Protestants/LDS: Isn't this proof that Peter was "set apart" from the other apostles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lax16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
And a blessed Easter to you! He is risen!

I wasn’t clear, my apology. What is the logical conclusion that we can draw regarding that fact that St. Peter is in many ways unique in his leadership amongst the apostles?

Jon
Click to expand...
Yes, we are blessed!! 🙂

To repeat myself: The scripture I posted clearly shows the angel of God referring to Peter as someone separate - my question to non-Catholics is “why” does the angel of God make this distinction if it wasn’t extremely important and telling?

Catholics have no problem hearing this scripture reading and thinking, “Ah yes, Peter, chosen by Jesus and reiterated by the angel of God as being separate, special, the leader.”

Why would someone believe that Peter is unique in his leadership among the apostles and yet was not meant to lead the Church for all earthly time?
 
lax16 said:
Yes, we are blessed!! 🙂

To repeat myself: The scripture I posted clearly shows the angel of God referring to Peter as someone separate - my question to non-Catholics is “why” does the angel of God make this distinction if it wasn’t extremely important and telling?

Catholics have no problem hearing this scripture reading and thinking, “Ah yes, Peter, chosen by Jesus and reiterated by the angel of God as being separate, special, the leader.”

Why would someone believe that Peter is unique in his leadership among the apostles and yet was not meant to lead the Church for all earthly time?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you would like to know the Orthodox point of you since I am sure there must be in this forum many discussions about it.
 
truthsave said:
I don’t think you would like to know the Orthodox point of you since I am sure there must be in this forum many discussions about it.
Click to expand...
truthsave - I would love to know the Orthodox point of view. I should have included the Orthodox in my original question. 🙂
 
Apart from the obvious authority given to Peter by Christ (i.e. the giving of the keys to the kingdom) found in the Gospels, Peter’s authority as the authentic interpreter of the Tradition and supreme legislator of the Church is set out very clearly in the Book of Acts, even in the first few chapters. One has to hold a fairly large bias not to see that.
 
lax16 said:
truthsave - I would love to know the Orthodox point of view. I should have included the Orthodox in my original question. 🙂
Click to expand...
I am really sure this subject has created enough pages of debates in this forum and elsewhere. And expecially reading about it I have often realized that many became competitive and form this reason aggressive, since when you don’t get in a competition to be the looser.
I am sorry I don’t personally lean toward this competitivness. Believe me.
As Orthodox I am right, as Catholic you are right.
Moreover I am so deceived of myself as maintaining a merely decency in my christianity I would love to have the faith and strenght either of St.Francis (Catholic) or St. Seraphim (Orthodox). I don’t think their living and faith and saintity was forged by their opinion on this matter.
 
truthsave said:
I am really sure this subject has created enough pages of debates in this forum and elsewhere. And expecially reading about it I have often realized that many became competitive and form this reason aggressive, since when you don’t get in a competition to be the looser.
I am sorry I don’t personally lean toward this competitivness. Believe me.
As Orthodox I am right, as Catholic you are right.
Moreover I am so deceived of myself as maintaining a merely decency in my christianity I would love to have the faith and strenght either of St.Francis (Catholic) or St. Seraphim (Orthodox). I don’t think their living and faith and saintity was forged by their opinion on this matter.
Click to expand...
👍
 
lax16 said:
Yes, we are blessed!! 🙂

To repeat myself: The scripture I posted clearly shows the angel of God referring to Peter as someone separate - my question to non-Catholics is “why” does the angel of God make this distinction if it wasn’t extremely important and telling?

Catholics have no problem hearing this scripture reading and thinking, “Ah yes, Peter, chosen by Jesus and reiterated by the angel of God as being separate, special, the leader.”

Why would someone believe that Peter is unique in his leadership among the apostles and yet was not meant to lead the Church for all earthly time?
Click to expand...
Lead it in what way?

I do not deny the obvious leadership role St. Peter plays in scripture.

Jon
 
Janderich said:
I believe it is rather clear. Apostasy means there was no one authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. Yes, John held the priesthood but he was not authorized to carry it forward.

We definitely believe, and revere, Peter as the head of the church in ancient times. This information about John is incorrect.
Click to expand...
It’s LDS tradition (little t) that John never died. It’s not doctrine, but I’ve never met a Mormon that DIDN’T believe it. In fact, I’ve grown up hearing urban legend-type stories about people that have encountered someone named “John” and he’s come from nowhere, helped them, and disappeared again.

Because the church won’t officially confirm or deny it, it’s not really something that you can use in the “total apostasy” argument.
 
Janderich said:
I believe it is rather clear. Apostasy means there was no one authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. Yes, John held the priesthood but he was not authorized to carry it forward.
Click to expand...
An Apostle of Jesus Christ, chosen by Jesus Himself, doesn’t have authority. Okee-
Dokee :rolleyes:
 
SpeSalvi said:
It’s LDS tradition (little t) that John never died. It’s not doctrine, but I’ve never met a Mormon that DIDN’T believe it. In fact, I’ve grown up hearing urban legend-type stories about people that have encountered someone named “John” and he’s come from nowhere, helped them, and disappeared again.

Because the church won’t officially confirm or deny it, it’s not really something that you can use in the “total apostasy” argument.
Click to expand...
What makes you say this not doctrine? D&C 7: 1-3 states:
And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you. And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee. And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.
Click to expand...
 
RebeccaJ said:
An Apostle of Jesus Christ, chosen by Jesus Himself, doesn’t have authority. Okee-
Dokee :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
John was given authority to govern within his realm of responsibility. However, Peter was given authority to lead and the entire church. As has been indicated on this very site, Peter was the chief apostle and made the final decision in matters pertaining to the church as a whole. In any event, this obviously isn’t a matter of what Christ can do, rather it is a matter of what he chose to do.

Additionally it is likely that John did not have authority to exercise all the keys because Peter, Moses, Elias, Elijah, Michael, Moroni, and Raphael (among others) all came and gave additional keys to Joseph Smith.
 
I just read the other night a quote from the Acts that the Apostles were chosen In Advance of Christ’s coming…God’s will…and no other names were brought up.

Christ Himself referenced Moses and fulfills him…
 
Janderich said:
John was given authority to govern within his realm of responsibility. However, Peter was given authority to lead and the entire church. As has been indicated on this very site, Peter was the chief apostle and made the final decision in matters pertaining to the church as a whole. In any event, this obviously isn’t a matter of what Christ can do, rather it is a matter of what he chose to do.

Additionally it is likely that John did not have authority to exercise all the keys because Peter, Moses, Elias, Elijah, Michael, Moroni, and Raphael (among others) all came and gave additional keys to Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...
No my friend, the Apostles appointed and ordained successors. This is historical and ecclesial fact. The early church hierarchy was not organized like a modern day business, it was organized as you see in the Catholic churches, east and west.

The successor to Peter is the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope. All bishops have the authority to ordain, as this is what Apostolic succession means.

Your Mormon ideas are just make believe from the mind of Joseh Smith and his associates.

Ireneaus knew Polycarp in his youth, and recorded that Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna, and a disciple of John . He was ordained by John. So if you believe he had no authority to do so, you believe he was acting against the wishes of the Church, and of God.
 
RebeccaJ said:
No my friend, the Apostles appointed and ordained successors. This is historical and ecclesial fact. The early church hierarchy was not organized like a modern day business, it was organized as you see in the Catholic churches, east and west.

The successor to Peter is the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope. All bishops have the authority to ordain, as this is what Apostolic succession means.

Your Mormon ideas are just make believe from the mind of Joseh Smith and his associates.

Ireneaus knew Polycarp in his youth, and recorded that Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna, and a disciple of John . He was ordained by John. So if you believe he had no authority to do so, you believe he was acting against the wishes of the Church, and of God.
Click to expand...
Rebecca,
Now you have hit on the fundamental difference: the passing down of priesthood authority. I would guess this has been discussed many many times on this site so I probably don’t need to rehash. At the end of the day it may simply boil down to the fact that we believe Joseph Smith received instruction from God the Father and Jesus Christ to join none of the existing churches for they were all wrong. For us this seals the deal. So how, and to whom, Peter passed authority is in some sense irrelevant. By the spring of 1820 authority did not exist in any church of the day. Of course, I understand you disagree and I’m fine with that.
 
Janderich said:
John was given authority to govern within his realm of responsibility. However, Peter was given authority to lead and the entire church. As has been indicated on this very site, Peter was the chief apostle and made the final decision in matters pertaining to the church as a whole. In any event, this obviously isn’t a matter of what Christ can do, rather it is a matter of what he chose to do.

Additionally it is likely that John did not have authority to exercise all the keys because Peter, Moses, Elias, Elijah, Michael, Moroni, and Raphael (among others) all came and gave additional keys to Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...
Really? Then why did Jesus say to Peter to YOU I give the keys to the kingdom? Why was JS not mentioned at all?

Well it was mentioned, kind of:blush: Teaching a false doctrine and things like that. But anyone who teaches anything different then the Apostles is considered a false prophet.

JS claims that the Church failed. But Christ said the gates of hades will not prevail. False doctrine. How could JS teach something that is direct conflict with the word of God and be a true prophet?
 
Janderich said:
Rebecca,
Now you have hit on the fundamental difference: the passing down of priesthood authority. I would guess this has been discussed many many times on this site so I probably don’t need to rehash. At the end of the day it may simply boil down to the fact that we believe Joseph Smith received instruction from God the Father and Jesus Christ to join none of the existing churches for they were all wrong. For us this seals the deal. So how, and to whom, Peter passed authority is in some sense irrelevant. By the spring of 1820 authority did not exist in any church of the day. Of course, I understand you disagree and I’m fine with that.
Click to expand...
Yes Christ disagrees also. Christ said he would send the Advocate the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth until the end of age.

So in order for JS to have any truth the Holy Spirit would have failed us. Now unless 1820 is the end of age, meaning the end of the world JS lied.

And Peters passed authority is very relevant. The Pope has the authority to bind and loose. Christ told him what you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth is loose in heaven. Now how could that not be relevant.
 
Janderich said:
Rebecca,
Now you have hit on the fundamental difference: the passing down of priesthood authority. I would guess this has been discussed many many times on this site so I probably don’t need to rehash. At the end of the day it may simply boil down to the fact that we believe Joseph Smith received instruction from God the Father and Jesus Christ to join none of the existing churches for they were all wrong. For us this seals the deal. So how, and to whom, Peter passed authority is in some sense irrelevant. By the spring of 1820 authority did not exist in any church of the day. Of course, I understand you disagree and I’m fine with that.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know, but you should know what you believe is in direct conflict with fact, and therefore is not reasonable or rational. At the end of the day, fact refutes Smith’s claims, without question, and shows him to be a weaver of tales. I just showed you now, with his claim of John not having the authority to ordain. Fact is, he did, and there are writings that testify to this fact.

Take some time to read St. Ireneaus’ “Against Heresies”. Book three contains the portion we are discussing. It is available freely on the Internet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top