Protestants: Is Peter the first Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cjaubert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
cjaubert:
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?
Click to expand...
Again, from my post #117:

*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.*
 
sandusky,

Let me put it to you with an analogy. When I was a Lieutenant on a nuclear powered fast attack submarine, my principle job was safety and control of the nuclear reactor. The reactor compartment was locked at all times (save certain particular circumstances), and the custody of the keys was assigned to me while I was “on watch”. The keys were mine, with fully deligated authority to perform an emergency reactor compartment entry should the need be required.

Were the keys mine?

Yes. I had custody of them, and had the deligated authority to use them as required.

Were the keys mine?

No! Emphatically, NO! The keys belonged to the Chief Engineer, and he was legally responsible for everyone who held custody of the keys. Should one of us make a mistake, HE would be held accountable. HE would be fired, jailed, held fiscally responsible for my mistakes should something have gone wrong. Now, I would share in that (should it come to it), but he was the primary custodian.

Does this kind of “dual authority” make sense to you?

Now, please read every verse (there aren’t many) in the new and old testament where “keys” are mentioned. Can you see how this same kind of idea plays out? Can you see the parallels? Can you see how “everyone gets the keys” is not part of the deal, and would have resulted in anarchy with regards to the nuclear reactor? How much more important is the kingdom of heaven?

God Bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to take to heart LSK’s admonitions, but it really is hard to be polite with someone who cavalierly refers to patristic and medieval Biblical exegesis as “the wrong thing.” I’m annoyed when Protestants engage in this kind of contempt for Chrsitian tradition, and I’m far less patient with Catholics who do it, because you guys are supposed to know better.

Yes, I freely confess that I’m more willing to spend time studying the exegetical methods of the Fathers of the Church than yours. If you find this insulting, then perhaps you should reevaluate your own priorities.
40.png
BibleReader:
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.
Click to expand...
Give me one good reason why I should be patient and invest the energy to learn your system? When I have fully read and digested the works of the Fathers and the scholastics and the great theologians of the past 500 years, then perhaps I’ll give your scheme a look. But even then you’ll have to explain to me why I should believe you instead of all the other people who make similar claims.

Edwin
 
40.png
LSK:
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:
Click to expand...
Leslie,

Given the nature of BibleReader’s claims (that he doesn’t need to pay any attention to the Fathers, because he has figured out the real way to read the Bible), I’m not sure that being Christ-like would not involve being much angrier with him than I am. But I’m not Christ, so I can’t afford to presume on that. Your advice is therefore good, although it would be easier for me to correct it if you showed some concern for BibleReader’s wholly un-Catholic contempt for the Fathers. I would think that any Catholic would feel some indignation at such an attitude, and some sympathy for someone who had trouble responding kindly and courteously to BibleReader’s extraordinary confusion of Scripture itself with his own ingenious interpretations thereof.

In short, when you object to someone’s style, it’s more effective if you also show some appreciation for the substantive issues he is trying to address.

Edwin
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what that means. How were the bishops in question appointed “differently than their predecessors”?

The point is that there are continuous records of bishops of other sees besides Rome. That’s what you asked for, and that’s what I gave you. Mention of the Church of Louisiana is totally irrelevant, because Louisiana is not a church of apostolic foundation.

Edwin
 
40.png
RyanL:
sandusky,

Let me put it to you with an analogy. When I was a Lieutenant on a nuclear powered fast attack submarine . . . the custody of the keys was assigned to me while I was “on watch”. . . . Were the keys mine?

Yes. I had custody of them, and had the deligated authority to use them as required.

Were the keys mine?

No! Emphatically, NO! The keys belonged to the Chief Engineer . . . RyanL
Click to expand...
Great illustration, Ryan! I’m going to use it!
 
40.png
Contarini:
Give me one good reason why I should be patient and invest the energy to learn your system? Edwin
Click to expand...
Hi, Edwin.

Because the system says that the following is a picture of Christ riding into Jerusalem on the colt of an a s s, being betrayed by a Jewish man for silver which is ultimately rejected, having a crown of thorns imposed on his skull, being crucified, being stabbed in the side by a soldier, and being buried in a stone grave…

9 Absalom unexpectedly came up against David’s servants. He was **mounted on a mule **[riding the colt of an a s s into Jerusalem at the time of the Messianic entry], and, as the mule passed under the branches of a large terebinth, **his hair caught fast in the tree **[crowning with thorns]. He hung between heaven and earth *[crucifixion] *while the mule he had been riding ran off. 10 Someone saw this and reported to Joab *[Judas’ betrayal] *that he had seen Absalom hanging from a terebinth. 11 Joab said to his informant: “If you saw him, why did you not strike him to the ground on the spot? Then it would have been my duty to give you fifty pieces of silver and a belt.” *[the offer of silver to Judas] *12 But the man replied to Joab: “Even if I already held a thousand pieces of silver in my two hands, I would not harm the king’s son, for the king charged you and Abishai and Ittai in our hearing to protect the youth Absalom for his sake. 13 Had I been disloyal and killed him, the whole matter would have come to the attention of the king, and you would stand aloof.” *[the silver is ultimately refused] *14 Joab replied, “I will not waste time with you in this way.” And taking three pikes in hand, he thrust for the heart of Absalom [Jesus is stabbed in the side while hanging from the cross], still hanging from the tree alive. 15 Next, ten of Joab’s young armor-bearers closed in on Absalom, and killed him with further blows. 16 Joab then sounded the horn, and the soldiers turned back from the pursuit of the Israelites, because Joab called on them to halt. 17 Absalom was taken up and cast into a deep pit in the forest, and a very large mound of stones was erected over him. *[Jesus is buried under rock].*And all the Israelites fled to their own tents. 2 Samuel 18:9-17.
 
40.png
mercygate:
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
Click to expand...
I believe Peter was meant to represent the rock. The Lord knew He will accend into heaven, and so He told Peter to lead His church. The Lord ask Peter three times, “Do you love Me, after being asked the third time Peter felt sad, and the Lord said, feed my sheep.” No Divine Power was given to Peter. He was meant to represent the rock, not be the rock. Do you really believe the Lord, who is God Himself would turn a man into a God, by making him a rock? Peter deny the Lord three times, which means, Popes are not perfect. Is there a God besides Me? and a Rock? I know not any (Isa.44:8).

William
 
40.png
SpiritualBeing:
Do you really believe the Lord, who is God Himself would turn a man into a God, by making him a rock?
Click to expand...
William, I am sure you are not kidding, but you cannot REALLY think that Catholics believe that Peter is a God?
Peter deny the Lord three times, which means, Popes are not perfect.
Click to expand...
So you agree that Peter and his successors are the head of the Church. And Jesus says to Peter, “but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and whenyou have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” Catholics view Peter’s denial, this prayer of Jesus for his return, and Peter’s 3-fold affirmation of love in John 21 as all part of the picture.
Is there a God besides Me? and a Rock? I know not any (Isa.44:8).
William
Click to expand...
Catholics would seriously object to your implication here that Jesus would contradict God.

We view the Church on earth as a manifestation of the Incarnation. Just as Jesus had a physical body when he walked among us as a man, so he has a visible, physical, identifiable body now that he has ascended to Heaven. That is the Church, whose center is the Catholic Church. Jesus is the Head of the Church, of course. His deputy on earth is the successor of Peter. The Pope is the visible sign of unity in the Church. This is not nearly as threatening a doctrine as many people make it out to be.
 
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.”

This passage refers to Christ’s office of messianic kingship and in no way takes away from Peter’s office of Steward/Prime Minister of the Church. Christ is absolute sovereign in the messianic kingdom. Jesus never abdicated his throne and position as king to Peter. In Matt 16:18-19, Christ raises Peter up to be Steward of the Church. Jesus established an office of Steward of the Church and Peter was the first steward to lead the Church after the Ascension and Pentecost.

Jesus said to Peter: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
 
 
Hildebrand said:
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.”

This passage refers to Christ’s office of messianic kingship and in no way takes away from Peter’s office of Steward/Prime Minister of the Church. Christ is absolute sovereign in the messianic kingdom. Jesus never abdicated his throne and position as king to Peter. In Matt 16:18-19, Christ raises Peter up to be Steward of the Church. Jesus established an office of Steward of the Church and Peter was the first steward to lead the Church after the Ascension and Pentecost.

Jesus said to Peter: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Click to expand...

Thank you, Hildebrand! You are much more eloquent than I - I knew the passage refered back to Peter and bolstered the seat of the Bishop of Rome as Christ’s Vicar on earth … and I think that the writings of Clement of Rome also bolter the historic fact that the Bishop of Rome was given authority over the other Sees existing at that time. To discount the writings of those who were converted by the Apostles means that at the death of all by St. John the faith was lost. It just doesn’t make sense - unless one buys into giant, weird conspiracy theories. At which point we can not have a rational discussion because one cannot disprove a negative.
 
40.png
Hildebrand:
Oh please :rolleyes:

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
Click to expand...
Thanks. I’m not even going to bother with these. I know what they say without even reading them.

Let’s see:
they will say that the apostles and the early church fathers understood that Christ had given Peter a special position of primacy; he had given Peter a special misson, and that he had the authority to pass that power onto his successors. (How am I doing?)
 
40.png
sandusky:
Thanks. I’m not even going to bother with these. I know what they say without even reading them.

Let’s see:
they will say that the apostles and the early church fathers understood that Christ had given Peter a special position of primacy; he had given Peter a special misson, and that he had the authority to pass that power onto his successors. (How am I doing?)
Click to expand...
So, Sandusky, when do you start RCIA? 😉
 
40.png
mercygate:
So, Sandusky, when do you start RCIA? 😉
Click to expand...
Mercygate, I fell off my chair when I read this. Thank you; you lightened my heart. 😉

God Bless You.
 
It does not matter if Jesus called Peter a rock or a stone or a pebble. When Jesus said “upon this this rock I will build my Church” Jesus was not refering to Peter but to Peter’s confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” the same confession of faith that every true Christian makes. On this the early Church Father agree.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Hi, Edwin.

Because the system says that the following is a picture of Christ riding into Jerusalem on the colt of an a s s, being betrayed by a Jewish man for silver which is ultimately rejected, having a crown of thorns imposed on his skull, being crucified, being stabbed in the side by a soldier, and being buried in a stone grave…

9 Absalom unexpectedly came up against David’s servants. He was **mounted on a mule **[riding the colt of an a s s into Jerusalem at the time of the Messianic entry], and, as the mule passed under the branches of a large terebinth, **his hair caught fast in the tree **[crowning with thorns]. He hung between heaven and earth *[crucifixion] *while the mule he had been riding ran off. 10 Someone saw this and reported to Joab *[Judas’ betrayal] *that he had seen Absalom hanging from a terebinth. 11 Joab said to his informant: “If you saw him, why did you not strike him to the ground on the spot? Then it would have been my duty to give you fifty pieces of silver and a belt.” *[the offer of silver to Judas] *12 But the man replied to Joab: “Even if I already held a thousand pieces of silver in my two hands, I would not harm the king’s son, for the king charged you and Abishai and Ittai in our hearing to protect the youth Absalom for his sake. 13 Had I been disloyal and killed him, the whole matter would have come to the attention of the king, and you would stand aloof.” *[the silver is ultimately refused] *14 Joab replied, “I will not waste time with you in this way.” And taking three pikes in hand, he thrust for the heart of Absalom [Jesus is stabbed in the side while hanging from the cross], still hanging from the tree alive. 15 Next, ten of Joab’s young armor-bearers closed in on Absalom, and killed him with further blows. 16 Joab then sounded the horn, and the soldiers turned back from the pursuit of the Israelites, because Joab called on them to halt. 17 Absalom was taken up and cast into a deep pit in the forest, and a very large mound of stones was erected over him. *[Jesus is buried under rock].*And all the Israelites fled to their own tents. 2 Samuel 18:9-17.
Click to expand...
BibleReader,

This sort of interpretation is fun, but no more convincing than similar stuff I’ve found in Origen. I think it’s great that you have gotten into this style of interpretation, but the early Christians decided on the basis of hard experience that you couldn’t rest too much on it, and I see absolutely no reason to think they were wrong.

The problem is that you’re arguing in a circle. You started out trying to base doctrine on allegorical interpretation, but the example you just gave me works the other way–the only reason you would even come up with this interpretation is that you already know about the death of Jesus and its meaning from other passages of Scripture. And that’s the way allegorical interpretation should work.

In particular, I don’t know how you would expect me to be convinced by an interpretation that went against the literal meaning of the passage (in which Absalom is clearly not a redemptive figure). The Fathers did this kind of thing too (interpreting the David and Bathsheba story as an allegory of Christ overcoming the Devil and “seducing” humanity away from his power). But any validity it has depends on the fact that what you are teaching appears clearly elsewhere in Scripture.

Edwin
 
40.png
RyanL:
sandusky,

Let me put it to you with an analogy. When I was a Lieutenant on a nuclear powered fast attack submarine, my principle job was safety and control of the nuclear reactor. The reactor compartment was locked at all times (save certain particular circumstances), and the custody of the keys was assigned to me while I was “on watch”. The keys were mine, with fully deligated authority to perform an emergency reactor compartment entry should the need be required.

Were the keys mine?

Yes. I had custody of them, and had the deligated authority to use them as required.

Were the keys mine?

No! Emphatically, NO! The keys belonged to the Chief Engineer, and he was legally responsible for everyone who held custody of the keys. Should one of us make a mistake, HE would be held accountable. HE would be fired, jailed, held fiscally responsible for my mistakes should something have gone wrong. Now, I would share in that (should it come to it), but he was the primary custodian.

Does this kind of “dual authority” make sense to you?

Now, please read every verse (there aren’t many) in the new and old testament where “keys” are mentioned. Can you see how this same kind of idea plays out? Can you see the parallels? Can you see how “everyone gets the keys” is not part of the deal, and would have resulted in anarchy with regards to the nuclear reactor? How much more important is the kingdom of heaven?

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Read the key verses, and am going over your analogy again.

Will get back to you.
 
40.png
sandusky:
Read the key verses, and am going over your analogy again.

Will get back to you.
Click to expand...
Roger, dodger. I’ll be here. May God bless you and guide you,
RyanL
 
40.png
Contarini:
BibleReader,

In particular, I don’t know how you would expect me to be convinced by an interpretation that went against the literal meaning of the passage (in which Absalom is clearly not a redemptive figure). The Fathers did this kind of thing too (interpreting the David and Bathsheba story as an allegory of Christ overcoming the Devil and “seducing” humanity away from his power). But any validity it has depends on the fact that what you are teaching appears clearly elsewhere in Scripture.

Edwin
Click to expand...
The Bible frequently uses sin symbols and bad guys to symbolize Christ. Paul figured out why.

Example of another sin symbol used to symbolize Christ: The bronze SERPENT on a pole, which Christ compares Himself to in John 3.

“Absalom,” by the way, means “King of Peace,” just as Isaiah refers to Christ as “Prince of Peace.”

One cute coincidence is a cute coincidence.

One thousand cute coincidences is God talking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top