The Supremacy of Peter

[Cleopas]

And there lies your untruth yet again.

Friend. It is you who are throwing out the ad hominems (IMO).
Nevertheless, permit to apologize if I have been an offense or otherwise led you to believe I was attempting to be dishonest. I was not. I know that all liars will have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. I want no part therein. I know that to knowingly bare false witness is to violate the command of God. I have no desire to walk anymore in transgression and instead seek holiness and uprightness before God and man.

I asked where in the Bible Jesus called others to feed His sheep. You danced your way around it and provided verses pertaining to feeding the flock in general.

And I answered. I offered verses to substantiate that others were (and as a matter of fact, continue to be) divinely called and gifted to feed the sheep of Christ.

I accept the word of God as the word of Christ. Likewise the inspiration of the Spirit.Therefore it is Christ who said these things, by the Spirit, in the Scripture, and through the church.

Then you accuse me of denying the co-equality and divinity of the Spirit of God with the other members of the Godhead

Now, let’s be clear. I did no such thing. I did not accuse you. I questioned you, and inferred that I thought your position to be antithetical to the doctrines of the nature of the Godhead and of the inspiration of Scripture.

I didn’t mean to actually accuse you of anything. I was simply using a witty means of communication to express my thoughts. I trust you will better be able to see that with this qualification now in hand.

Your interpretation is interesting. But by what authority should I accept it? By rights if it’s the Holy Spirit inspiring you to deny the primacy of Peter, couldn’t I by the same Holy Spirit affirm the same with multiple verses, not a few of which are spoken by Jesus Christ Himself?

Tsk. tsk. It is not I who is inspired, nor you. It is Scripture. And Peter himself, under this inspiration denies any primacy over all the other bishops by clearly stating he is one among the many, part of the whole.

Indeed the East has understood this better than West.

Saying the Pope is merely the first among equals is like saying Saddam Hussein was a democratically elected President instead of a dictator

Lastly the Holy Spirit does guide, but what words has He spoken? If Jesus and the Holy Spirit truly are one and They cannot contradict each other, the Holy Spirit’s saying that Peter is not prime means that they have gainsaid each other. I don’t know about you, but I rather find that unacceptable.

Only when one assumes and reads into the text what isn’t there – that Christ was thereby appointing Peter and all of His specific successors to be the presiding bishop of the church, with primacy overall, the vicar of Christ himself.

Slice it anyway you like. In the end we come back to Peter’s words, which are a death knell to the Roman position regarding the status of the Papal seat.

 

[c659smith]

Not a problem. I suppose I did come in here with a bit of flare. I was hoping to coax out a good friend who I know posts (or at leasts lurks here). He goes by the handle vz71. He recently “encouraged” me to start posting more here at CA.

Likewise, I desire to walk in charity towards you all as well. Words can be passionate, they can be pointed, they can be disagreeable, but they they should be truth – truth spoken in love, and seasoned with grace.

Here are the scriptures, how much more do you need or how can you dispute without taking scripture out of context and we all know that is a no-no

THE primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible:

“And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock ‘Peter’ is Greek for ‘rock’] 1 will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19).

“I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:33).

God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).

The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26).

Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14).

Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15).

Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).

Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).

Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3).

After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).

Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter’s name is always first. Sometimes it’s just "Peter and the twelve. "

Peter’s name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together

 

[natsclem]

I do not believe the inerrant word of God is any less divinely inspired in any part than the other. Thus I take Peter’'s words, recorded as Scripture, to be complementary with the words of Christ. Anything else makes one or both a liar, and makes the word of God to be in error.

It’s all God’s word, and hence what Peter speaks here is simply a further clarification of what Jesus taught.

Not hardly.

Rather, it was after James, the Lord’s brother, spoke that a consensus was reached.

No. It was after much discussions that Peter stood up and decided on the matter. His decision was not questioned by anyone attending. This decision was echoed by James after the report of Paul and Barnabas. James as the head of Jerusalem community, it was fitting for him to give the conclusion of the council.

You are trying to say something in…James, the Lord’s brother. But, I think it should be in another thread: Does Jesus have brothers?

 

[Genesis315]

This is one of those and/both issues that the OP is trying to make an either/or. The Bishop of Rome has the same sacerdotal dignity as all the other bishops and is a member of the College of Bishops. Popes even today often refer to their “brother bishops.” However, he fulfills the office of the head of the college, just as Peter, an Apostle like the rest, fulfilled the role as the head of the Apostles. The head is a part of the whole of course, it is not the whole body.

Another good way to look at it is the parable Christ tells to Peter in Luke 12. He tells of the Master who goes away on a trip and places one servant over the rest to govern the household (in the spirit of service) until he returns. That servant is still a servant like the rest and a member of the household, but he is given the charge by the Master of exercising certain duties in his stead.

 

[JRKH]

I do not believe the inerrant word of God is any less divinely inspired in any part than the other. Thus I take Peter’'s words, recorded as Scripture, to be complementary with the words of Christ. Anything else makes one or both a liar, and makes the word of God to be in error.

It’s all God’s word, and hence what Peter speaks here is simply a further clarification of what Jesus taught.

By what Authority or Reasoning do you accept that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

This is one of those and/both issues that the OP is trying to make an either/or. The Bishop of Rome has the same sacerdotal dignity as all the other bishops and is a member of the College of Bishops. Popes even today often refer to their “brother bishops.” However, he fulfills the office of the head of the college, just as Peter, an Apostle like the rest, fulfilled the role as the head of the Apostles. The head is a part of the whole of course, it is not the whole body.

Another good way to look at it is the parable Christ tells to Peter in Luke 12. He tells of the Master who goes away on a trip and places one servant over the rest to govern the household (in the spirit of service) until he returns. That servant is still a servant like the rest and a member of the household, but he is given the charge by the Master of exercising certain duties in his stead.

Well said

Peace
James

 

[wisdomseeker]

I deny, for a number of reasons, the supremacy of Peter (or the Papal office) over other bishops.

1. Peter declares in his epistle, by his own hand, and under divine inspiration no less, that he was only one among the bishops (sumpresbuteros). See 1 Peter 5:1

Note the use of sumpresbuteros, a variant of presbuteros, implying “part of the whole” or “one among equals.” Peter thus denies any supremacy of his role as a bishop or elder in the church. In fact Peter references the only shepherd of supremacy in the church, whom he calls the Chief Shepherd and Bishop of our souls – our Lord, Jesus Christ.

1. Though following the ascension of Christ Peter evidently served as acting leader of the infant church in Jerusalem, he is later clearly shown operating in another and seemingly less authoritative role when he is sent by the apostles with John to Samaria where Phillipp was seeing numbers converted.
2. Likewise, it is James, Our Lord’s brother, who is shown to rise to any level of primacy (yet likely not supremacy) among the apostles and elders in the NT church throughout the book of Acts. Not Peter.

Your denial is based on your own interpretations of SS. if you go back to the beginning of the Church you will find innumerous references to authority lying in the chair of St Peter. which refers as to us where the True Church is found. “follow the Bishop” and not bishops.

i am sure Jesus knew all about what we could do with His teachings. He made sure His Church would remain here until the end. teaching His Truth to all. there is only one Church with an unbroken succession from the Apostles to this day. it may not look like it to you from the outside but once you are in it, you cannot imagine the joy your discovery will bring.

ML was just a priest with an agenda. he had no authority to interpret SS. that is why, whether you see or not, the confusion that protestantism brought into christianity. many are even turning away from Christ. it has become a mocking to the world.

no one knows who to believe. since SS can be interpreted by anyone according to protestants.

my desire is that you let Our Lord show you where the His Truth lies. Our Lord is truly found if you seek Him in Truth.

:bowdown2: :byzsoc:

“I* should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… *

 

[Mickey]

Hence, Christ called every other bishop as well, not just Peter.

Amen.

 

[Cathdefender]

Some non-Catholics will say anything in order to try and “prove” that Saint Peter, the first “Bishop of Rome” was never in Rome. By doing this they hope to discredit Peter as having the primacy, and thus by so doing they attempt to deny that he was the first Pope, and therefore the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession would fall apart. By denying Apostolic Succession they would then try to show that the Catholic church is not the church which Jesus Christ founded.
Interestingly, if they ever reached that point (which they never could), then it would be impossible for them to fill the void of which church Jesus Christ did found if it were not the Catholic church. So, they have presented a circular argument for themselves, an argument which has no beginning and no end.
It is a futile attempt on their part, as they completely ignore an overwhelming deposit of genuine historical documents, and expect knowledgeable people to do the same.

 

[Cathdefender]

Who has the authority to ordain priests? Only Bishops do. clement was ordained by the Bishop of Rome, Peter.

 

[Cathdefender]

Saint Augustine, “Letter to Generosus”, 53,1,2, 400 A.D., J1418:

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole church, the Lord said: “Upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it”.