The Epistles of St. Peter and the Papacy

[YADA]

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?

You have determined thjat Paul was better accomplished and you base this on…what? That he wrote extensively? Where sis Jesus say he would build his church upon written words…where does it say that Paul is a “Pillar” of the Church or that the Letters of Paul are the foundation upon which the Church is Built? Where does Jesus command the apostles to write anything?

Jesus told the apostles to ‘preach’ the gospel…to go forth and spread the good news of salvation to all the nations…

Jesus gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose…Jesus laters gives the power to bind and loose to all the apostles but there is no mention of keys - only Peter received the keys.

Also, Peter is commanded to feed the flock [three times]. And Jesus prays especially for Peter telling him that the devil has targeted him…why Peter more than the others?

And I thought Jesus was the founder of Christianity not Paul…The writings of Paul are not called the Gospels…and in the Gospels…is Paul mentioned even once? No, Paul established communities in many places…and had to write continually to them to correct mis-understandings, improper worship and quell bickering…Paul had to write to defend himself…challenges to his apostleship and even some scholars believe his honesty with donations…

Peter is named more often in all of the NT scripures than any other apostle. Peter speaks for the others…Peter is the first to open up the faith to non-jews…not Paul…

 

[AgnosTheist]

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.

Both Paul and Ananias are just tools for Jesus. The point is, it was Jesus who personally converted Paul. And it was Jesus who personally commanded Ananias to take in Paul. So who decided Paul’s membership into the church?

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

i’m sorry, the point i was trying to make appears to be a matter of interpretation. the first translation i checked said ‘his followers’, but the Douay translation merely said ‘the diciples’. Anyway with several days of preaching and with Douay Rheims saying that he increased in strenght, its very likely that he was able to persuade some people.

You don’t have to rob Peter to pay Paul.

But what Rome did was rob Paul & the 11 other apostles to pay Peter.

Its also odd that Peter was the apostle to the Jews and yet none of the Popes were of Jewish origin.

Isnt this a Roman Empire corporate take over of Christianity or what?

 

[AgnosTheist]

You have determined thjat Paul was better accomplished and you base this on…what? That he wrote extensively?

and that he converted people extensively. check this out…

answers.org/paul.html

Where sis Jesus say he would build his church upon written words…where does it say that Paul is a “Pillar” of the Church or that the Letters of Paul are the foundation upon which the Church is Built? Where does Jesus command the apostles to write anything?

actions speak louder than words. the theory that Peter is the foundation is just that, a theory. in reality it was Paul who did 90% of the work. Aside from Jesus’ words it was on Paul’s doctrines that much of christianity is based on, not on any other apostle.

Jesus told the apostles to ‘preach’ the gospel…to go forth and spread the good news of salvation to all the nations…

looks like the apostles slacked off, so jesus went on to find someone more competent to do the job.

Jesus gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose…

nothing but a matter of interpretation. a theory and nothing else.

what did peter really do? what churches did he personally plant? what doctrines have he come up with?

 

[mercygate]

Both Paul and Ananias are just tools for Jesus. The point is, it was Jesus who personally converted Paul. And it was Jesus who personally commanded Ananias to take in Paul. So who decided Paul’s membership into the church?

You maintain a perfectly pointless quibble here. You presented Paul’s conversion as if it were completely separated from the Church.

i’m sorry, the point i was trying to make appears to be a matter of interpretation. the first translation i checked said ‘his followers’, but the Douay translation merely said ‘the diciples’. Anyway with several days of preaching and with Douay Rheims saying that he increased in strenght, its very likely that he was able to persuade some people.

But what Rome did was rob Paul & the 11 other apostles to pay Peter.

This fashionable reading of history completely ignores the providential fact that Roman order enabled the spread of the gospel.

Its also odd that Peter was the apostle to the Jews and yet none of the Popes were of Jewish origin.

Acts 15:7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that** by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe**.

There’s some wiggle room on that one.

Isnt this a Roman Empire corporate take over of Christianity or what?

It’s “or what” – the incredible speed with which Christianity spread throughout the Empire required a lot of support. Eusebius noted that the entire enterprise required the juxtaposition of Hebrew religion, Greek philosophy, and Roman order. There is no need to apologize for the fact that the early Church used all means available to put the message out.

 

[AgnosTheist]

You presented Paul’s conversion as if it were completely separated from the Church.

of course. why are you saying otherwise?

This fashionable reading of history completely ignores the providential fact that Roman order enabled the spread of the gospel.

hey i do agree that the corporate takeover was good for the religion. christians had much to thank the ‘Roman’ Catholics for. But its been a long time already. Its high time to change that monopolistic attitude. Afterall the protestants did come from the Catholic church. yes?

Acts 15:7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that** by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe**.

There’s some wiggle room on that one.

nobody is denying that the apostles did persuade some gentiles. its logical.

 

[YADA]

nothing but a matter of interpretation. a theory and nothing else.

Talk about beating a dead horse…

Who did Jesus ‘give’ the keys to? …

Does the King give Himself keys… [as in Jesus was refering to Himself as the foundation]?..NO

Do you hand keys to inanimate objects [the large rock that Jesus pointed [supposedly] to…so much for sola scriptura and finding things not in the writings]…NO

Do you hand keys to a spoken confession…[how does a spoken response receive a key]?..NO

So Peter is renamed AFTER receiving God inspired truth Jesus declares this a blessing …Isaiah is quoted [prime minister who called father by the people, with keys opening - shutting…etc] the very gates of hell shall not over come…the church built, the church being a building with doors…to open and shut…

But this is just WILD conjecture … no basis in any scripture scholarship, chirstian history and belief …

Jesus is inept…could not choose effective ministers before his death and resurrection…it was only Paul…who probably did not even need the four Gospels that lead off the NT because he received all that he needed when he was knocked off his horse…

and that reference in the ECF to both Peter and Paul in Rome…well the reference to Peter was gratuitous…the fact that the ECF speak of the chair of Peter, where Peter is being the church etc…they really meant Paul…

 

[mercygate]

of course. why are you saying otherwise?

Actually, Jesus says that Saul’s conversion is ALL about His Church. Saul had been persecuting the Church but the Lord says to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” Jesus and His Church are one. Paul receives baptism and his sight when a leader of the Church, Ananias, lays hands on him. Saul is brought to the synagogue and vouched for by Ananias. Paul’s ministry is from Christ THROUGH the Church.

hey i do agree that the corporate takeover was good for the religion. christians had much to thank the ‘Roman’ Catholics for. But its been a long time already. Its high time to change that monopolistic attitude. Afterall the protestants did come from the Catholic church. yes?

Derisive glibness cannot not conceal the lack of substance in this comment. There was no “corporate takeover.” The Church of Jesus Christ cannot change a “monopolistic attitude” that derives from Our Lord’s prayer that we might all be one as He and the Father are one.

Yes, the Protestants did come from the Catholic Church, and it’s high time they gave up their individualistic, idiosyncratic “my Jesus can beat up your Jesus” world view and and came back home where they belong. Door’s open. Light’s on.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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…”

It’s because Peter was humble. Remember when Jesus told them to stop debating who would have the highest rank?

Something some of the popes forgot about along the way… which led to divisions. Authority with humility.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Who did Jesus ‘give’ the keys to? …

its not about who jesus spoke to, but what his words meant and how those words impacted reality. Peter’s latter role, words, actions & accomlishments simply did not fit the catholic explanation for that passage you mentioned.

and the bible isnt perfect. evidences show its not immune to corruption. i would not rely too much on any single passages.

 

[mercygate]

its not about who jesus spoke to, but what his words meant and how those words impacted reality.

and the bible isnt perfect. i would not rely too much on any single passages.

For Catholics, of course, the Bible is inspired and inerrant.

Good advice about taking things in wider context than a single passage will support. Now how about taking your own advice?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Saul had been persecuting the Church but the Lord says to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

Obviously Saul was persecuting the church because he believed that jesus was a false messiah. So its very likely that he did literally persecute jesus, since jesus was still alive.

Jesus and His Church are one. Paul receives baptism and his sight when a leader of the Church, Ananias, lays hands on him. Saul is brought to the synagogue and vouched for by Ananias. Paul’s ministry is from Christ THROUGH the Church.

It was Jesus and not the apostles who decided the church membership of Paul.

The Church of Jesus Christ cannot change a “monopolistic attitude” that derives from Our Lord’s prayer that we might all be one as He and the Father are one.

Are there true christians among the protestants? Many protestants believe that many Catholics are true christians and part of the true church along with them. On the otherhand Pope Benededict whatever re-asserted that the Church is limited to the catholic church, that the Orthodox is a flawed church and the rest are not churches at all. Is that what you call oneness? there is no way that the rest would join with rome now. population explosion, cultural diversity and democratic freedom makes religious sectarianism inevitable. so just loosen up a bit.

 

[byoby]

3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

On the otherhand Pope Benededict whatever re-asserted that the Church is limited to the catholic church, that the Orthodox is a flawed church and the rest are not churches at all. Is that what you call oneness? there is no way that the rest would join with rome now. population explosion, cultural diversity and democratic freedom makes religious sectarianism inevitable. so just loosen up a bit.

Benedict said that protestants are real Christians if they’ve been baptised. His statement was about a formal definition of the term ‘church’. We use the term ‘ecclesiastical communitites’ for protestant denominations instead of church.

 

[YADA]

its not about who jesus spoke to, but what his words meant and how those words impacted reality. Peter’s latter role, words, actions & accomlishments simply did not fit the catholic explanation for that passage you mentioned.

and the bible isnt perfect. evidences show its not immune to corruption. i would not rely too much on any single passages.

I am not relying on any single passage…The Holy Scriptures are inspired and inerrent…

It is your contention that Petr did not live up to “your” accomplishments…Peter is the one who received the vision that became the basis for relaxing the dietary rules for gentile converts…it is Peter who opens the door to gentiles by baptizing the first no jews…It was Peter who stood up initiating the forst church council in Jerusalem…It was Peter who first spoke to the Jews gathered after Pentacost…It is Peter who is predominantly listed first when the apostles are mentioned in , it is Peter who most ofte speaks for the apostles, it is Simon, who is re-named by Jesus to Kaphas a term reserved for God previous to this…

Jesus commanded Peter to feed the flock, to provided for his people…he did not command Peter to write letters or gospels…even the letters of Paul are disputed …were all of the written by Paul or later followers…like the Gospels, most probably were not written by the original apostles but by their disciples…

The NT was primarly written when it became apparent that the coming of Jesus was not going to be soon, in thhe life time of the original followers …that generations could come and go before Jesus’ returned…

So much of Peter’s ministry could have transpired before the need was apparent for writing…

We do know that Paul’s ministry began before Peter traveled to Rome but the martyrdom of both and the time between them is not known…

Perhaps you rely too much on latter day interpretations which deny the early history of the church…because in the writings of the ECF, Paul is not predominate over Peter nor even the other Apostles…

Paul did not found the see of Rome…he wrote to a community already established…

And I say again…Paul’s apostolicity was challenged there is no record of any challenge to Peter’s and when Paul’s was challenged where did he go so that the Christians would know he spoke with auhority and orthodoxy? To the Church in Jerusalem, Peter and the elders…

 

[AgnosTheist]

goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk.

YEAH BABY! Its all about the L O V E! Not some meaningless talk about rocks, sola scriptura, infallibility, primacy, history, whatever.

 

[mercygate]

Obviously Saul was persecuting the church because he believed that jesus was a false messiah. So its very likely that he did literally persecute jesus, since jesus was still alive.

No. There was no “Church” when Jesus was alive. Saul’s persecution arose AFTER Pentecost.

It was Jesus and not the apostles who decided the church membership of Paul.

Yes: it was Jesus who appointed Paul. But the Church baptized him and sent him on mission. He was not a lone-ranger apostle. He did not act outside the fellowship of the Church.

Are there true christians among the protestants? Many protestants believe that many Catholics are true christians and part of the true church along with them.

At risk of being arrogant, the Church founded by Jesus Christ does not look to those separated from full Communion for affirmation.

On the otherhand Pope Benededict whatever re-asserted that the Church is limited to the catholic church, that the Orthodox is a flawed church and the rest are not churches at all. Is that what you call oneness? there is no way that the rest would join with rome now. population explosion, cultural diversity and democratic freedom makes religious sectarianism inevitable. so just loosen up a bit.

We would advise those who reject Christ’s Church to come back home. The Catholic Church is the most culturally diverse organization in the world.

 

[byoby]

No. There was no “Church” when Jesus was alive. Saul’s persecution arose AFTER Pentecost.

Yes: it was Jesus who appointed Paul. But the Church baptized him and sent him on mission. He was not a lone-ranger apostle. He did not act outside the fellowship of the Church.

At risk of being arrogant, the Church founded by Jesus Christ does not look to those separated from full Communion for affirmation. We would advise those who reject Christ’s Church to come back home. The Catholic Church is the most culturally diverse organization in the world.

Your belief in the Catholic Church causes you to be at risk of being arrogant and judgemental. The true measure is not if one rejects the Catholic Church but if one rejects Christ (Christ only knows who are his and it is not by which congregation you belong). I will say in all confidence in Christ that we are home.

 

[Tomster]

Obviously Saul was persecuting the church because he believed that jesus was a false messiah. So its very likely that he did literally persecute jesus, since jesus was still alive.

It was Jesus and not the apostles who decided the church membership of Paul.

Are there true christians among the protestants? Many protestants believe that many Catholics are true christians and part of the true church along with them. On the otherhand Pope Benededict whatever re-asserted that the Church is limited to the catholic church, that the Orthodox is a flawed church and the rest are not churches at all. Is that what you call oneness? there is no way that the rest would join with rome now. population explosion, cultural diversity and democratic freedom makes religious sectarianism inevitable. so just loosen up a bit.

Historical revisionism. Modernity revisited. :yawn:

What Catholics understand by unity is that:

1. all the faithful are united in the profession of the same faith
2. in the use of the same sacraments and sacrifice
3. and are governed by the same visible head.

BTW - check out indcatholicnews.com/irishc436.html

 

[AgnosTheist]

No. There was no “Church” when Jesus was alive. Saul’s persecution arose AFTER Pentecost.

i was just saying that its likely he threw insults at jesus while persecuting the church.

Yes: it was Jesus who appointed Paul. But the Church baptized him and sent him on mission. He was not a lone-ranger apostle. He did not act outside the fellowship of the Church.

of course. the cream of the issue is whether or not any of the apostles (most especially peter) played a role in his conversion.

At risk of being arrogant, the Church founded by Jesus Christ does not look to those separated from full Communion for affirmation.

i’m just saying that they are in a reconcillatory & open-minded attitude towards catholics.

We would advise those who reject Christ’s Church to come back home. The Catholic Church is the most culturally diverse organization in the world.

Its no use. They are sincerely convinced that they have already embraced Christ’s Church. To them what they are rejecting is ‘Romanism’. There is just too many holes in that Apostolic Succession theory.

Also, if there are true christians among protestants, then how can someone be christian and not be a part of Christ’s body?

 

[mercygate]

Your belief in the Catholic Church causes you to be at risk of being arrogant and judgemental. The true measure is not if one rejects the Catholic Church but if one rejects Christ (Christ only knows who are his and it is not by which congregation you belong). I will say in all confidence in Christ that we are home.

Yeah. We Converts are a pain.

I spent 40 years in Protestant circles. Did I know Jesus? Yes – as far as I could know him apart from knowing him on his own terms. Was I in full communion with Him in the fellowship of faith as He intended it? Not hardly.

There really is no way around the centrality of Peter to the unity of the Church and to its authenticity. All the flapping around to squirm out of that key (!) point is just noise.

staying."