Why does Paul not mention Peter and the Keys?

[Mijoy2]

Not much more to add to the title.

God in His omnipotenence, knew that the reformation would cause a divisive split in Christianity which mostly (from my perspective) pivots on the denial of the Church’s authority.

It would seem to me that if in any one of Paul’s epistles he stated and reaffirmed the heirachy Christ established when He gave the keys to Peter, that the denial would be more difficullt to justify.

Any thoughts?

 

[NPC]

It may be true that had Paul affirmed in his writings that Christ had given ‘the keys’ to Peter and thus established a hierarchical Church, it would have been more difficult to argue against the Church’s authority. However, in my opinion, one must not view the absence of such an affirmation as indifference or even denial on the part of Paul of the primacy of Peter. In fact one could argue that the lack of such an affirmation is actually an affirmation in itself. As we read in last Sunday’s Gospel, Jesus said “…it is not the healthy who are in need of a doctor, but the sick” - similarly the ones who need instruction in the faith are those who do not know the faith. Thus, Paul wrote his letters not to tell them what they already knew, but what they needed to know in order to live truly Christian lives. It seems to me therefore that Paul’s ‘silence’ on the matter of the Papacy actually shows that the primacy of Peter was accepted throughout the early Christian church. If you think about it, Paul would only have had to write in defence of the papacy if people were actually denying its authority.

 

[VociMike]

Not much more to add to the title.

God in His omnipotenence, knew that the reformation would cause a divisive split in Christianity which mostly (from my perspective) pivots on the denial of the Church’s authority.

It would seem to me that if in any one of Paul’s epistles he stated and reaffirmed the heirachy Christ established when He gave the keys to Peter, that the denial would be more difficullt to justify.

Any thoughts?

My first thought was that God made it pretty darned clear in scripture that the Eucharist was his flesh and blood, and we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. But that hasn’t prevented most of Protestantism from denying this truth. So why would it have been any different regarding Peter and the Keys?

 

[Mijoy2]

. It seems to me therefore that Paul’s ‘silence’ on the matter of the Papacy actually shows that the primacy of Peter was accepted throughout the early Christian church. If you think about it, Paul would only have had to write in defence of the papacy if people were actually denying its authority.

My thought was that up to the time of Pauls’ conversion and subsequent ministry, the “papacy” was a non-entity.

Assuming the potential protestant perspective, if the concept of the papacy came after Pauls’ time, the silence of Paul becomes meaningful in that there was nothing to speak of, nothing to defend. If there was a concept of an authority, Paul would have emphasized it’s importance.

Possible?

 

[NPC]

My thought was that up to the time of Pauls’ conversion and subsequent ministry, the “papacy” was a non-entity.

Assuming the potential protestant perspective, if the concept of the papacy came after Pauls’ time, the silence of Paul becomes meaningful in that there was nothing to speak of, nothing to defend. If there was a concept of an authority, Paul would have emphasized it’s importance.

Possible?

Isn’t that a bit like saying that no one believed in transubstantiation until the thirteenth century when the term became widely used and adopted by ecumenical councils?! Just because the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ wasn’t referred to as transubstantiation, doesn’t mean that transubstantiation did not occur. Maybe Paul wouldn’t have used the term ‘papacy’ - perhaps he would have referred to Peter as the bishop of Rome, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was many years before the conversion of St Paul that Christ made Peter ‘the rock’ - whether or not the early Christians used the term ‘pope’ or ‘papacy’ doesn’t really matter. The authority was given to Peter before Paul’s conversion - the concept (at least) of the papacy was established by Christ Himself.

 

[Todd_Easton]

When Paul was inspired to seek validation of the gospel he was preaching, he went to the reputed pillars of the Church, “James, Cephas [Peter], and John.” (Galatians 2:9) This suggests a submission by Paul to those in superior positions in the Church, as one would hardly seek out inferiors or equals for such validation.

 

[Teflon93]

1. St Paul’s epistles had a purpose. One might better ask, "Why didn’t someone in the early Church stand up and say, “Hey, Peter, you’re not the boss of me”? Then St Paul would have had a chance to respond.
2. St Paul wasn’t present during Christ’s ministry; he was converted afterward. One might more properly ask why St Paul went to see St Peter, if St Peter had no authority.

 

[Mijoy2]

Isn’t that a bit like saying that no one believed in transubstantiation until the thirteenth century when the term became widely used and adopted by ecumenical councils?! Just because the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ wasn’t referred to as transubstantiation, doesn’t mean that transubstantiation did not occur. Maybe Paul wouldn’t have used the term ‘papacy’ - perhaps he would have referred to Peter as the bishop of Rome, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was many years before the conversion of St Paul that Christ made Peter ‘the rock’ - whether or not the early Christians used the term ‘pope’ or ‘papacy’ doesn’t really matter. The authority was given to Peter before Paul’s conversion - the concept (at least) of the papacy was established by Christ Himself.

I apologize, when I put papacy in quotes I wasn’t refering to Paul using the term. I was refering to Paul making any reference to a heirachy in any manner. I should have been more clear.

 

[Mijoy2]

1. St Paul wasn’t present during Christ’s ministry; he was converted afterward. One might more properly ask why St Paul went to see St Peter, if St Peter had no authority.

I appreciate this argument. I will read Pauls’ epistles with this concept in mind.

 

[kaycee]

St Paul wasn’t present during Christ’s ministry; he was converted afterward. One might more properly ask why St Paul went to see St Peter, if St Peter had no authority.

The scripture gives no indication that Peter had any over arching authority over Paul.

Gal 1:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12** I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. **
Gal 2:1 1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas…
6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary,** they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews**, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship **when they recognized **the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

 

[loscampos]

The scripture gives no indication that Peter had any over arching authority over Paul.

Gal 1:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12** I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. **
Gal 2:1 1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas…
6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary,** they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews**, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship **when they recognized **the grace given to me. **They agreed **that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

I do know that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and not Paul. And I think it very interesting that the same way Paul recieved the gospel is the same way Peter did also.

Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Gal 1:11-12 For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For neither did I receive it of man: nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Just something I thought was interesting

 

[Teflon93]

Why don’t you quote the rest of the story?

Galatians 1:

15: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16: To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18: **Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19: But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. **
20: Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
21: Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
22: And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
24: And they glorified God in me.

You may wish to avail yourself of a map and trace St Paul’s route.

It is a curious thing to speak to no apostle for three years after one’s dramatic conversion, then come so far out of one’s way to spend 15 days with St Peter, while simultaneously holding that St Peter is no authoritative figure whatsoever. Note also that afterward St Paul heads to the far north and northwest to plant churches.

The ECFs were not confused by Reformation pettifoggery, and clearly saw the significance:

Marius Victorinus (280-363?):

For if the foundation of the Church was laid in Peter, to whom all was revealed, as the gospel says, Paul knew that he ought to see Peter. When he speaks of seeing Peter, it is as one to whom Christ had committed so much authority, not as one from whom he was to learn anything…“How,” [he implies], “could I learn this great knowledge of God from Peter in such a short time?” , Epistle to the Galations 1.1.18

Chrysostom (354-407)

What greater humility of soul could there be? For after so many conversions, having no need of Peter or of speech with him but being equal with him in honor—for I say no more at present—he nonetheless goes up to him as to one who is greater and senior…and he says not “to see Peter” but to visit Peter, as people say when acquainting themselves with great and splendid cities. Homily on Galatians 1.18

Jerome (347-420):

He who had prepared himself for so long a time did not need any long instruction. And, though it seems excessive to some to investigate numbers in Scripture, yet I think it not beside the point to say that the fifteen days that Paul spent with Peter signifies [in late Judaic piety] the fullness of wisdom and the perfection of doctrine, seeing that there are fifteen psalms in a psalter and fifteen steps by which people go up to see God. Epistle to the Galatians 1.1.18

The need to diminish St Peter belongs to the schismatic; St Paul treats him with honor and love, as Christ himself did, and all the more remarkably so, given that St Paul was not a disciple during Christ’s time on Earth.

 

[kaycee]

You may wish to avail yourself of a map and trace St Paul’s route.

It is a curious thing to speak to no apostle for three years after one’s dramatic conversion, then come so far out of one’s way to spend 15 days with St Peter, while simultaneously holding that St Peter is no authoritative figure whatsoever.

Who ever said Peter had no authority? Not ME.

I would prefer that you not assume what my views on Peter are.

Scripture’s overall tone indicates parity between Paul and Peter.

 

[Teflon93]

Who ever said Peter had no authority? Not ME.

I would prefer that you not assume what my views on Peter are.

Scripture’s overall tone indicates parity between Paul and Peter.

Really? When did St Paul raise the dead?

When did Christ give St Paul the keys to the Kingdom, and promise to found his Church upon St Paul?

 

[kaycee]

Really? When did St Paul raise the dead?

What does that have to do with anything? Paul also performed miracles as well as many of the disciples.

When did Christ give St Paul the keys to the Kingdom, and promise to found his Church upon St Paul?

Well, I dont share in that interpretation of Matt 16 as neither did the majority of the ECF’s.

The plain testimony of Paul is enough for me.

Gal 2:7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews

 

[Teflon93]

What does that have to do with anything? Paul also performed miracles as well as many of the disciples.

Is conquering death not important? Read Acts—St Peter is clearly continuing Christ’s work on Earth.

Well, I dont share in that interpretation of Matt 16 as neither did the majority of the ECF’s.

Evidence, please. Since you rely on “majority”, I want to see ALL of the ECF commentary on this, that we may count which are in favor and which are not.

The plain testimony of Paul is enough for me.

Gal 2:7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews

Context is required for those not blinded by manmade tradition:

1: Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2: And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3: But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6: But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10: Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11: But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12: For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13: And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14: But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15: We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17: But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18: For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19: For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21: I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

More

 

[Teflon93]

So the verse you torture out of context simply refers to St Paul being accepted among the Apostles as one of them, doing the Lord’s work. It is followed by one of the fundamentalist’s favorite verses, where St Paul argues that circumcision is not binding upon Christians (hmmm, wonder what replaced it?). The close reader, of course, will see that St Paul is being a hypocrite here; he does have Timothy circumcised (see Acts).

Let’s see what the ECFs have to say on this, since you ignored the previous quotes from them:

Ambrosiaster :

He names Peter alone because he has received the primacy of the founding of the church; and he himself had likewise been chosen to have the primacy in the founding of the Gentile churches, but with the proviso that Peter should preach to the Gentiles, should cause arise, and Paul to the Jews." Epistle to the Galatians 2.7.8

Augustine:

That he rebuked him “before all” was necessary, in order that everyoned might be bettered by his rebuke. For it was not expedient to correct a secret in error that was doing public harm. It should be added that in his steadfastness and charity Peter, to whom the Lord had said three times, “Do you love me? Feed my sheep,” was very ready to bear this rebuke from a junior shepherd for the salvation of the flock. For the one who was being rebuked was himself more remarkable and more difficult to imitate than the one rebuking. For it is easier to see what one should correct in others than to see what ought to be corrected in oneself. It is easier to correct others by admonishing and rebuking than to be corrected readily even by yourself, let alone by another, still less if you add another and “before all”. Epistle to the Galatians 15

And, since you prefer Paul’s “plain language”, let’s note the following:

1 Corinthians 11:

23: For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25: After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29:** For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body**.
30: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Do you similarly prefer St Paul when he speaks of the Eucharist, kaycee, or do you approach it in an unworthy manner?

 

[NPC]

While I respect the arguments about portrayals of Peter and Paul in scripture, I wonder why we are getting so bogged-down in what the “overall tone” of the Bible in relation to Peter’s primacy. The primacy of Peter comes directly from the words spoken by Christ Himself - and the hierarchy necessarily comes from this because as He appointed chief-apostle, the other apostles were lesser than Peter in terms of authority. Also, I know this may be difficult to argue with a Protestant, but as Catholics we know that scripture is not the be-all and end-all in this argument - as Teflon93 touched on, there are so many early-Christian writers who affirmed that there was one person at the head - Peter.

 

[dessert]

Not much more to add to the title.

God in His omnipotenence, knew that the reformation would cause a divisive split in Christianity which mostly (from my perspective) pivots on the denial of the Church’s authority.

It would seem to me that if in any one of Paul’s epistles he stated and reaffirmed the heirachy Christ established when He gave the keys to Peter, that the denial would be more difficullt to justify.

Any thoughts?

I do believe that if Peter had needed a blood transfusion Paul would have been the first one right in line. They were blood brothers through our Lord.

 

[kaycee]

Is conquering death not important? Read Acts—St Peter is clearly continuing Christ’s work on Earth.

As well as Paul wouldnt you say? relevance?

Evidence, please. Since you rely on “majority”, I want to see ALL of the ECF commentary on this, that we may count which are in favor and which are not.

The French Catholic Historian Launoy, Doctor of the Sorbonne, known for a great number of works on theology and whose vast erudition no one will dispute, has shown the Catholic tradition upon that question (Matt 16). He has demonstrated by clear and authentic texts, that but a small number of Fathers or Doctors of the Church have applied to St. Peter the title of rock, upon which the Church should be built; while the most of them do not apply this to him at all, but understand these words of Christ In quite a different manner.

The Papacy:Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches
archangelsbooks.com/articles/east_west/papacy.asp