Protestants: Is Peter the first Pope?

[E.E.N.S]

javelin:

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?

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

Don’t forget the significance of the name change itself. This happens a few times in the Bible and each time is significant and gives a new role to the person receiving the new name.

 

[LSK]

BibleReader:

Hi, Leslie.

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

OOPS! Sorry - Ryan! My mistake!

 

[sandusky]

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.

Amen!

I though about saying that myself, but let’s face it, these folks believe that Peter was the first Pope, and I don’t. I can’t persuade them, and they can’t persuade me.

Your posts on this thread are great!

 

[LSK]

sandusky:

Amen!

I though about saying that myself, but let’s face it, these folks believe that Peter was the first Pope, and I don’t. I can’t persuade them, and they can’t persuade me.

Your posts on this thread are great!

Except that Jesus never changed John’s name to Rock. simple.

and I think everyone who has managed to post without being rude or mean has done a great job. Gee, it’s tough to be Christian and practice Charity, eh gang?

 

[sandusky]

Tom:

The appointment of Peter is not established in “one” verse, more like 150 separate NT verses, and an equal number of OT verses.

I am willing to wait a few days, or longer, up to a week, for you to list those “more like” 150 separate N.T. verses.

The O.T. are not necessary, unless of course, you care to list them also.

 

[sandusky]

LSK:

Except that Jesus never changed John’s name to Rock. simple.

and I think everyone who has managed to post without being rude or mean has done a great job. Gee, it’s tough to be Christian and practice Charity, eh gang?

Jesus is also called Rock, is He not?

And the N.T. definitely says that Christ is the foundation laid, and the head of the church, explicitly! Simpler.

 

[mercygate]

sandusky:

Jesus is also called Rock, is He not?

Why should that be a problem? No Catholic would challenge that. It doesn’t change Mt. 16:17-19. Nor does it change the significance of those verses.

 

[BibleReader]

sandusky:

Jesus is also called Rock, is He not?

And the N.T. definitely says that Christ is the foundation laid, and the head of the church, explicitly! Simpler.

Look, Jesus is not going to go to all of the trouble of renaming Simon bar Jonah “rock” if he’s NOT referring to Peter as the “rock” on which the Church is being built.

 

[RyanL]

LSK,
Don’t sweat it. Honest mistake - I knew it when I read it. May God bless you and keep you, my friend.

sandusky:

I am willing to wait a few days, or longer, up to a week, for you to list those “more like” 150 separate N.T. verses.

The O.T. are not necessary, unless of course, you care to list them also.

It’s not really my challenge, but I’ll kick it off…
Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

 

[RyanL]

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter’s death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

                Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.                     

                Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

 

[RyanL]

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…”

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting” all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from “Babylon” which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[sandusky]

RyanL:

It’s not really my challenge, but I’ll kick it off…
Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.

I am not disputing that Peter was the leader of the 12. Anyone who reads the Gospels should acknowledge that, and if they don’t they are not reading carefully, IMHO.

In fact, the grammar is such that Peter could very well be the rock; whether or not he is, is not the issue for me.

The issue is that of the establishment of a papacy, and a papal line. The scriptural evidence is flimsy, IMHO. The historical is strong, and is not sufficient for me to believe it.

150 verses concerning Peter as Pope is what I understood Tom to say. That is impossible, so I will withdraw my statement about waiting to see them. I was not challenging him, anyway; I was just curious to see them. In his zeal, he probably did misspeak.

 

[sandusky]

BibleReader:

Look, Jesus is not going to go to all of the trouble of renaming Simon bar Jonah “rock” if he’s NOT referring to Peter as the “rock” on which the Church is being built.

You cannot prove that, especially when the explicit testimony is Christ as the foundation and the head.

 

[BibleReader]

sandusky:

You cannot prove that.

Okay. Jesus WAS an absurd fellow who wasted time and misled people for no good reason!

You’re RIGHT! That felt GOOD!

Come on! You’re position is absurb.

 

[RyanL]

sandusky:

The scriptural evidence is flimsy, IMHO. The historical is strong, and is not sufficient for me to believe it.

What, exactly, would you need to see to believe?

 

[E.E.N.S]

sandusky:

You cannot prove that, especially when the explicit testimony is Christ as the foundation and the head.

Cannot prove that Jesus renamed Simon to Peter?!?

 

[YADA]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed.

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).

Jesus here is quoting Hebrew scriptures. What did Peter and the apostles hear. They heard Issiah Chapter 22:20-24.

20 "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat a] of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

Notice, here in Issiah we have the House of David (David is long dead but his house lives on). We have the office of Prime Minister, an office. Offices are not left vacant, but filled upon vacancy. What tis prime minister opens remains open, what he shuts remains shut. How do the people know and refer to this position? Abba, Father or in Italian Papa (Pope). From those humble beginnings (if one call call being the Prime Minister to the Davidic Kingdom humble) is th office of ad primacy of the “Chair of Peter” It is not an invention of the middle ages, dark ages or a “Catholic Plot” It is not an invention of the early Christian writers, it is a fulfillment of God’s covenant.

Pax Christe

 

[Paris_Blues]

Todd Easton:

A Protestant would probably say that by Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus is making each believer a pope in his own right, endowing each believer with the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture and decide for himself what the truth is.

I’ll admit that’s a similar thought I had before I came to the CC. But now, I know what the Truth is.

 

[cjaubert]

sandusky:

The historical is strong, and is not sufficient for me to believe it.

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?

 

[Contarini]

Bible Reader,

Your allegorical interpretation is interesting, and I have no problems with such interpretation as a means of edification. But I’m afraid that Christian tradition is quite clear that doctrine can’t be proven through allegory.

E.E.N.S.,

Rome is not the only See that can show a line of succession from apostolic times. So this is hardly an argument for infallibility. It’s simply irrelevant.

Edwin