S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
It’s not enough to say the argument is weak. They have to supply a better argument in its place. I’ve yet to see any Peter poo-pooer do this.
Scott
- Status
Scott
J
jphilapy
Guest
A correction on my post. I used primacy. I meant to use supremecy. However I am not sure I understand the whole supremecy vs primacy. I would have to do more research to figure out the primacy thing.
thoughts?
Jeff
thoughts?
Jeff
D
Dj_Roy_Albert
Guest
Nice try, but Jesus didn’t speak to his disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic & there is no distiction in gender or difference. Cephas is Aramaic & cephas means rock. Petros or petras is Greek, it’s petras (feminine) where you get “piece of rock” or as the great protestant evangelist Jimmy Swaggart once exclaimed that “Jesus was calling Peter a chip off the old block”.
Jesus (the smart man) bulit his home(His Church) on a solid rock foundation (Peter). Like it or not.
M
mercygate
Guest
Clement of Rome was the successor of Peter and therefore, in this sense, “Peter.”
References to Peter’s position among the apostles are also found in John 21 and in Luke 22:32 where Jesus tells Peter that “after he has turned again” he will ‘strengthen his brethren.’ The address of Peter’s first Epistle is also telling: that letter is directed to the churches in Galatia – established by Paul.
For me, the witness of the early Church was the clincher. It first came via Scripture to accepting Apostolic Succession, then realizing that if you have Apostolic Succession, and Peter is not in your house of bishops, you are missing the most important piece.
J
jphilapy
Guest
Hi Mercy. These verses are no indication of Peter being supreme. One does not need to be supreme to strengthen his sheep and feed the flock. As a matter of fact all believers are called to strengthen one another and many are called to feed the flock. When Paul told the elders to watch over the flock which they were entrusted with, does that indicate supreme?
Jeff
M
mercygate
Guest
Generally speaking, you are correct. But in this passage, Jesus speaks in the “thou” form – that is, to Peter alone. Jesus says that Satan has asked to sift “you all” like wheat but “I have prayed for you [singular] that your [singular] faith may not fail; and when you [singular] have turned again,strengthen your brethren.”
Thus, there is definite scriptural warrant for believing that Jesus had a special plan for Peter – just as in John 21 when he takes Peter aside and drills into him the “shepherd” role of leadership.
J
jphilapy
Guest
Special is kind of ambigous, but I’ll go with it. By this argument we can say that Paul was special too.
For example the fact that Paul did not receive his gospel from any man, didn’t receive his ministry from any man and didn’t go up to consult the other apostles regarding his message indicates Paul is special:
Gal 1:12 For neither did I receive it of man: nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
*Gal 1:15 But when it pleased him who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, *
*Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles: immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood. *
*Gal 1:17 Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me: but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. *
And the fact that Paul indicates that he is a parallel to Peter shows us Paul is special.
*Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. *
*Gal 2:8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles.) *
Also there is the fact that Paul always appeals to his own authority and never to the authority of Peter. And the fact that Paul rebuked Peter.
And the fact that Paul’s writings monopolize the new testament are another indication that Paul was special.
So what I am saying is I believe that we can make a case that Paul is special too.
So what do those verses regarding Peter tell you about Peter that could not be said of Paul?
Paul was feeding the flock too right?
1Co 9:7 Who serveth as a soldier, at any time, at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Who feedeth the flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
Jeff
M
mercygate
Guest
Nobody denies Paul’s unique position. But it is different from Peter’s, and this thread is about the character of Peter’s ‘specialness’ and how the papacy evolved following on the clear scriptural warrant and the early history of the Church.
C
CARose
Guest
Hi,
I haven’t read the entire thread, but I quickly scanned and didn’t see the answer I’m going to give to the initial question posed.
Jeff, I hope this helps to answer your initial question.
In my Catholic Bible, New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, there are numerous footnotes explaining certain verses. This text is explained in the following way:
Perhaps this is why one of the Pope’s titles is Servant of the Servants. And while we accept the Pope’s role as significantly above our own in terms of his Charism of Infallibility, there is nothing to suggest that his Salvation is assured, by the mere fact that he is in the office of Pope, any more than Satan, in his original Saintly office was unable to fall from Grace. (This is part of the difference between many Protestants and Catholics, we believe that we must continue the race until they end, with trembling, lest we fail to finish the race, as Paul tells us).
The Infallibility of the Pope has to do with his Charism which ensure that when he teaches on matters of Faith and Morals, the Holy Spirit will ensure that these teaches are without error. It doesn’t assure that he will step up to the plate and teach in every instance where he could or even should. That requires his own willingness to do God’s Will. It depends on his use of the Virtues with which he is endowed by God, those of Perseverance, Fortitude, Patience, Wisdom, Knowledge, etc. He has not been stripped of his own Free Will, merely because he has an important role to play in the Church. He, like Peter before him, is capable of error, simply not error in the manner in which he teaches.
To be prudent on our side, we further limit those teachings on Faith and Morals which are added to our permanent repository of the Faith to those which meet specific criteria (how they have been presented, etc.). But please know that these teachings are never, ever contrary to Holy Scripture. The Pope, one would hope, is a learned man, well taught in matters of the Faith and well versed in the Scripture and it’s meanings. Additionally, they are not Additions to Public Revelation, which was completed at the end of the Apostolic Era, rather they are clarifications of teachings that have been passed down since the time of Christ and His Apostles. These truths have been within the Oral Teachings and Traditions of the Church, not of Men, but of the Church Established by Christ so that all men might be saved.
I hope you have found the answers on this thread to be valuable.
God Bless and may the Peace of the Lord be with you,
CARose
J
jphilapy
Guest
My objective is to examine the catholic claims of Peter to see if I accept them and at least to see if there is any truth to the idea that Peter is to be a primacy.
All I am saying is that your verses don’t tell me that Peter is supreme or has primacy any more than the ones about Paul.
Also I can for example offer another explanation as to why Jesus took Peter to the side and told him to feed His sheep. Peter demonstrates himself to be the weakest in faith, focus and direction. For example Peter denies Christ 3 times. Peter takes his eyes off the message that there was no longer to be a distinction between jews and gentiles. Peter makes commitments he doesn’t think about.
So it makes sense to me that the reason Jesus took Peter to the side was to drill into him that since he is going to shepherd the flock that he needs to really get his stuff together. Notice Jesus ask Peter 3 times if he loved Him. And 3 times Peter said yes. And notice that 3 times Peter denied Jesus. Jesus was saying ‘look man you denied me 3 times already. I want you to seriously consider this’. Peter demonstrates that he is one who needs extra attention from Jesus. And it makes sense that Jesus focused on Peter for that reason. Granted those who are forgiven much will love much. I think Peter stands out as a fine example of that principle.
I think Jesus would have done the same thing for all of his apostles if they needed it. They were all going to shepherd the flock.
Jeff
S
Sarah_Jane
Guest
“Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.” (CCC, 553)
J
jphilapy
Guest
Hi Carose,
Regarding matt 20 I did consider that explanation thinking of those who are last shall be first but something doesn’t fit… Jesus qualifies his statment when he says
“they that are great exercise authority upon them.”
then he says:
“but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister”
That doesn’t sound like an explanation for supreme.
Jeff
C
CARose
Guest
Actually, the quote regarding the Rock is only one of several that we see has giving Peter Authority. There are also the three admonishments, feed my sheep, tend my sheep, feed my sheep.
In the Acts of the Apostles, there is the Council of Jerusalem, where there were concerns regarding circumsicion and it was brought to Peter to decide.
There are the numerous examples where Peter was listed first among the apostles. He was the one to whom God revealed that Christ is the Messiah, the first evidence of his Charism of Infallibility.
Again, Infallibility is not equal to unable to sin or do error, rather that what he teaches is without error. Hence the admonishments he received from Paul when he didn’t appear to be practicing what he preached.
Which translation are you using? Mine doesn’t include the Baptise in Matt., but includes this only in Mark.
So, I can see where you’re suggesting that Christ desires that Authority be seen as different, and even that the Romans were the authority of the time and place who were lording their positions above their subjects. How does this negate the scripture passages regarding the Authority of the Pope? He serves not for the sake of power but to serve such that all men might better know Christ in the fullness of the truth which was left to us.
He said that the assignment of places in the kingdom of God was a job left to the Father, he said the Roman’s lorded over their subjects and made their authority felt, and that it would be different among them. It clarified what we as Catholics have come to understand is our role as Christians, to serve humanity. Perhaps it is exactly this understanding of ours which frequently leads to the misunderstanding others have that we believe we must have works for our own salvation.
Actually, I propose that I must have works for the salvation of others. I believe I become more open to Grace as I do good works (deeds) as long as I do so with Faith in our Lord. But I haven’t earned any Grace, for I am so far below the level of God and all Grace originates from God, that I could never begin to merit it on my own account. Besides, without Grace to begin with, I wouldn’t even be able to do good works. So it all, every bit of it, points back to being from God, so, I’d best not boast, as it doesn’t come from me in the first place.
But I can cooperate with my God Given Graces. Or I can fail to cooperate. And the same applies to the Pope. Now, he’s been given a special Grace. Wow, wouldn’t it be cool to know that what you teach is free from error. Heck, if you aren’t certain of the correct thing to do, start teaching someone, see what shakes out. Ok, that’s a bit flippant, but it would be cool to have such a charism, even if that’s not exactly how it works.
Hope I haven’t muddied the waters too much with this.
CARose
C
CARose
Guest
Todd Easton:
However, I think you may have misread, when you suggest that Hilkiah was the steward (although the title scribe is in the footnotes of my bible, I also learned it as steward). Actually, Isaiah 22:20 - it’s Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. The scoundrel, the peg which is to fall, was “Shebna” the official, master of the palace who had hewn for himself a burial place (cave/tomb) on a height.
But this shows how even the master, the chief steward, can error and cannot be certain of his final rest, even when the King of Kings has appointed him to his position. More support against once saved, always saved.
Oh, BTW, Eliachim in Hebrew means - May God Raise. These Hebrew names have significance.
We happen to be living in an era with the most incredible of Popes for generations (not to denegrate the preceding Popes, but JPII is amazing). But if he were not the man he is, he would still be our Pope. We would simply be missing the wonderful, inspirational leadership with which we have been so abundantly blessed.
CARose
Todd, I’d forgotten this foreshadowing of the role of Peter until I looked up the Scripture reference! Thanks for the reminder.
However, I think you may have misread, when you suggest that Hilkiah was the steward (although the title scribe is in the footnotes of my bible, I also learned it as steward). Actually, Isaiah 22:20 - it’s Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. The scoundrel, the peg which is to fall, was “Shebna” the official, master of the palace who had hewn for himself a burial place (cave/tomb) on a height.
But this shows how even the master, the chief steward, can error and cannot be certain of his final rest, even when the King of Kings has appointed him to his position. More support against once saved, always saved.
Oh, BTW, Eliachim in Hebrew means - May God Raise. These Hebrew names have significance.
We happen to be living in an era with the most incredible of Popes for generations (not to denegrate the preceding Popes, but JPII is amazing). But if he were not the man he is, he would still be our Pope. We would simply be missing the wonderful, inspirational leadership with which we have been so abundantly blessed.
CARose
N
New_Heart
Guest
Todd Easton:
Acts 15:7-29 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
See also Acts 21:18-26
It seems to me according to these and other passages that decisions were ran by James before any decisions were made.
Acts 15:7-29 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
See also Acts 21:18-26
J
jphilapy
Guest
New Heart:
*Act 15:23 Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. *
*Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment: *
*Act 15:25 It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul: *
Act 15:28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:
Throught the letter the descision is one represented as a corporate descision and not one made singularly by Peter or James.
Jeff
Hi New. I read it the same way. James heard the statements made by Peter, Paul and Barnabas and then James, after hearing the statements, made the descision. However when the descision was published it was published as:
*Act 15:23 Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. *
*Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment: *
*Act 15:25 It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul: *
Act 15:28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:
Throught the letter the descision is one represented as a corporate descision and not one made singularly by Peter or James.
Jeff
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
Hi Jeff!
I haven’t read every post yet so this may already have been covered.
It’s important to point out that no Catholic teaching is based on a verse from the bible. Since Catholic teaching predates the bible, in fact, it’s what the NT is written about, it’s more correct to say that the bible is based on Catholic teaching rather than the other way around.
In Christ,
Nancy
J
jphilapy
Guest
Nancy from what I have been learning, the idea of the papcy wasn’t developed till later on. If it wasn’t recognized early on, then that means they base their teaching off of scripture. Some bishop of Rome was reading matt and got the idea that he is supposed to have more power than he was currently excercising. Basically as time went on they began to conclude more and more that matt meant the papacy was supposed to have supreme authority. The catholic church teaches the concept of developing doctrine which means they are coming to conclusions which the original authors didn’t understand, nor the original readers came to. Thus this means they are basing their most current doctrines on scripture.Hi Jeff!
I haven’t read every post yet so this may already have been covered.
It’s important to point out that no Catholic teaching is based on a verse from the bible. Since Catholic teaching predates the bible, in fact, it’s what the NT is written about, it’s more correct to say that the bible is based on Catholic teaching rather than the other way around.
In Christ,
Nancy
So who wrote the scripture doesn’t really play into this because the catholic church today has a different understanding than the authors. If the authors understood the same, then there would not be any need to develop doctrine.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Jeff
T
twf
Guest
jphilapy: Right here on our very own site…Catholic Answers…there are some earlier quotes relevent to Roman primacy. See: catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
It is interesting that in the second century, Pope Victor believed he had the authority to excommunicate the churches of Asia Minor.
It is interesting that in the second century, Pope Victor believed he had the authority to excommunicate the churches of Asia Minor.
J
jphilapy
Guest
What do you think about the idea that there were multiple bishops in rome and not just one at the time of Clement’s writing. According to the new testament the leadership was as such that elders and bishops were one and the same. There are some indications that Rome at the time of Clement’s writing to Corinth had multple bishops as opposed to one single bishop just like the instances of leadership in the new testament.
Jeff
- Status