The Epistles of St. Peter and the Papacy

[Lampo]

It would seem that Augustine thought that God intended for people to do more with His revelation than let it sit on a bookshelf; wouldn’t you agree?

I would say that Augustine thought the Bible should be read, yes. I don’t see where Augustine says that Jesus told anyone to write down everything He said or did into a book then distribute it to everyone to interpret for themselves. Augustin says,

seeing that in Him we have nothing that we can handle, but have that which we may read.

after the fact they were already penned. Augustine wouldn’t have said this if no one wrote anything down.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Timothy got it.

You mean ‘Thomas’. Anyway that was long after he said the words ‘i am’.

 

[sandusky]

Lampo:

I would say that Augustine thought the Bible should be read, yes. I don’t see where Augustine says that Jesus told anyone to write down everything He said or did into a book then distribute it to everyone to interpret for themselves. Augustin says…after the fact they were already penned. Augustine wouldn’t have said this if no one wrote anything down.

It’s obvious that Augustine wouldn’t have said what he said if there were no written scripture—he wouldn’t discuss what didn’t exist.

But, scripture does exist, and, according to Augustine, and scripture itself, it does so at God’s behest; that is what Augustine is saying when he says from the cited quote:***God has been pleased to put in the Scriptures…***Augustine attributes the content of scripture to God.

 

[Lampo]

It’s obvious that Augustine wouldn’t have said what he said if there were no written scripture—he wouldn’t discuss what didn’t exist.

But, scripture does exist, and, according to Augustine, and scripture itself, it does so at God’s behest; that is what Augustine is saying when he says from the cited quote:***God has been pleased to put in the Scriptures…***Augustine attributes the content of scripture to God.

Then I guess we don’t disagree. My statement still stands:

Originally Posted by Lampo
I’m very interested in seeing where Jesus says, “Write everything down that I say and do. Compile it into a book and give to everyone to interpret for themselves.”

 

[Lampo]

Sandusky…I’ve gathered from our brief conversation that you believe everything that happens in the world is the will of God. Am I accurate in my observation?

 

[YADA]

Maybe Paul was just more detail oriented than Peter, but I can’t see why Peter wouldn’t at least start off his epistles by mentioning he was Pope. Didn’t most of the epistles start off with the author describing what title they held?

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ…”

Paul had to assert he was an “Apostle” because he was challenged on this point…so Paul writes and self describes himself as an apostle…

Paul describs himself as an apostle born out of time…

Why is this…because of all the identified ‘apostles’ [as opposed to disciples] Paul was not chosen by Jesus directly [nor elected after the resurrection as Barnavas was by the church leadership]. Paul had a conversion experience and began preaching…it was Paul who had to travel to JErusalem to meet with Peter [and the others] to have his ministry receive the stamp ‘approved’ for people to accept him and the Gospel he preached…

So Peter did not have to self declare himself an apostle nor did he have to declare himself the leader of the apostles…he was known to hold that office…

Read Isaiah 22, it is an office that the King fills - prime minister, whom the people call “Abba” [father] ad who serves the King and opens and closes what none shall close or open, to paraphrase…

If no one challenged Peter’s leadership - and of this scripture is clear [And I know this is true even though Paul confronts Peter with Peter’s hypocracy in cowtowing to the Judaizers - note Peter was not teaching wrongly, he just was not practicing what he preached - and that Paul felt he could drop the name and the episode to boost his own position is also telling -]

Look at Acts…It is Peter who decides to fill the vacancy left by Judas. He quotes OT passages about an office. “Let another, his office take…” No one debated with Peter the need to replace Judas. They accepted his decision…

An office is filled when it becomes vacant…Judas held an office… Peter held an office with a leadership role, all the apostles held an office, the offices are filled when they become vacant, and the leadership convenes to select the new incumbant…

Peter did not neet to assert his leadership as it was not in question…

 

[sandusky]

Lampo:

Then I guess we don’t disagree. My statement still stands: “Write everything down that I say and do. Compile it into a book and give to everyone to interpret for themselves.”

I understand.

Lampo:

Sandusky…I’ve gathered from our brief conversation that you believe everything that happens in the world is the will of God. Am I accurate in my observation?

Yes.

 

[mercygate]

Peter was a missionary, not a manager. A team player, not an overlord. A council member, not a pope. He obeyed orders and sometimes gave them. He rebukes and gotten rebuked.

This observation in no way addresses the question of the Primacy of Peter or the development of the papacy.

I would like to point out that it is retrospectively that the title “Pope” is given to Peter, because the word “Pope” as an affectionate title for the Bishop of Rome did not appear until later in history.

Peter’s primacy is embedded deeply in Scripture.

Peter was not an overlord. The Pope is not an overlord. Peter was a council member? Acts 15? Keynote speaker, not just a drone on the board.

The OP was about the Epistles of Peter not pointing out Peter’s primacy. The question is flawed if it is Papal or Petrine primacy that the OP wishes to challenge.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Peter’s primacy is embedded deeply in Scripture.

Peter had been a favorite subject in the scriptures. Sometimes he served as a speaker, one time he followed the orders of the other apostles. He was referred to as a ‘pillar’ along with two others. He got a rebuke from Paul. And compared to Paul, Peter’s accomplishments both in spreading the gospel and making new revelations- were minimal. So what do you mean by ‘primacy’? I’d like to see that both in theory and in practice (like i’d like to see how he behaved and what he actually did that makes him more special than paul & the other apostles).

 

[mercygate]

Peter had been a favorite subject in the scriptures. Sometimes he served as a speaker, one time he followed the orders of the other apostles. He was referred to as a ‘pillar’ along with two others. He got a rebuke from Paul. And compared to Paul, Peter’s accomplishments both in spreading the gospel and making new revelations- were minimal. So what do you mean by ‘primacy’? I’d like to see that both in theory and in practice.

You’ve been around to know all the answers. Besides: Petrine primacy per se is not the topic of this thread. The Epistles of Peter are. The answer is that the Epistles of Peter do not address the question (except maybe all that “rock” and “stone” stuff in Ist Peter as kind of a wry connection).

 

[AgnosTheist]

You’ve been around to know all the answers.

honestly i dont. i havent been this serious about the bible since before 9/11/2001. can you freshen my memory?

 

[mercygate]

honestly i dont. i havent been this serious about the bible since before 9/11/2001. can you freshen my memory?

ml1957:

Where do I begin? How can anyone who reads the Bible (Gods inspired word) come up with the Pope? Does the New Testament sound familiar?

We might respond good-naturedly: How can anyone who reads the Bible *not *come up with the Pope? But please note that the word “Pope” comes later. It is an affectionate term for “father” because the Church is a family. Although the word comes later, the central place of Peter among the Apostles is solidly scriptural.

Start here: catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

The relevant Scriptures are Mt. 16:13-19

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 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.”

Luke 21:31-32:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [Greek: you all], that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you [Greek: you singular = Simon] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

John 21:15-19

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

For the authority to pass the Apostolic commission down to successors:

Acts 1:15-26

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and **he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. **

 

[Donald45]

Hi, Sandusky ~

Could you share your thoughts on my Post #23 above? I’d be interested in your response. Thanks.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[sandusky]

Donald45:

Could you share your thoughts on my Post #23 above?

No, Donald, I won’t; forgive me, but I’m not interested in becoming involved in another discussion about the Papacy.

 

[YADA]

Peter had been a favorite subject in the scriptures. Sometimes he served as a speaker, one time he followed the orders of the other apostles. He was referred to as a ‘pillar’ along with two others. He got a rebuke from Paul. And compared to Paul, Peter’s accomplishments both in spreading the gospel and making new revelations- were minimal. So what do you mean by ‘primacy’? I’d like to see that both in theory and in practice (like i’d like to see how he behaved and what he actually did that makes him more special than paul & the other apostles).

Paul never had an encounter with the man Jesus…only the resureected Jesus…Paul wrote may letters, this is true…but Paul did not compose any of the Gospels…

Jesus never commanded any Apostle to write anything…He commanded them to preach the good news of salvation…if Peter and the other Apostles had not already been preaching and spreading the Good News of Jesus…who would Paul have learned it from…what Church [people of God - Christians could Paul have been persecuting?

Peter is credited with raising a dead person to life [by the power of Jesus; lest you believe I am mistaken onwhere the ability came from as as Peter himself testified]…is Paul?

Peter is listed most often in the NT and in lists of the Apostles is almost always listed first…Jesus gave Peter a name change from Simon…calling him [Kephas] Rock - a term that was usually reserved for God not for any man.

The term Pope is a rendition of the word for Father…like Paul who is a spiritual Father - all of the Bishops [the successors of the Apostles] are Fathers…In Isaiah 22 the Prime Minister is known by the peopla as “Abba” [Pater - father - Papa - Pope] the Pope is the servant of the servants of God, a spiritual father to the universal church…

Paul had to travel to JErusalem and meet with Peter and the other elders there to have his missionary orthodoxy approved…

No one challenged Peter’s apostleship as they did Paul’s…

 

[angelusm]

This is a question for our Catholic friends:

Does St. Peter ever imply that he is the head of the Church in any of his epistles? If not, why?

Jesus said to Peter: you are the rock, etc. and after resurrectioon asked Peter to to be the shepperd. Isn’t it enough?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Peter is credited with raising a dead person to life [by the power of Jesus; lest you believe I am mistaken onwhere the ability came from as as Peter himself testified]…is Paul?

yes Paul raised the dead too, according to the stories. a man who fell to his death. And according to jesus all the apostles have the power to raise the dead. Peter wasnt above the rest, with regards to supernatural powers.

Peter is listed most often in the NT and in lists of the Apostles is almost always listed first…Jesus gave Peter a name change from Simon…calling him [Kephas] Rock - a term that was usually reserved for God not for any man.

everything hinges on this interpretation, this ‘theory’. but is this theory reflected in practice? aside from being a speaker in some occassions, peter wasnt really any different from the other apostles. a verse even directly pointed out that Peter is a PILLAR along with other apostles.

Paul was still better accomplished. So much that many historians credit him as the founder of Christianity, not Jesus and certainly not peter. Is there anything that historians credited Peter with?

Paul had to travel to JErusalem and meet with Peter and the other elders there to have his missionary orthodoxy approved…

Paul had already been a missionary and had acquired many followers before Barnabas took him to the apostles. It was jesus who made the approval, not the apostles.

 

[mercygate]

Paul had already been a missionary and had acquired many followers before Barnabas took him to the apostles. It was jesus who made the approval, not the apostles.

Check your time line.

Ananias, already a member of the Church, received a direct communication from the Lord concerning Paul. So Paul’s approval came from Christ THROUGH the Church: not WITHOUT the Church.

Paul had not been a missionary with many followers as you state before Barnabas took him to the Apostles. Paul had preached in Damascus only for “many days” before the synagogues were inflamed with him, and the Christians had to smuggle Paul out a window in a basket in the dead of night.

The Barnabas takes Paul to Jerusalem – to Peter and the others – to introduce Paul and to vouch for him. Then Paul causes more trouble in Jerusalem, so the Church ships him off to Tarsus to take the heat off Jerusalem.

You claim that the Church makes more of Peter than Scirpture warrants, but you are attempting to make much LESS of him and of the role of the Apostles in the growth and development of the early Church.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Ananias, already a member of the Church, received a direct communication from the Lord concerning Paul. So Paul’s approval came from Christ THROUGH the Church: not WITHOUT the Church.

According to the stories, Jesus appeared to Paul before He communicated with Ananias. And listen:

Acts 9:15
But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;

Who approved paul? Jesus or somebody else?

Paul had not been a missionary with many followers as you state before Barnabas took him to the Apostles. Paul had preached in Damascus only for “many days” before the synagogues were inflamed with him, and the Christians had to smuggle Paul out a window in a basket in the dead of night.

the point is, he was pesonally responsible for converting people for jesus before he met any of the ‘pillars’.

You claim that the Church makes more of Peter than Scirpture warrants, but you are attempting to make much LESS of him and of the role of the Apostles in the growth and development of the early Church.

thats what I see in the new testament. much of it is written by paul. and much of the converts were gentiles. and i’m just parroting what many historians say, that Paul is indeed very much responsible for christianity.

 

[mercygate]

According to the stories, Jesus appeared to Paul before He communicated with Ananias. And listen:

Acts 9:15But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;
Who approved paul? Jesus or somebody else?

How did the word get out? Jesus appointed Paul, but it took a divine intervention through Ananias to make that known to the Church. Paul works in the Church and with the Church.

the point is, he was pesonally responsible for converting people for jesus before he met any of the ‘pillars’.

That is a point not evident in my reading of Acts. Paul’s testimony in Damascus results in distrust and confusion.

thats what I see in the new testament. much of it is written by paul. and much of the converts were gentiles. and i’m just parroting what many historians say, that Paul is indeed very much responsible for christianity.

Whatever Paul’s role, and the Church denies nothing of it, in no way diminishes the the rest of the team, nor of the clear Gospel warrant for Petrine primacy. It is not as if we have to choose one over the other.

This was a miraculous juxtaposition and concatenation of persons and events that unfolded under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You don’t have to rob Peter to pay Paul. To recognize the Petrine primacy takes nothing away from the other 10 Apostles – or from Matthias, or Barnabas or any of those who proclaimed the Gospel.