The Leader, Peter?

[MrsNoahMoerbeek]

My thanks, for your response.

Please note that I have wanted to observe if there is any support for Peter being declared the leader of the Church - something more substantive than inference.

I am asking that the words of Jesus, not be referenced, in the search.

Not because the words of our Lord are irrelevant: clearly and forcefully, the opposite of that is always true !

I so appreciate the detail of some of the responses that I have received; but, unfortunately, too many either dilute themselves with sarcasm or anger or fail the integrity of my request and cite Jesus, anyway.

Then may I ask why the words of Christ are not enough?

 

[Melchior_1]

M
Apart from bringing forth the words of Jesus, there seems to be no declarative by anyone, at any time, that Peter is the leader, by New Testament reference.

Actually, there has been New Testament reference. That is, there has been references made by those who compiled the New Testament. Peter’s role has the head of the Church was well established in the early years of Christianity, before the Bible was even compiled and distributed to the masses.

Of course therein lies the rub; we have writings establishing Peter as the Pope which were compiled before Scriptural Canon was established. And the same people who established which books would be in the Bible also freely recognized and declared that Peter was the first Pope, the head of the Church. The people who decided Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians were fit for Scripture, yet Clement’s wasn’t.

If these people were able to declare which books were divinely inspired by God then truly they could also declare that Peter was the first Pope, yes?

 

[Curious_Seed]

I don’t know if the OP is doing that or not but it really wouldn’t make a lot of sense if that was their “proof” so to speak for their argument that the Papacy is “non-scriptural.” By that type of reasoning I can tell someone the Trinity is non-scriptural just because the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible. I wouldn’t do that of course because the Trinity is presented in the Bible the same as Peters Authority over the rest of the Apostles.

Although I would also never look at the Scriptures as possessing all there is to know about my Christian faith because to do this would make me a hypocrite since I would be using Church Tradition by subscribing to the Trinity Doctrine in the first place. This is because the Trinity Doctrine is what the Early Church Fathers in The Holy Church defined what the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit represents when presented in the Sacred Scriptures. These Early Church Fathers also called their Church by title (not description) “The Catholic Church” and that this Catholic Church was and is responsible for the compiling of the Canon for the Bible as well as many other things that are necessary for me to believe as a Christian.

By this I realized that if I was to be outside The Catholic Church while believing these doctrines which were the products of The Catholic Church’s Tradition, I was, by my very actions, admitting the authority of The Catholic Church while at the same time denying its authority. To continue this type of living made absolutely no sense to me which is why I call myself Catholic, why I ‘am a Catholic, and why I will be a Catholic until I die. Frankly any Christian that calls themselves such while being outside of The Catholic Church is either a hypocrite or ignorant.

You will be a Catholic, until you die.

Interesting and thank you, for sharing that.

So, you cannot find any declarative of Peter’s leadership?

You’re not alone.

 

[Melchior_1]

You will be a Catholic, until you die.

Interesting and thank you, for sharing that.

So, you cannot find any declarative of Peter’s leadership?

You’re not alone.

As I said before, I found plenty declaratives about Peter’s leadership from the Early Church Fathers. The same Fathers of the Church who safe guarded the faith as the Bible was being put together, who protected and passed down the Faith through oral and written teaching.

They decided what books were inspired, surely they could also declare Peter to be the leader.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I take issue with the statement prior to the question posed. Peter’s appointment to a position of authority is declarative. A short study of political practices of the ancient world reveals how Peter’s appointment is explicit.

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." (Matthew 16:18-19)This is an explicit statement of an appointment to a postion of leadership. Being granted keys to the kingdom was a reference to a common political practice in ancient monarchies, whereby a first or “Prime” minister would be granted authority by the king to manage the kingdom on a day to day basis, to perform the administrative and managerial functions required to fulfill the king’s commands. Often times the prime mininster would be given the literal “Keys to the kingdom” which were the keys which opened the king’s treasure room, allowing the prime minister to pay soldiers and workmen. Rabbinic authority to interperet the mosaic law and to “Bind” and “Loose” people under the law was also granted to Peter by Jesus.

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:20)

Jesus strictly orders his disciples to tell no one that he is the Messiah right after his promise to grant Peter a leadership position. The Roman authorities would have immediately understood Jesus’ words about the keys to the kingdom in light of their political significance, namely the establishment of a political and military kingdom. Jesus and his disciples would have been arrested and executed for treason and this is why Jesus stricly orders that the episode not be mentioned.

The entire subject is forshadowed in the Old Testament story of Joseph and Pharoah.

"Could we find another like him," Pharaoh asked his officials, "a man so endowed with the spirit of God?" So Pharaoh said to Joseph: “Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith,” Pharaoh told Joseph, “I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph’s finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted “Abrek!” before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. “I, Pharaoh, proclaim,” he told Joseph, “that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.” (Genesis 38:41-44)Pharaoh appointed Joseph to be prime minister of the land of Egypt which later enslaved God’s chosen people. Likewise, Peter was appointed to the office of prime minister over all the world which enslaves us in sin.

Pharaoh: I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.
Jesus: I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Pharoah: Without your approval no one shall move a hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.
Jesus: Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Peter is the new Joseph. The appointment to a position of pimacy and leadership with Jesus as its operating authority is declared explicitly.

There is really no need for other declarative statements but support for Peter’s primacy can be found in the many ways in which Peter spoke authoritatively, especially in the Book of Acts.

-Tim-

May I draw your attention to the first five words of my second statement.

You’re not alone, in answering what is not being asked.

Thank you, for what you might be able to contribute to what I am actually searching.

 

[Curious_Seed]

As I said before, I found plenty declaratives about Peter’s leadership from the Early Church Fathers. The same Fathers of the Church who safe guarded the faith as the Bible was being put together, who protected and passed down the Faith through oral and written teaching.

They decided what books were inspired, surely they could also declare Peter to be the leader.

You found what is not being sought, by the question.

The insights of the Early Church Fathers are a treasure, to be sure.

But, my request is reference to the New Testament.

You are not alone answering what is not being asked.

Thank you, for such a detailed reply, however.

 

[Melchior_1]

May I draw your attention to the first five words of my second statement.

You’re not alone, in answering what is not being asked.

Thank you, for what you might be able to contribute to what I am actually searching.

I think the man question people have is if Jesus made declaration of Peter being the Rock, why the consistent nitpicking over declaratives from others?

I look forward to your response from my previous two posts.

 

[Melchior_1]

You found what is not being sought, by the question.

The insights of the Early Church Fathers are a treasure, to be sure.

But, my request is reference to the New Testament.

You are not alone answering what is not being asked.

Thank you, for such a detailed reply, however.

Your reference is to the New Testament. I am referring to those who safeguarded, compiled, and interpreted the New Testament. In this sense, I am providing exactly what you have asked. You wanted proof within the New Testament, I am provided proof from those who put the New Testament together.

Without looking at the larger framework you’re not being very intellectually honest.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Then may I ask why the words of Christ are not enough?

It is not that the words of Christ are not enough.

The words of our Lord are always more than enough.

The curiosity of the question lay in the search for declarations or proclamations **by others **who held Peter, as their leader.

This is not a quest of whether Peter is the chosen leader; it is a quest of declarative support for him, as such.

No one has put any forward, as yet.

This leads me to think - apart from Christ - the evidence in support of Peter as leader is by inference only, according to the Scriptures.

Sad, how vitriole some of the respondents have been.

Thank you, for your interest.

 

[Melchior_1]

It is not that the words of Christ are not enough.

The words of our Lord are always more than enough.

The curiosity of the question lay in the search for declarations or proclamations **by others **who held Peter, as their leader.

This is not a quest of whether Peter is the chosen leader; it is a quest of declarative support for him, as such.

No one has put any forward, as yet.

This leads me to think - apart from Christ - the evidence in support of Peter as leader is by inference only, according to the Scriptures.

Sad, how vitriole some of the respondents have been.

Thank you, for your interest.

Matthew made a declarative statement by writing down what Christ said, which you must admit was fairly declarative. Thus we can conclude that Matthew made a declarative statement, otherwise he would not have wrote what he did.

In addition, not everything Christ and his Apostles said or did was written (the beloved disciple said this himself).

 

[TimothyH]

May I draw your attention to the first five words of my second statement.

You’re not alone, in answering what is not being asked.

Thank you, for what you might be able to contribute to what I am actually searching.

You may be asking for someone to produce a giraffe out of their back pocket and using their inabilty to do so as proof that giraffes don’t exist.

We can’t have a reasonable discussion with someone who demands anecdotal or “Residual” evidence for something while ignoring direct evidence from authoritative sources. It’s like arguing with someone who jumps out of an airplane and insists that gravity is not real unless we present him evidence for it in a book.

What you see as vitriol might just be frustration on our part.

A curious seed indeed. I’ll shake the dust off my feet here…

-Tim-

 

[Heliotropium]

You may be asking for someone to produce a giraffe out of their back pocket and using their inabilty to do so as proof that giraffes don’t exist.

We can’t have a reasonable discussion with someone who demands anecdotal or “Residual” evidence for something while ignoring direct evidence from authoritative sources. It’s like arguing with someone who jumps out of an airplane and insists that gravity is not real unless we present him evidence for it in a book.

What you see as vitriol might just be frustration on our part.

A curious seed indeed. I’ll shake the dust off my feet here…

-Tim-

Amen Tim

 

[Curious_Seed]

Your reference is to the New Testament. I am referring to those who safeguarded, compiled, and interpreted the New Testament. In this sense, I am providing exactly what you have asked. You wanted proof within the New Testament, I am provided proof from those who put the New Testament together.

Without looking at the larger framework you’re not being very intellectually honest.

I am happy you value intellectual honesty, as so do I.

My request is reference to the New Testament, as compiled by the Early Fathers, not their commentary on it.

Another time, the question, within a larger framework, would be interesting to explore: but, that’s another time.

This time I’m interested in replies, supported by the Scriptures.

So far, the replies - aside from the words of Christ - are pointing only inference re leadership of Peter.

 

[Melchior_1]

I am happy you value intellectual honesty, as so do I.

My request is reference to the New Testament, as compiled by the Early Fathers, not their commentary on it.

Another time, the question, within a larger framework, would be interesting to explore: but, that’s another time.

This time I’m interested in replies, supported by the Scriptures.

So far, the replies - aside from the words of Christ - are pointing only inference re leadership of Peter.

As I mentioned earlier, Matthew wrote down the words of Christ. Which means Matthew declared that Peter was the leader of the Church.

 

[Heliotropium]

I am happy you value intellectual honesty, as so do I.

My request is reference to the New Testament, as compiled by the Early Fathers, not their commentary on it.

Another time, the question, within a larger framework, would be interesting to explore: but, that’s another time.

This time I’m interested in replies, supported by the Scriptures.

So far, the replies - aside from the words of Christ - are pointing only inference re leadership of Peter.

What would be a valid example in “your eyes” of a declarative statement? What requirments of yours must the scriptures meet? Does your example of a declarative statement take into consideraton the writting styles of the Apostles, and the time and point in history when the scriptures were written?

You are the OP and you are asking for a declarative statments which means you should be able to provide us with some example of how such a statment should look in relation to the scriptures.

 

[MrsNoahMoerbeek]

It is not that the words of Christ are not enough.

The words of our Lord are always more than enough.

The curiosity of the question lay in the search for declarations or proclamations **by others **who held Peter, as their leader.

This is not a quest of whether Peter is the chosen leader; it is a quest of declarative support for him, as such.

No one has put any forward, as yet.

This leads me to think - apart from Christ - the evidence in support of Peter as leader is by inference only, according to the Scriptures.

Sad, how vitriole some of the respondents have been.

Thank you, for your interest.

If His words are enough, why does it matter what others thought? I believe Church Fathers have been quoted, what is the obsession with the Epistles having to say it flat out? If Christ said it, the early Church taught/believed it, why do you keep emphasizing that it’s not directly in the Epistles? What is the point of the question, or rather, what does the answer prove? That is, I think, what is frustrating people here.

 

[Heliotropium]

If His words are enough, why does it matter what others thought? I believe Church Fathers have been quoted, what is the obsession with the Epistles having to say it flat out? If Christ said it, the early Church taught/believed it, why do you keep emphasizing that it’s not directly in the Epistles? What is the point of the question, or rather, what does the answer prove? That is, I think, what is frustrating people here.

The reason why Curious Seed is not finding declarative statements to his/her liking in the scriptures is not because there are none but because Curious Seed is not taking into account the importance of the style of writing or in the manner in which people addressed others of authority back in those days. Name placement was huge back then (and is even today) and when you wrote someone’s name First or spoke it first it was because you were making a declarative statement regarding that person’s position, rank, authority, and leadership. Likewise whenever the Gospel and Epistle writers use Peters name before the other Apostles, or even better when the writers quoted the Our Lord, Angels, Apostles, or disciples as saying things like “Peter and the others”, or “Peter and the eleven”, or “the brothers of the Lord and Cephas (Peter)” it is because back then this was exactly the method you would use in your writing or speech to make a declarative statement regarding that persons authority, position, rank, or etc.

This makes logical sense to because as long as you state Peters name you in doing so have included the rest of the Apostles because they go where Peter goes. This is the same way in which it would be conveyed today. If something happened in the Church like a council was called it would read in the press “Benedict XVI and the bishops convened at the Vatican today…” It would read this way because we know Benedict to be the leader of the Church and it is only his name that would be important to list because of this. The heading “Benedict XVI and the bishops” would be taken as a declarative statement by the media that Benedict is seen as the leader in the Catholic Church and no one would question that.

Yet for some reason some people can’t grasp this: shrug:

 

[wisdomseeker]

It is not that the words of Christ are not enough.

The words of our Lord are always more than enough.

The curiosity of the question lay in the search for declarations or proclamations **by others **who held Peter, as their leader.

This is not a quest of whether Peter is the chosen leader; it is a quest of declarative support for him, as such.

No one has put any forward, as yet.

This leads me to think - apart from Christ - the evidence in support of Peter as leader is by inference only, according to the Scriptures.

Sad, how vitriole some of the respondents have been.

Thank you, for your interest.

If you dont mind me asking, why do you seek to know this? For us Catholics is very clear that from Scriptures St Peter is the Leader of the Church. That is why we still have to this day one Leader to the House of God. For those who dont want to see, it is impossible for us to explain to others how this is true. Again, why do you want to know?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

So, apart from the words of Jesus, **there is only inference **that Peter is to be the leader of the faithful, according to Holy Scripture.

I said before that the fifth point I raised is declarative. But other than that, we probably agree.

 

[pablope]

There is inference that Peter is the leader, arguably.

I wanted to know, apart from Christ, if there were any declaratives, as well.

The conclusion seems to be no.

In the Gospel of John 1: 42:

42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Jesus had already precluded that Simon’s name will be changed to Rock-Peter or Cephas. I will refer to the significance of the name change in another post.

In Mark 16:

5Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed.

6And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the (H)Nazarene, who has been crucified He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.

7"But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’"

Pay special attention to v 7: “…tell His disciples and Peter”. Note who is stating these words? An angel appearing as a young man and note that the angel mentions only Peter by name. And note the name, not Simon but “Peter.” What does this means? It means that Heaven has approved the role of Peter, the confirmation from Heaven about the name change of Peter, his role ordained by Christ to build and be the foundation of Christ’s church. And so the angel calls him by his new name of Peter/Cephas/Rock. There is your Heavenly confirmation.

Note also that St Paul, who had a direct revelation from Christ, calls Peter “Peter/Cephas” and not Simon.