Was Peter truly the first Pope?

[seeker7]

@Augustine3 That is one possible interpretation, but a name change could alternatively be understood as a signifier of new insight into the promise of Christ. All should agree that if a new name points to the person, then it is a divinely-ordained office being conferred. But if the name change is based on a new-found understanding the person has come to, it would not be office but principle.

 

[seeker7]

@Augustine3 The question then is about how to understand John 20:21-23 if the name change (“Peter”) in Matthew 16 signifies an office being conferred.

 

[Augustine3]

Where is your evidence for such a hypothesis?

@Augustine3 That is one possible interpretation, but a name change could alternatively be understood as a signifier of new insight into the promise of Christ. All should agree that if a new name points to the person, then it is a divinely-ordained office being conferred. But if the name change is based on a new-found understanding the person has come to, it would not be office but principle.

 

[Augustine3]

@Augustine3 The question then is about how to understand John 20:21-23 if the name change (“Peter”) in Matthew 16 signifies an office being conferred.

I was only interested in answering the first post for new readers. I don’t have time to enter into deep discussions
Sorry

 

[hope]

There is no contradiction. John 20 was giving the authority to forgive sins. In Matthew the giving of the keys are giving authority over the entire Church. The Power of the Keys

 

[steve-b]

Hello everyone,
Please evaluate the statement below and share your thoughts.

The fifth point will be the most obvious level of division,

“5. These keys are given to the Church (Matthew 18:15-21), through the apostles (John 20:21-23) based upon the apostolic teaching that Jesus is the Christ (Matthew 16:15-20).”

Keys aren’t mentioned in

1. Mt 18:15-21
2. Jn 20:21-23

Keys are only mentioned in

1. Mt 16:15-20. Jesus switches from “you” plural to you singular. He is talking NOW to Peter alone singularly.

seeker7:

while 1 is obvious.

1. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

The Church has been Catholic from the 1st century. The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

So one can ask, where does kata holos ekklesia appear in scripture?

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
ἐκκλησία = http://bibleapps.com/greek/1577.htm ,
καθ’ = http://bibleapps.com/greek/2596.htm ,
ὅλης = http://bibleapps.com/greek/3650.htm ,
τῆς = http://bibleapps.com/greek/3588.htm , Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. He was ordained by the apostles, and was a direct disciple of St John. In Antioch the disciples were first called Christian Acts 11:26 Acts 11:26 RSVCE - and when he had found him, he brought - Bible Gateway . And Ignatius in his writings uses both “Christian” and “Catholic Church”.

St Ignatius, uses Christian in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8)
Epistle to the Smyrnæans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3) . http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm As an aside, where would Ignatius learn to teach that warning and corresponding consequence for one’s soul, for committing and remaining in the sin of schism / division from the Catholic Church? Paul condemned division / dissension / schism from the Church Romans 16:17-20 Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16 , Galatians 5:19-21 Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16 and that came from Jesus who does NOT approve of division in His Church John 17:20-23 Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17 , and since the HS only teaches what comes from Jesus John 16:12-15 Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16 no one can say the HS inspired THEM to divide, or inspired all the divisions we see today in Christianity

seeker7:

But what would be said of 2-4?

1. The Church is all those who profess the true faith…
2. Those who continue in Christ’s word are his disciples (John 8:31).
3. This authority of the Church is grounded in the authority divinely granted through the keys of the kingdom, …

See #1 & 5

 

[Cathoholic]

Seeker7:

Hello everyone,

This thread was an interest to me as I’ve been thinking on this question and how to address it. I’m new to the forum. Please evaluate the statement below and share your thoughts. The fifth point will be the most obvious level of division, while 1 is obvious. But what would be said of 2-4?

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
The Church is constituted of all those who profess the true faith and their children.
Those who continue in Christ’s word are his disciples (John 8:31).
This authority of the Church is grounded in the authority divinely granted through the keys of the kingdom, which give power to include the repentant and to exclude the unrepentant.
These keys are given to the Church (Matthew 18:15-21), through the apostles (John 20:21-23) based upon the apostolic teaching that Jesus is the Christ (Matthew 16:15-20).

OK.

But why not take this (what you’ve been erroneously taught) . . . .

This authority of the Church is grounded in the authority divinely granted through the keys of the kingdom, which give power to include the repentant and to exclude the unrepentant.

.

. . . .And rather affirm this . . . . .

.

MATTHEW 16:19 19 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.”

 

[Cathoholic]

Seeker7:

Hello everyone,

This thread was an interest to me as I’ve been thinking on this question and how to address it. I’m new to the forum. Please evaluate the statement below and share your thoughts. The fifth point will be the most obvious level of division, while 1 is obvious. But what would be said of 2-4?

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
The Church is constituted of all those who profess the true faith and their children.
Those who continue in Christ’s word are his disciples (John 8:31).
This authority of the Church is grounded in the authority divinely granted through the keys of the kingdom, which give power to include the repentant and to exclude the unrepentant.
These keys are given to the Church (Matthew 18:15-21), through the apostles (John 20:21-23) based upon the apostolic teaching that Jesus is the Christ (Matthew 16:15-20).

OK.

But why not take this (what you’ve been erroneously taught) . . . .

This authority of the Church is grounded in the authority divinely granted through the keys of the kingdom, which give power to include the repentant and to exclude the unrepentant.

.

. . . .And rather affirm this . . . . .

.

MATTHEW 16:19 19 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.”

.

Apologies about the repeat post that I don’t know how to discard.

 

[DeepDeepTrouble3]

And what are the alternatives? Do you take it from “the pastor?” Or what about the other Pastor in another city who has a different opinion?

 

[Gorgias]

In addition, Peter was never seen as the first leader of the New Testament Church.

He wasn’t? Guess that’s why he was the one to preach at Pentecost. Guess that’s why, at the council of Jerusalem, all debate ceased when he was the one to speak.

 

[Cathoholic]

Seeker7:

These keys are given to the Church (Matthew 18:15-21), through the apostles (John 20:21-23) based upon the apostolic teaching that Jesus is the Christ (Matthew 16:15-20).

.
Actually the Keys of the Kingdom are given exclusively to St. Peter and his office.

Yes there is a sense that “the Keys” are administered to the Bishops as a whole in one sense (as Pope Leo the great brought out in the 400’s A. D. if I recall correctly), but the Keys are administered only explicitly to St. Peter (which Pope St. Leo the Great ALSO brings out. If you are interested, I can dig up the quote for you.).

After all when a Pope dies or abdicates, it is some of the Bishops, united to the Holy Spirit who passes them on to the person by virtue of those keys being in the office of the Bishop of Rome.

But the Keys of the Kingdom are given exclusively to St. Peter and his office.
.

Salient passage with parenthetical addition mine.

.

MATTHEW 16:19a 19 I will give you (“Rock” or “Cephas” or “Petros”) the keys of the kingdom of heaven,

In John 20:20-23, that is where Jesus gives the Apostles binding and loosing power in the context of the Sacrament of Confession.

(After all, HOW could the Apostles bind and loose specific sins . . . unless . . . unless they KNEW what sins were committed, repented of, etc.?? They couldn’t KNOW the sins of the people To bind or loose UNLESS those sins were known to the Bishop/Priest.
And these sins could not be known by the Priest, unless it was Confessed to him).

But no Keys are given in John 20 (or anywhere else). Only Matthew 16.

 

[seeker7]

Thank you for your reply, Cathoholic. I’m not clear on the difference between the two statements. Can you help me understand your meaning?

Also, your last post distinguishes between keys of the kingdom given to Peter and power given to the apostles. How do we know these are different when Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 use the same language to describe the power of the keys?

@DeepDeepTrouble3 I was speaking of how Matthew 16:15-20 might be interpreted and how we come to decide which interpretation fits. If we take it as office, I’m asking what is the implication for John 20:21-23.

On your more immediate point though, Acts 15 is the standard. Authority/magisterium is based on insight. Whatever fails to honor the insight of the Apostles in Acts 15 will not be consistent with the Holy Spirit’s leading into all truth.

 

[Cathoholic]

How do we know these are different when Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 use the same language to describe the power of the keys?

But they don’t use the same language seeker7.

They use SOME of the same language.

But only Matthew 16 uses the language of “the keys” in addition to the power of binding and loosing.

Mary in John 11 uses some of the same language as the Jesus-Peter exchange at Caesarea Philippi too.

But NOBODY thinks Mary is given the same gifts as Peter or the other Apostles.

JOHN 11:21-27 21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 And even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life;[d] he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.”

Nobody gets a name change in Matthew 18.

Historically, ALL the Apostles being key holders is a novelty.

This invention of ALL the Apostles receiving the Keys (in this context) would contradict Apostolic Tradition.

It ignores the Old Testament prefigurements to receiving the Key in Isaiah 22 (there was only ONE Steward [Shebna who was replaced by Eliakim] of the King [Hezakiah] back then) that Jesus (who is the new David) is almost certainly drawing upon here and FULFILLING.

And the context in Matthew 16 fits.

Blessed are YOU Simon bar Jona.
Flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU but my Father.
YOU are ROCK. And on this ROCK I will build My Church.
I give YOU the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Whatever YOU bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.
Whatever YOU loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.

The last two ARE given to all the Apostles (who are Bishops too) of course in Matthew 18 eventually.

But the other Bishops NEED to be united to St. Peter.

And if you play out what an inter-bishop squabble would look like and the only way such a squabble can possibly be resolved, you will be able to see that.

The Keys are ONLY given in Matthew 16.
The Keys are ONLY given to St. Peter.

 

[Cathoholic]

Seeker7:

These keys are given to the Church (Matthew 18:15-21), through the apostles . . . .

.

I Then pointed out, that is NOT what is taught in Matthew 16.

.

Then . . .

.

Seeker7:

I’m not clear on the difference between the two statements.

OK.

Here is the difference.

.

MATTHEW 16:19a 19 I will give YOU (“Rock” or “Cephas” or “Petros” SINGULAR) the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .

.

NOT MATTHEW 16:19a (but a phantom verse) I will give the Church through ALL you apostles (PLURAL), (even the non-Peter Apostles who didn’t get it when I asked “but who do YOU say that I AM?”), the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

deondre:

.

. . . Jesus was referring to the rock of Peter’s testimony which said, “You are the Christ the Son of the Living God.” . . .

.
Your preacher is right when he asserts this deondre.

The CCC teaches this.

Some of the Fathers as well.

But he is wrong if and when he says . . .

.

. . . Jesus was referring ONLY to the rock of Peter’s testimony which said, “You are the Christ the Son of the Living God.” . . .

 

[PJM]

No he’s not, but I can’t supply the details until later tomorrow.

Hang in there and I’ll prove the Catholic Position for you with evidence.

God Bless you,
Patrick [PJM]

 

[Cathoholic]

deondre:

.

(My preacher said) . . . .
. . . Jesus was referring to the rock of Peter’s testimony which said, “You are the Christ the Son of the Living God.” . . .

.

I pointed out that your preacher is right when he asserts this deondre.

But I also pointed out that your preacher is WRONG if he denies Simon’s name being changed to Peter (Rock).

.

I THINK (??) PJM is referring to my post when PJM said . . .

.

No he’s not, but I can’t supply the details until later tomorrow.
Hang in there and I’ll prove the Catholic Position for you with evidence.

.

I think PJM is referring to what I said concerning your preacher (at least PART of what I said).

I’ve seen PJM’s posts.

They are great.

But I think PJM thinks that I am denying Simon’s name change—I am not doing that.

If your preacher tells you that Christ built His Church on the Rock of faith CONFESSED by Peter and if you attempt to say that is WRONG . . . .

. . . .Your preacher will hang you out to dry!

Why?

Because the Catholic Church teaches this.

It teaches a whole lot MORE too (and that is what I think PJM is wanting to give to you and I agree with that too).

Check out CCC 424.

.

CCC 424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: You are the Christ, the son of the living God.
On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

.

If you deny this, your preacher will trot out CCC 424 and tell you “EVEN the Catholic Church sees this.”

He will discredit you. All the worse if there are others around (because now they will have been fed a partial truth too).

Some of the Fathers said exactly the same thing and if you want I can dig those quotes up.

Your preacher will almost certainly IGNORE what ELSE the Church teaches though . . . .

.

CCC 881 The Lord made Simon ALONE,
whom he named Peter, the rock of his Church.
He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.
The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

.

But don’t set yourself up in an either-or position (it’s EITHER the rock of Peter’s “confession” vrs. an actual name change for Simon) when . . . .

. . . . when you can safely affirm a yes-and stance (it’s BOTH the rock of Peter’s “confession” AND an actual name change for Simon) and affirm ALL of the Church’s teachings on this.

(And at the same time NOT get clobbered by Protestant Ministers using such quotes to attack your position).

1/2

 

[Cathoholic]

2/2

But don’t set yourself up in an either-or position (it’s EITHER the rock of Peter’s “confession” vrs. an actual name change for Simon) when . . . .

. . . . when you can safely affirm a yes-and stance (it’s BOTH the rock of Peter’s “confession” AND an actual name change for Simon) and affirm ALL of the Church’s teachings on this.

(And at the same time NOT get clobbered by Protestant Ministers using such quotes to attack your position).

.

I just reviewed our Men’s Bible Group study on this issue. We have 67 pages concerning this subject.

After PJM posts (which I am sure will be excellent), I will post some more items.

When dialoguing with a minister it is important to have a wide range of information because they MAY selectively quote some items and selectively IGNORE other IMPORTANT items.

I suspect you MAY be being set up here and I want to save you from this humiliation (AND I want to help get you DEEPER into the Catholic truths in this area too–all at the same time.)

I’ll hang around and be watching this thread for awhile.

 

[PJM]

REPLY

Allow my friend to prove your Pastor wrong, due to what he was taught and accepted but failed to think through, or investigate for himself.

I will provide three evidences that you can print out and share &you can share it with him if you’re so inclined.

[1] First Evidence is the Bible

Mt 10: 1-4 and then 5-8 with separate commentary

[1] And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. [2] And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, ….

POINTS FOR REFLECTION
1 Jesus shares some of His Godly Powers with His Apostles

2 Matthew the Tax Collector was trained to RECORD records; hence his Gospel is one of great significance; as he was the most educated of the original 12 Apostles. That FACT that Matthew points out that Peter is first is by intent; a critical fact. Even early-on Peter was recognized as their Leader. Peter was in fact the Leader of James & John in their fishing business.

[5] These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: GO YE not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter YE not. [6] But go YE rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [7] And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. [8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils.”

1 Jesus commands His Apostles, precisely, directly and EXCLUSIVELY
2 The command HERE is to go ONLY to the Jews

Matthew 16:15-19
[15] Jesus saith to them: But whom do YOU say that I am? [16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17]And Jesus answering, SAID TO HIM: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18]And I say to THEE: That thou art Peter; and upon[YOU] this rock I will build MY CHURCH [singular], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] AND I WILL GIVE TO THEE [all of them implied here]] THE KEYS TO THE GATE OF HEAVEN. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

1 The “rock” issue is just a dodge, a smoke screen, an effort to redirect the focus away from the BODY of the text and its direct; precise & exclusive choice of Peter to head this New Church with its new soul saving teachings.

2 Taken as a whole there is no room for discussion of what Jesus/GOD desires to, and does here accomplish. Again: Direct; Precise and EXCLUSIVE

But let’s also explain the error of your pastor’s argument using STRONGS Hebrew & Greek Bible Concordance

continued on next post

 

[PJM]

Continued

[2] Here is the second Evidence

Strong’s Greek Lexicon Search Results
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

---

Result of search for “Peter”:
2786. Kephas kay-fas’ of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:–Cephas.

---

1. Petros pet’-ros apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Compare 2786

Result of search for “Cephas”:
2786. Kephas kay-fas’ of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:–Cephas.

www.agapebiblestudy.com: “Cephas” is the Greek transliteration of Peter’s Aramaic name “Rock” = Kepha, or perhaps in Galilean Aramaic “Qepha”. Only John among the Gospels gives this form of Peter’s name but it is also the preferred name that St. Paul uses when he writes about Peter.”

From a friend and fellow Catechist: “That was a great reply! Now, she’ll be armed against protestant claims that “petra” and “petros” are different words. They were in Attic Greek, centuries before Christ, but in Koine Greek, they were the same word with feminine/masculine endings. And, of course, protestant skeptics overlook the evidence of Peter’s title in Aramaic altogether! “ …. And Jesus spoke in Aramaic.
But there is still more bible evidence

John 21:13-17
[13] And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish in like manner. [14] This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead.[15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. HE SAID TO HIM: Feed my lambs. [16] HE SAID TO HIM AGAIN: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. HE SAID TO HIM Feed my lambs. [17] HE SAID TO HIM the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And HE SAID TO HIM Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. HE SAID TO HIM He said to him: Feed my sheep

And here is a site that provides evidence of 50 Peter FIRST in the bible. No other Apostle not even Paul even comes close to this astounding evidence

Peter, the Primacy and the Bible 50 proofs « working4christ2 BTW, I’m working4christtwo

Continued on next POST