Why do Protestants Avoid St. Peter So Much?

[Nevim]

CCC 751 **The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose. Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people. By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.” **

CHURCH
The word church is not in the original Bible. The word church comes from the old English and Germanic word kirke, (pronounced “keer - kay”), and which itself came from the Babylonian for the goddess Circe (pronounced “seer-say”). This is the word from which we get circle, circumference, circumstance, circumvent, etc. The goddess Circe was thought to be connected with the power of the sun, which is round, and thus the connection to Circe, a circle. In anglo-saxon history, the pagans worshipped the sun standing in a kirke, a circle. These pagan worshippers became known as the circle, or the kirke, then ultimately the church. Yes, pagans were called the church before Christians were called the church. Therefore, church means, at the least, a pagan circle for worship, and at the worst, the worship of the goddess Circe, or the worship of the sun.

 

[Integritus]

CHURCH
The word church is not in the original Bible. The word church comes from the old English and Germanic word kirke, (pronounced “keer - kay”), and which itself came from the Babylonian for the goddess Circe (pronounced “seer-say”). This is the word from which we get circle, circumference, circumstance, circumvent, etc. The goddess Circe was thought to be connected with the power of the sun, which is round, and thus the connection to Circe, a circle. In anglo-saxon history, the pagans worshipped the sun standing in a kirke, a circle. These pagan worshippers became known as the circle, or the kirke, then ultimately the church. Yes, pagans were called the church before Christians were called the church. Therefore, church means, at the least, a pagan circle for worship, and at the worst, the worship of the goddess Circe, or the worship of the sun.

Ahhh… but we in Our Church, worship the One True God.

Besides, are you even aware that there are several pagan myths that are based on a son of God, born of a Virgin, long before Christ came into the world? Or how about the ancient Peruvian Tia Incas who believed in a bearded man-god, divine son of the Creator Spirit, Vira-Cocha, who did miracles and preached about a cross and goodwill, and who believed that the Creator Spirit created men in his likeness? I guess that means ALL of us are pagans, including you?

I think it was CS Lewis who said something like, these pagan myths for the indigenous were like “strange dreams of the truth that was yet to come”.

Oh yea, and make sure you read my previous comment.

 

[glimmer]

From listening to Protestants on the radio I find that they seem to preach about the writings of St. Paul and avoid mentioning St. Peter.

The main Bacillica in Rome is named St. Peter’s. Our first Pope was St. Peter. It was St. Peter that in Matt Ch16, v18 - 20 that Jesus said to Peter,“Peter, you are the Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church”.

Why is it that Protestants seem to welcome Paul but not Peter?

Are you kidding? I did not know that…but maybe it’s the sola scriptura crowd that focuses on Paul. He focuses a lot on the meanings of writings himself (out of the OT). Besides that, he also wrote more stuff than Peter.

 

[glimmer]

St. Paul was not an eyewittness to Jesus words nor acts; so Paul learned about Jesus FROM PETER.
.

Paul learned about Jesus from Jesus (Acts 9:5). Paul didn’t even consult with flesh and blood, but went into Arabia (Gal. 1:17) before meeting up with Peter three years later (Gal. 1:18). I really kind of think he knew a bit about Jesus since he had so much experience persecuting Christians and later had to mull it over after that road to Damascus experience. Who knows what he and Peter talked about later, but Paul obviously taught Peter a lot, too (2 Peter 3:15-16).

 

[happy34]

well i dont know how 2 specifically repley 2 some1 but i am replying 2 someone who said "many protestants feel if its not in the Bible its not worth mentioning… wel Im not Protestant but the Bible is the HOLY WORD OF GOD anything else is what other people wrote. I dont trust anything aid or written unless people have Bible verses 2 back it up

 

[lak611]

I’m not nearly so concerned about Peter vs. Paul-- both were followers of Christ and their writings are inspired by God and they are there to enlighten us about Jesus and His teachings.

:yup: :clapping: I agree. And although Catholics and Protestants might disagree on lots of things, what belongs in the New Testament is happily something we can all agree upon!

 

[Tom]

well i dont know how 2 specifically repley 2 some1 but i am replying 2 someone who said "many protestants feel if its not in the Bible its not worth mentioning… wel Im not Protestant but the Bible is the HOLY WORD OF GOD anything else is what other people wrote. I dont trust anything aid or written unless people have Bible verses 2 back it up

Wecome to the forum happy. The way to quote someone is to click on the “quote” button at the bottom of a post. A window will open with the post you’re quoting. You simply type your reply and when you’re done hit the “submit reply” button.
The Bible is only a part of Scripture, there is also the oral Tradition which has been passed down for the last 2,000 years, which by the way the Bible specifically says we need to heed. The fact is, the Bible was part of the oral Tradition of the Catholic Church for the first few centuries. Parts of the New Testament were in written form during the first century, other parts were orally handed down. If you were a Christian of the second century a.d. you would have had no “New Testament” as we know it today. Yes, the Bible is the Holy Word of God. Yes it is inerrant. Since it is inerrant the part that says not all is written here also applies. Not all of the revelation of God is in the Bible, most of it is passed on thru His Catholic Church.

 

[Giovanni]

I really have paid little attention to Peter being avoided by protestants, not sure that really happens.
One thing that Peter (Cephas), has illuminated in my heart is the Sacrament of Reconciliation, from his denial of our Lord, and what he did after, and how it applies to us.

 

[Jennifer_G]

Don’t know, never gave it a thought. Our Lutheran church is called “St. Peter’s”, BTW.

 

[valient_Lucy]

From listening to Protestants on the radio I find that they seem to preach about the writings of St. Paul and avoid mentioning St. Peter.

The main Bacillica in Rome is named St. Peter’s. Our first Pope was St. Peter. It was St. Peter that in Matt Ch16, v18 - 20 that Jesus said to Peter,“Peter, you are the Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church”.

Why is it that Protestants seem to welcome Paul but not Peter?

I don’t think that Protestants necessarily “avoid” St. Peter on a concious level. Actually, their treatment of St. Peter is logical, based on what they believe. Protestants don’t believe in popes, and they certainly don’t believe that St. Peter was a pope. The main Bascillica in Rome may be named St. Peter’s, but that’s as irrelevent to Protestants as the name of the current Prime Minister of France is to Americans. It’s not necessarily bad; it just has no meaning to them. Protestants also don’t believe that Peter is the rock, so he has less importance to them.
To Protestants, Scripture has chief importance, and the fact is we have more of the letters of St. Paul than we have letters of St. Peter. So we have more of the teachings of St. Paul than the teachings of St. Peter (at least in Scripture form) Paul tends to have a much more central role in Protestant thinking.
I don’t think they necessarily have the same gut reaction that many Protestants have to the Blessed Mother. After all, most Protestants don’t accuse Catholics of worshipping St. Peter to the same extent they accuse us of worshipping Mary, although it’s not unheard of to say that Catholics worship the pope.
(I remember reading an atheist’s statement online somewhere, after the death of Pope John Paul II, that Catholics clearly must think that the Pope is God in human form. He thought he was so smart. I mean, by that logic, the people in Great Britain clearly believed that Princess Diana was a goddess living in human form.)

 

[lak611]

The Bible is only a part of Scripture, there is also the oral Tradition which has been passed down for the last 2,000 years, which by the way the Bible specifically says we need to heed.

I think I understand what you are saying, Tom; however the way you stated it is incorrect. To Catholics, both Scripture and Tradition form the deposit of our faith. Scripture is another word for the Bible. Tradition incorporates those teachings handed down starting with what the apostles heard from Jesus and from the Holy Spirit. The Bible is ALL of Scripture, but we also have revelation from God in our Tradition.

 

[Mystic]

Our first Pope was St. Peter. It was St. Peter that in Matt Ch16, v18 - 20 that Jesus said to Peter,“Peter, you are the Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church”. Why is it that Protestants seem to welcome Paul but not Peter?

Did you know these facts?

Augustine is considered by many the most important theologian in the history of the Church for the first twelve hundred years. No other Church father has had such far reaching influence upon the theology of the Church. His authority throughout the patristic and middle ages is unsurpassed. He was the bishop of Hippo in North Africa from the end of the fourth century and on into the first quarter of the fifth, until his death in 430. He was a prolific writer and he has made numerous comments which relate directly to the issue of the interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18. In fact, Augustine made more comments upon this passage than any other Church father. At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous. One of these had to do with the interpretation of the rock in Matthew 16. At the beginning of his ministry Augustine had written that the rock was Peter. However, very early on he later changed his position and throughout the remainder of his ministry he adopted the view that the rock was not Peter but Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ. The following are statements from his Retractations which refer to his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:

And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (St. Augustine, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).

There are numerous other citations from Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Cyryl of Alexandria etc, who are well-recognized and authoritative church fathers and whom the CC often quotes to prove their doctrines, well, did you know that they DID NOT believe that Peter himself was the rock? Just curious…