picture of the true word of God COMING OUT OF THE CHURCH OF PETER.

You are following in the steps of Origen and Clement of Alexandria in their typological writings.

Theirs, as yours, are allegory, rather than typing in the purest sense.

The main difference I see, is that theirs was arbitrary, while yours is more of a biased prejudice, and so it should be ignored.

You work backward, starting with a premise, and then imposing it upon the Scripture.

Your typology does nothing but compound the error you have already learned.

 

[RyanL]

sandusky,

That’s nice to say, but it’s really not an argument - it’s an accusation. Now, as for if Peter is the first Pope, you need to show the following:

1. The text does not support it.
2. The history of the Church knows nothing of the concept.
3. Other texts contradict the idea.

So far, no such evidence has been shown. Until that point, yours remain baseless accusations, which should be ignored. You are compounding the error you have already learned.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[BibleReader]

sandusky:

You are following in the steps of Origen and Clement of Alexandria in their typological writings.

Theirs, as yours, are allegory, rather than typing in the purest sense.

The main difference I see, is that theirs was arbitrary, while yours is more of a biased prejudice, and so it should be ignored.

You work backward, starting with a premise, and then imposing it upon the Scripture.

Your typology does nothing but compound the error you have already learned.

My, you’re so insightful. I bet you studied the Bible at least 10 minutes to come to your academic conclusions!

My friend, you are dead wrong. Each of the types was deduced from a review of each occurrence of the analogs of each type in Scripture. The process takes thousands of hours. I have spent thousands of hours doing it.

You clearly have not, otherwise you would not write what you write.

So, go ahead, skeptic…

Ignore what you don’t understand. Attack what you don’t understand. Don’t investigate it!

 

[Donna_P]

Peter is the 1st Pope. That’s what Christ intended. That is what the Bible basically says but more importantly, that is what the Church Fathers all say and how they all behaved.

 

[LSK]

This may seem like a silly point , but my big problem with Protestants using the Holy Scripture to ‘prove’ that Peter was not the first Pope is that there was no ‘Holy Scripture’ to speak of at the time they are convinced St. Paul was proving St. Peter did not inherit the authority we know he inherited.

In other words, using the first letter to the Corinthians ignores the second letter and visa versa.

This is why Catholics do not consider themselves children of the Book - we are, instead, Children of the Word Incarnate.

Clement wrote to the Corinthians at a time when an Apostle was still alive - and living much closer - and he wrote as the Bishop of Rome to settle a dispute they were having (they were kind of the problem children of the era, weren’t they?). What is important is that Clement did not take it upon himself to write to them - THEY wrote to HIM for help. His letter is in RESPONSE to their request for an authority to make a decision.

They did not ask the Apostle John.
They kept the letter and followed the advice/direction given to them by Clement, Bishop of Rome.

This points decisively to the honor FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS gave to the man holding the position as Bishop of Rome.

End of story.

 

[LSK]

RyanL:

sandusky,

That’s nice to say, but it’s really not an argument - it’s an accusation. Now, as for if Peter is the first Pope, you need to show the following:

1. The text does not support it.
2. The history of the Church knows nothing of the concept.
3. Other texts contradict the idea.

So far, no such evidence has been shown. Until that point, yours remain baseless accusations, which should be ignored. You are compounding the error you have already learned.

God Bless,
RyanL

You are incorrect, Ryan…Read the Book Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett - the text does support it, the history of the church does acknowledge Peter as the first pope and the while some early Church Fathers debated the idea, ultimately they believed as one.

 

[Wormwood]

Donna: Bold by wormwood

Peter is the 1st Pope. That’s what Christ intended. That is what the Bible basically says but more importantly, that is what the Church Fathers all say and how they all behaved.

I couldn’t resist…this has to be the most half-hearted defense I have ever heard

 

[E.E.N.S]

Wormwood:

I couldn’t resist…this has to be the most half-hearted defense I have ever heard

And I couldn’t resist either…this has to be the most half-hearted attack on someone I have ever heard.

 

[BibleReader]

LSK:

You are incorrect, Ryan…Read the Book Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett - the text does support it, the history of the church does acknowledge Peter as the first pope and the while some early Church Fathers debated the idea, ultimately they believed as one.

Hi, Leslie.

You’ve got Ryan backwards. He’s saying those things about sandusky’s skepticism, not about the papacy.

 

[kaycee]

BibleReader:

Now, here’s the crux of the matter: Whose boat is it?

Answer: "**3 **Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. "

You are looking at a picture of the true word of God COMING OUT OF THE CHURCH OF PETER.

Amazing speculation! Give me a couple hours, I will regale you with a word picture of the primacy of John, the disciple whom the Lord loved, and allowed to lean on his bosum. Who did not forsake the Lord during his crucifiction but was like a rock even till the Lord gave up the Ghost.

 

[BibleReader]

kaycee:

Amazing speculation! Give me a couple hours, I will regale you with a word picture of the primacy of John, the disciple whom the Lord loved, and allowed to lean on his bosum. Who did not forsake the Lord during his crucifiction but was like a rock even till the Lord gave up the Ghost.

Fair enough. BUT YOU HAD BETTER BE ABLE TO TIE-IN YOUR INTERPRETATION WITH AN EXTREMELY-WELL-DOCUMENTED VOCABULARY OF BIBLE TYPES AND OTHER CONSISTENT WORD-PICTURES.

I can.

But doing so takes work.

Will you do the work?

 

[kaycee]

BibleReader:

Fair enough. BUT YOU HAD BETTER BE ABLE TO TIE-IN YOUR INTERPRETATION WITH AN EXTREMELY-WELL-DOCUMENTED VOCABULARY OF BIBLE TYPES AND OTHER CONSISTENT WORD-PICTURES.

I can.

But doing so takes work.

Will you do the work?

Have your bible types been declared infallibly correct by the Magisterium?

 

[E.E.N.S]

kaycee:

Amazing speculation! Give me a couple hours, I will regale you with a word picture of the primacy of John, the disciple whom the Lord loved, and allowed to lean on his bosum. Who did not forsake the Lord during his crucifiction but was like a rock even till the Lord gave up the Ghost.

And yet He still gave the keys to Peter.

 

[mercygate]

kaycee:

Amazing speculation! Give me a couple hours, I will regale you with a word picture of the primacy of John, the disciple whom the Lord loved, and allowed to lean on his bosum. Who did not forsake the Lord during his crucifiction but was like a rock even till the Lord gave up the Ghost.

And throughout John’s Gospel, the disciple whom Jesus loved defers in precedence to the disciple who loved Jesus . . . (Jn 21:15-17)

 

[BibleReader]

kaycee:

Have your bible types been declared infallibly correct by the Magisterium?

Generally, no.

The Magisterium has said very little ABOUT the Bible.

My aunt, who used to be head of the Dominican Order in the Western Hemisphere, used to teach theology to seminarians in Washington. When one of them would ask your question, she would answer, “Oh, I see! You only want to study those parts of the Bible the Magisterium has commented upon! Good! That will only take you about an hour!”

However, the Bible itself is *from * the Magisterium. (It is NOT a “competitor” of the Magisterium, which is how many Catholics – you too? – view it.) The Bible itself expressly or implicitly comments on itself. For example, in Ephesians 6:17, Paul defines “sword” as “the word of God.”

Please read that verse to verify. Don’t be lazy.

By reading, re-reading and re-re-reading the Bible, we can deduce from context what each type, or symbol, means.

In effect, that is an infallible declaration by the Magisterium about the meaning of the types, isn’t it?

Unfortunately, doing that takes tons and tons and tons of work. The Magisterium doesn’t spoonfeed you on this.

So, get to work!

 

[Wormwood]

E.E.N.S

And I couldn’t resist either…this has to be the most half-hearted attack on someone I have ever heard.

That would make your emulation of it, what? Pathetic or foolish?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Wormwood:

That would make your emulation of it, what? Pathetic or foolish?

I am humbled by your reflection.

 

[Tom]

Great topic, one major problem, People want “one” verse where something is shown, unfortunately for them Scripture isn’t written that way. The appointment of Peter is not established in “one” verse, more like 150 separate NT verses, and an equal number of OT verses. There are major writings in Scripture which describe Gods’ appointment of Peter, both OT and NT. Do a computer search of “peter” from the NT of the Bible, and read all of the verses pertaining to him. I love the parrallells between Ezechiel and John. In Ezechiel 34, 5-8 God describes how His “flock” has been scattered and lost, In Ez 34, 11 He says: “Behold I myself will seek my sheep, and will visit them”, an obvious reference to Jesus living amongst us. He also describes how He will “feed” His sheep.:
DR:

Ezechiel 34,11 For thus saith the Lord God: Behold I myself will seek my sheep, and will visit them.
Ezechiel 34,12 As the shepherd visiteth his flock in the day when he shall be in the midst of his sheep that were scattered, so will I visit my sheep, and will deliver them out of all the places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.
Ezechiel 34,15 I will feed my sheep: and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God.
Ezechiel 34,19 And my sheep were fed with that which you had trodden with your feet: and they drank what your feet had troubled.

Now compare Ez 34 with John:
DR:

John 10,15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.
John 10,26 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.
John 10,27 My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.

To me one of the clearest pronouncements of Peters role is in John 21
DR:

John 21,14 This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead. 15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? (the other Apostles) He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. 18 Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. 19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.

The “lambs” of course are peters fellow Apostles and disciples. Present day Bishops, priests and faithfull.

 

[javelin]

Wormwood:

Obviously I can’t make them up as well as you, but if one were to look at the jewish audience you spoke of, one would be likely to notice that the jews don’t even believe christ was the messiah. If you were refering only to the apostles, you should take note that all of the apostles were there but it was peter that spoke up, so it was he that was addressed first, but all of the apostles were also likewise blessed (even Judas).

Oh, please, none of my post was just “made up”.

As for the Jews not believing in Christ – the ones who witnessed the event where Jesus entrusted the keys to Peter certainly did believe He was the Messiah.

As for “all of the apostles were likewise blessed”, did you make that up?

KJV:

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 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: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
How could this possibly be interpreted as a general blessing when it is all clearly directed to Simon, who is thereafter called Peter?

It is also interesting to note that nowhere else in Sacred Scripture is it written that Jesus pronounces such a blessing (“Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona”) on any individual.

In this passage, Jesus is clearly adressing Peter alone, and giving him a unique blessing.

Peace,
javelin