Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?

[paul_c]

1. In verse 22, “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided…” and in the body of the letter v.25: “So we all agreed to choose some men and send them…” and in verse 27,28: “Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
2. When offices and gifts are listed in scripture, an earthly head of the church is never mentioned (see 1 Corinthians 12:28,29; Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 4:11, 2 Peter 3:2, Revelation 18:20).
3. Paul says in Ephesians 2:20 that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as chief cornerstone, but no mention of Peter.
4. Paul went up to see Peter and refers to him as “an apostle to the Jews” (Galatians 2:8) but never as head of the church on earth.
5. In the above context (#10), Paul refers to Peter as one of three: “James, Cephas, and John, those reputed to be pillars” (Gal.2:6).

Your whole discussion here is one of silence. Just because paul does not refer to Peter as the head, does not mean that he didn’t acknowledge that he was. You ignore the fact that in 1Corinthians 9:5, Paul says: Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Notice that he separates Peter from the rest of the Apostles. Why would he do that if Peter was just one of the gang. Also, why would he mention in Galatians 2:9 that he went to see Peter only. You state in #10 that Peter refers to him as " an Apostle to the Jews, when in fact he saus much more. He says in galatians 2: 7-8," On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles," this clearly places Peter as not one of the Apostles to the Jews but the one in charge. However, Paul is overstating his own role here as Peter’s counterpart because we know from Acts 15 that Peter told the Apostles that he was chosen to bring the message to the Gentiles as well and that this was not disputed at the Council of Jerusalem, where Paul was in attendance and given the right to preach to the Gentiles as long as he was cognizant of the poor.

1. Peter refers to himself exactly as Paul does: “apostle and servant of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:1).
2. Peter refers to himself as a fellow-elder (1 Peter 5:1).
3. Peter refers only to Jesus as “Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).

Do you understand this letter at all? Look at 1Peter 5 in its totality:

So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters. And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for: “God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble.” So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time. Cast all your worries upon him because he cares for you. Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for (someone) to devour. Resist him, steadfast in faith, knowing that your fellow believers throughout the world undergo the same sufferings. The God of all grace who called you to his eternal glory through Christ (Jesus) will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you after you have suffered a little. To him be dominion forever. Amen. I write you this briefly through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, exhorting you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Remain firm in it. The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son. Greet one another with a loving kiss. Peace to all of you who are in Christ.​

He is speaking about being humble and about the leadership not to lord it over those under him. . Wouldn’t it have been contradictory for him to claim a glorious title after saying that? As an example of this, he humbly calls himself a fellow presbyter. Still it is clear that he is giving direct to the leadership of a number of churches here and is speaking for the Church in Rome (the Chosen one at Babylon).

and have you noted that in 2Peter3, he comments on the letters of Paul and warns others not to distort them. This is a message to you personally as well as to others and also shows his rank above Paul, whose work he is critiquing.

1. Conclusion: In the New Testament there is no office of or qualifications for a head of the church on earth other than Christ alone. If Peter was appointed head of the church in Matt.16, there is no mention of this fact after the church was established. All of the above evidence points to a contrary view.

Your conclusion is highly jaded. I think I have shown that in my comments in Blue. Please rethink your position and ask for Christ’s Mercy, on this Mercy Sunday.

 

[Randy_Carson]

WAS PETER APPOINTED HEAD OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH AND WAS SUCH AN OFFICE ESTABLISHED OTHER THAN CHRIST ALONE?

1. Matt 16 names Peter because of his confession of who Jesus is and gives Peter the keys to the kingdom to be established in Acts 2 (keys are mentioned in Is.22:22 and also Rev.3:7).
2. As all agree, the beginning of the church was in Acts 2 on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (see Luke 24:47 and Acts 1:6-8 and 11:15).
3. After Acts 2, the only mention of anyone as head of the church is Christ alone: Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18.
4. Peter first speaks the gospel to Jews in Acts 2 and to Gentiles in Acts 10, and has a prominent role and frequent mention in the Book of Acts.
5. In Acts 15, when the church gathered to determine God’s will concerning circumcision of the Gentile Christians, Peter said that God chose him to first speak to the Gentile (v.7).
6. In Acts 15, after Peter, Paul, and Barnabas had spoken about their experiences with the Gentiles and after the discussion was finished in v.13, James summarized the discussion and said, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make…” (v.19) and said, “Instead we should write to them, telling them…” (v.20).
7. In verse 22, “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided…” and in the body of the letter v.25: “So we all agreed to choose some men and send them…” and in verse 27,28: “Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
8. When offices and gifts are listed in scripture, an earthly head of the church is never mentioned (see 1 Corinthians 12:28,29; Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 4:11, 2 Peter 3:2, Revelation 18:20).
9. Paul says in Ephesians 2:20 that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as chief cornerstone, but no mention of Peter.
10. Paul went up to see Peter and refers to him as “an apostle to the Jews” (Galatians 2:8) but never as head of the church on earth.
11. In the above context (#10), Paul refers to Peter as one of three: “James, Cephas, and John, those reputed to be pillars” (Gal.2:6).
12. Peter refers to himself exactly as Paul does: “apostle and servant of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:1).
13. Peter refers to himself as a fellow-elder (1 Peter 5:1).
14. Peter refers only to Jesus as “Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).
15. Conclusion: In the New Testament there is no office of or qualifications for a head of the church on earth other than Christ alone. If Peter was appointed head of the church in Matt.16, there is no mention of this fact after the church was established. All of the above evidence points to a contrary view.

Daniel-

As I asked before, so I ask again: why do you feel there is a need for a lot of mention of Peter’s headship in the New Testament?

The other eleven Apostles (Matthias included) were with Jesus the whole time of His earthly ministry, and they had no doubts about the fact that Jesus groomed Peter for his leadership role.

What you’re asking for amounts to newspapers printing headlines that read, “Sun Rises Again!” or somesuch. Frankly, I also don’t expect to find too much in the pages of scripture regarding the liturgy of baptisms and the Eucharist, either, because by the time the gospels and epistles were written, the Church had been DOING those liturgies for decades. What more needed to be said? Everyone knew what infant baptism was…there was no need to write about it until conflicts arose LATER.

Similarly, there really wasn’t much need to write, “Peter is the head of the universal Church” when everyone to whom the Gospels and epistles were written by and large understood who the leader was.

But I notice that you did not interact with might demolition of your “reinstatement” theory…conceding that one, are you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Matt 16 names Peter because of his confession of who Jesus is and gives Peter the keys to the kingdom to be established in Acts 2 (keys are mentioned in Is.22:22 and also Rev.3:7).

FALSE.

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann
In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

1. As all agree, the beginning of the church was in Acts 2 on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (see Luke 24:47 and Acts 1:6-8 and 11:15).

FALSE.

Some people would say that the birth of the Church occurred when the blood and water flowed from Jesus’ side upon the cross. Thus, not all agree.

1. After Acts 2, the only mention of anyone as head of the church is Christ alone: Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18.

TRUE, but irrelevant.

Jesus is the head of the Church, but Peter is appointed by Christ as its earthly head.

1. Peter first speaks the gospel to Jews in Acts 2 and to Gentiles in Acts 10, and has a prominent role and frequent mention in the Book of Acts.

TRUE, and telling.

God used Peter to bring the good news to Jews and Gentiles alike.

1. In Acts 15, when the church gathered to determine God’s will concerning circumcision of the Gentile Christians, Peter said that God chose him to first speak to the Gentile (v.7).

TRUE.

Peter’s authority was sufficient to set aside the command of God concerning circumcision.

1. In Acts 15, after Peter, Paul, and Barnabas had spoken about their experiences with the Gentiles and after the discussion was finished in v.13, James summarized the discussion and said, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make…” (v.19) and said, “Instead we should write to them, telling them…” (v.20).

TRUE.

James agreed with Peter who had already silenced the assembly and recommended writing a letter…exactly the kind of adminstrative task that a subordinate would be expected to be concerned with. As the local Bishop and host of this council, James wrapped up the meeting after the keynote address had been given.

1. In verse 22, “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided…” and in the body of the letter v.25: “So we all agreed to choose some men and send them…” and in verse 27,28: “Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”

TRUE.

Evidence that of the infallibility of Church councils since the Holy Spirit is clearly present.

1. When offices and gifts are listed in scripture, an earthly head of the church is never mentioned (see 1 Corinthians 12:28,29; Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 4:11, 2 Peter 3:2, Revelation 18:20).

TRUE.

In one sense, the Bishop of Rome holds the same office (of Bishop) as all other Bishops. However, history shows that the other Bishops have always deferred in doctrinal matters to the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

1. Paul says in Ephesians 2:20 that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as chief cornerstone, but no mention of Peter.

TRUE, but irrelevant.

Jesus declares Simon to be “Kepha” or “Cephas” which means “rock”. Why the name change if Peter himself is not the rock that Jesus refers to in Mt. 16:18?

David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

1. Paul went up to see Peter and refers to him as “an apostle to the Jews” (Galatians 2:8) but never as head of the church on earth.

TRUE, but incomplete.

Protestant scholar James D.G. Dunn wrote:

“It can hardly go unnoticed that Paul’s advice to such communities…is mor in line with the policy of Peter and Barnabas at Antioch than in accord with his own strongly worded principle in Gal. 1:11-14!” (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament)

1. In the above context (#10), Paul refers to Peter as one of three: “James, Cephas, and John, those reputed to be pillars” (Gal.2:6).

TRUE.

And notice that even Paul refers to Peter as “Cephas” - the name that Jesus had given him. If Paul thought that Peter was not the rock, he could easily have called him Simon.

1. Peter refers to himself exactly as Paul does: “apostle and servant of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:1).

TRUE.

They were both apostles and servants of Jesus.

1. Peter refers to himself as a fellow-elder (1 Peter 5:1).

TRUE.

What humility for Peter…a far cry from the brash man we first meet on the shores of the Sea of Galilee.

1. Peter refers only to Jesus as “Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).

TRUE.

Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. Peter and his successors only serve in the role of shepherd of the Church here on earth.

1. Conclusion: In the New Testament there is no office of or qualifications for a head of the church on earth other than Christ alone. If Peter was appointed head of the church in Matt.16, there is no mention of this fact after the church was established. All of the above evidence points to a contrary view.

FALSE.

Jesus told Pilate that He is a king, and He had previously given the keys of the office of Prime Minister to Peter.

The great Protestant biblical scholar F.F. Bruce makes a powerful observation concerning the authority conferred on Peter:

“About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man call Eliakim…(Is. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.” (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus)

Daniel, your denominational presuppositions have blinded you to what other Protestants have finally had the courage to acknowledge: Peter was made the head of the Church by Jesus Christ Himself. The Catholic Church has been right all along.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

(I have added an additional point as #16 in the list below regarding the plurality of bishops.)

WAS PETER APPOINTED TO HOLD THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION-MAKING POSITION IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?

1. Matt 16 names Peter because of his confession of who Jesus is and gives Peter the keys to the kingdom to be established in Acts 2 (keys are mentioned in Is.22:22 and also Rev.3:7).
2. As all agree, the beginning of the church was in Acts 2 on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (see Luke 24:47 and Acts 1:6-8 and 11:15).
3. After Acts 2, the only mention of anyone as head of the church is Christ alone: Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18.
4. Peter first speaks the gospel to Jews in Acts 2 and to Gentiles in Acts 10, and has a prominent role and frequent mention in the Book of Acts.
5. In Acts 15, when the church gathered to determine God’s will concerning circumcision of the Gentile Christians, Peter said that God chose him to first speak to the Gentile (v.7).
6. In Acts 15, after Peter, Paul, and Barnabas had spoken about their experiences with the Gentiles and after the discussion was finished in v.13, James summarized the discussion and said, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make…” (v.19) and said, “Instead we should write to them, telling them…” (v.20).
7. In verse 22, “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided…” and in the body of the letter v.25: “So we all agreed to choose some men and send them…” and in verse 27,28: “Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
8. When offices and gifts are listed in scripture, an earthly head of the church is never mentioned (see 1 Corinthians 12:28,29; Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 4:11, 2 Peter 3:2, Revelation 18:20).
9. Paul says in Ephesians 2:20 that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as chief cornerstone, but no mention of Peter.
10. Paul went up to see Peter and refers to him as “an apostle to the Jews” (Galatians 2:8) but never as head of the church on earth.
11. In the above context (#10), Paul refers to Peter as one of three: “James, Cephas, and John, those reputed to be pillars” (Gal.2:6).
12. Peter refers to himself exactly as Paul does: “apostle and servant of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:1).
13. Peter refers to himself as a fellow-elder (1 Peter 5:1).
14. Peter refers only to Jesus as “Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4) and “Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25).
    16. There was always a plurality of bishop/elder/presbyter/pastor/shepherds in the local churches of the New Testament; therefore Peter was never the singular bishop of Rome or of any church:
    Acts 11:30, Acts 14:23, Acts 20:17 and 28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-8 and 4:14 and 5:17, Titus 1:5-7, 1 Peter 5:2, James 5:14
15. Conclusion: In the New Testament there is no office of or qualifications for a head of the church on earth other than Christ alone.

 

[paul_c]

(I have added an additional point as #16 in the list below regarding the plurality of bishops.)

WAS PETER APPOINTED TO HOLD THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION-MAKING POSITION IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?

1. Matt 16 names Peter because of his confession of who Jesus is and gives Peter the keys to the kingdom to be established in Acts 2 (keys are mentioned in Is.22:22 and also Rev.3:7).
2. As all agree, the beginning of the church was in Acts 2 on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (see Luke 24:47 and Acts 1:6-8 and 11:15).
3. After Acts 2, the only mention of anyone as head of the church is Christ alone: Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18.
4. Peter first speaks the gospel to Jews in Acts 2 and to Gentiles in Acts 10, and has a prominent role and frequent mention in the Book of Acts.
5. In Acts 15, when the church gathered to determine God’s will concerning circumcision of the Gentile Christians, Peter said that God chose him to first speak to the Gentile (v.7).
6. In Acts 15, after Peter, Paul, and Barnabas had spoken about their experiences with the Gentiles and after the discussion was finished in v.13, James summarized the discussion and said, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make…” (v.19) and said, “Instead we should write to them, telling them…” (v.20).
7. In verse 22, “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided…” and in the body of the letter v.25: “So we all agreed to choose some men and send them…” and in verse 27,28: “Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
8. When offices and gifts are listed in scripture, an earthly head of the church is never mentioned (see 1 Corinthians 12:28,29; Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 4:11, 2 Peter 3:2, Revelation 18:20).
9. Paul says in Ephesians 2:20 that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as chief cornerstone, but no mention of Peter.
10. Paul went up to see Peter and refers to him as “an apostle to the Jews” (Galatians 2:8) but never as head of the church on earth.
11. In the above context (#10), Paul refers to Peter as one of three: “James, Cephas, and John, those reputed to be pillars” (Gal.2:6).
12. Peter refers to himself exactly as Paul does: “apostle and servant of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:1).
13. Peter refers to himself as a fellow-elder (1 Peter 5:1).
14. Peter refers only to Jesus as “Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4) and “Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25).
    16. There was always a plurality of bishop/elder/presbyter/pastor/shepherds in the local churches of the New Testament; therefore Peter was never the singular bishop of Rome or of any church:
    Acts 11:30, Acts 14:23, Acts 20:17 and 28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-8 and 4:14 and 5:17, Titus 1:5-7, 1 Peter 5:2, James 5:14
15. Conclusion: In the New Testament there is no office of or qualifications for a head of the church on earth other than Christ alone.

Why don’t you spend your time on addressing the comments to the original 16 points. You act like your points are irrefutable. Your new point 16 is contradicted by the early church fathers. There is a big difference between a presbyter (priest) and a bishop. None of these statements suggest multiple bishops per diocese.

 

[Randy_Carson]

(I have added an additional point as #16 in the list below regarding the plurality of bishops.)

WAS PETER APPOINTED TO HOLD THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION-MAKING POSITION IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?

1. Matt 16 names Peter because of his confession of who Jesus is and gives Peter the keys to the kingdom to be established in Acts 2 (keys are mentioned in Is.22:22 and also Rev.3:7).
2. As all agree, the beginning of the church was in Acts 2 on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (see Luke 24:47 and Acts 1:6-8 and 11:15).
3. After Acts 2, the only mention of anyone as head of the church is Christ alone: Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18.
4. Peter first speaks the gospel to Jews in Acts 2 and to Gentiles in Acts 10, and has a prominent role and frequent mention in the Book of Acts.
5. In Acts 15, when the church gathered to determine God’s will concerning circumcision of the Gentile Christians, Peter said that God chose him to first speak to the Gentile (v.7).
6. In Acts 15, after Peter, Paul, and Barnabas had spoken about their experiences with the Gentiles and after the discussion was finished in v.13, James summarized the discussion and said, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make…” (v.19) and said, “Instead we should write to them, telling them…” (v.20).
7. In verse 22, “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided…” and in the body of the letter v.25: “So we all agreed to choose some men and send them…” and in verse 27,28: “Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
8. When offices and gifts are listed in scripture, an earthly head of the church is never mentioned (see 1 Corinthians 12:28,29; Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 4:11, 2 Peter 3:2, Revelation 18:20).
9. Paul says in Ephesians 2:20 that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as chief cornerstone, but no mention of Peter.
10. Paul went up to see Peter and refers to him as “an apostle to the Jews” (Galatians 2:8) but never as head of the church on earth.
11. In the above context (#10), Paul refers to Peter as one of three: “James, Cephas, and John, those reputed to be pillars” (Gal.2:6).
12. Peter refers to himself exactly as Paul does: “apostle and servant of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:1).
13. Peter refers to himself as a fellow-elder (1 Peter 5:1).
14. Peter refers only to Jesus as “Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4) and “Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25).
    16. There was always a plurality of bishop/elder/presbyter/pastor/shepherds in the local churches of the New Testament; therefore Peter was never the singular bishop of Rome or of any church:
    Acts 11:30, Acts 14:23, Acts 20:17 and 28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-8 and 4:14 and 5:17, Titus 1:5-7, 1 Peter 5:2, James 5:14
15. Conclusion: In the New Testament there is no office of or qualifications for a head of the church on earth other than Christ alone.

Daniel-

Since no Catholic would deny that there are multiple bishops in the Church, I’m not sure how your new addition strengthens your argument. And the existence of these other bishops does nothing to diminish Peter’s role as head of the Church.

Perhaps the following will clear up your confusion regarding these issues:

Bishop, Priest and Deacon in the NT
catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, *episcopos *(“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why don’t you spend your time on addressing the comments to the original 16 points. You act like your points are irrefutable. Your new point 16 is contradicted by the early church fathers. There is a big difference between a presbyter (priest) and a bishop. None of these statements suggest multiple bishops per diocese.

Shaken by what he has heard from us, he’s not actually listening any more; he’s engaged in an exercise to convince himself of something that we have called into question and even disproven.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Regarding point #16, numerous Catholic scholars could be cited but I will give the following as representative:

“The letter of the Romans to the Corinthians known as *I Clement *provides good evidence that about thirty years after the death of St. Paul the church of Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters, with no indication of the presence of a bishop with authority over the whole local church. …Most scholars are of the opinion that the **church of Rome **would most probably have also been led at that time by a group of presbyters. A Roman document of the early second century known as the *Shepherd of Hermas *supports this opinion” (From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church by Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., p.15).

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I know why Peter was the rock upon which HE built HIS church! :hammering: Which still IS around…and everyone belongs to it…whether they want to or know it or refuse its graces or not…

Is there some literature you can refer me too that says re the Catholic church that
“everyone belongs to it…whether they want to or know it or refuse its graces or not…”?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is there some literature you can refer me too that says re the Catholic church that
“everyone belongs to it…whether they want to or know it or refuse its graces or not…”?

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **
[836](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/836.htm’) "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320
[837](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/837.htm’) "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321 [838](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/838.htm’) "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

If you need something more, please advise.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **
[836](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/836.htm’) "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

Sunflower said “everyone belongs to it…whether they want to or know it or refuse its graces or not…”?

How can it be that **everyone is in the Catholic church **whether or not they know or want to belong?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Shaken by what he has heard from us, he’s not actually listening any more; he’s engaged in an exercise to convince himself of something that we have called into question and even disproven.

Not shaken but realizing that my goal is not to change opinion but to share information. I may have more in future but now have other duties I must attend to.

But based on my understanding of scripture, it is impossible for me to believe that such a central fundamental position as head of the church on earth would not have been frequently and clearly referred to after Acts 2 and that we would not have preserved statements of the early successors of such a central position as the very presence of Christ on earth.

 

[paul_c]

Not shaken but realizing that my goal is not to change opinion but to share information. I may have more in future but now have other duties I must attend to.

But based on my understanding of scripture, it is impossible for me to believe that such a central fundamental position as head of the church on earth would not have been frequently and clearly referred to after Acts 2 and that we would not have preserved statements of the early successors of such a central position as the very presence of Christ on earth.

It was, every time they called him Cephas or Peter. And remember, it was a verbal world back then.

 

[paul_c]

Sunflower said “everyone belongs to it…whether they want to or know it or refuse its graces or not…”?

How can it be that **everyone is in the Catholic church **whether or not they know or want to belong?

It is clear that not everyone is in the Catholic Church. You are proof of that. It is equally true that anyone can join the Catholic Church if they so choose. Finally, we beleive that all who are saved are saved through the Catholic Church. This is what is required for salvation.

You need to be Baptized in the name of the father, the son and the Holy Spirit. This baptism provides sufficient grace to be saved. However, once baptized, you still need to remain in the state of Grace. This is done by doing the will of God (loving God and neighbor) and avoiding sin. If we do sin, there is an opportunity to partake of the sacrament of reconciliation by contritely coffessing our sins, repenting and doing penance in reparation for out sins. By doing so, we are reconciled with God and regain the Graces necessary to be saved. If you have been legitamately baptized and stay in the state of Grace, you can be saved, whether you consider yourself part of the Catholic Church or not. But your salvation will be because you followed the Churches teachings.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sunflower said “everyone belongs to it…whether they want to or know it or refuse its graces or not…”?

How can it be that **everyone is in the Catholic church **whether or not they know or want to belong?

How many bodies does Jesus have?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not shaken but realizing that my goal is not to change opinion but to share information. I may have more in future but now have other duties I must attend to.

But based on my understanding of scripture, it is impossible for me to believe that such a central fundamental position as head of the church on earth would not have been frequently and clearly referred to after Acts 2 and that we would not have preserved statements of the early successors of such a central position as the very presence of Christ on earth.

It is truly unfortunate that the Word of God does not meet with your expectations.

To be fair, however, several billion people over the course of the last two thousand years have had absolutely no trouble understanding that Peter was the leader of the early Church and that the Church has had an eartly leader ever since as part of the divine plan.

Perhaps the real issue was captured in your phrase, “based on my understanding of scripture”…could this be the ultimate source of the problem?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

It was, every time they called him Cephas or Peter. And remember, it was a verbal world back then.

So you are saying the word Cephas or Peter was actually the title of “head” of the church?
Is that what we find where Christ is called the head of the church, the body, in Ephesians 4:15; 5:23 and Colossians 1:18; 2:10; 2:19?

Cephas is a Hebrew/Aramaic term. Kephale is a Greek term. Certainly kephale means head. Does Cephas mean head in the Hebrew/Aramaic? Paul and all Christians in the NT recognized Kephas as the head of the church and the voice and presence of Christ in their midst? If so, they would have deferred to him in everything just as they did Christ himself. They would have sought out the teaching, blessing, and approval of Kephas above all others.

 

[YADA]

So you are saying the word Cephas or Peter was actually the title of “head” of the church?
Is that what we find where Christ is called the head of the church, the body, in Ephesians 4:15; 5:23 and Colossians 1:18; 2:10; 2:19?

Cephas is a Hebrew/Aramaic term. Kephale is a Greek term. Certainly kephale means head. Does Cephas mean head in the Hebrew/Aramaic? Paul and all Christians in the NT recognized Kephas as the head of the church and the voice and presence of Christ in their midst? If so, they would have deferred to him in everything just as they did Christ himself. They would have sought out the teaching, blessing, and approval of Kephas above all others.

When God renames someone it is significant … When Jesus re-named Simon “Cephas” [or kephas depending on how you want to spell it] - Rock and promised to build His [Jesus’] Church upon him [Cephas] it is significant … Jesus did not re-name any other Apostle only Simon-Peter …

In addition to that significant event Jesus quotes Isaiah and gives to Peter the “Keys” to the Kingdom of God. Jesus, the fullfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords authorizes Peter to bind and loose … what he binds or looeses on Earth is equally bound or loosed in Heaven …And he also promises Peter that the gates of Hell [Satan] shall not prevail against His Church … additionally Jesus tells Peter that it will fall to him to strengthen his brothers and the church - the poeple of God… that Satan has desired to take Peter but that Jesus will protect Him …

In Isaiah we learn that the Prime Minster [holder of the Keys - occupier of the “Office”] is known and called by the people “Abba” … which is Father [Padre, Papa, daddy, Pope whatever language you want to insert here] … the successor to the office of prime minister is a “father” to the people … his authority comes from the King … The King does not loose his authority, the king always is the head of the Kingdom … the King always has a “key” - the master key as it were … the Prime minister serves at the pleasure of the King … he takes nothing away from the King …

Jesus is the Savior of the world … Peter and his successors serving the Church do not take away from Christ, they serve Christ and his people …

Jesus gave us [the Church - a community of believers] a visible head to guide us, provide for unity, a leadership and organization [the succcessors to the apostles, the priests and deacons] to pass on the faith to every age and every generation… to take an authentic faith to all the ends of the earth and to every generation needs leadership and organization … it cannot work with a rag tag everyone is their own Pope [as in arbiter of Truth and what it eans to be a follower of Christ] model.

The scriptures you have at your finger tiips is a result of the seriousness with which that leadership operated … giving their lives for the sake of the Gospel …

You ay not like it but it is Truth - Peter knew it, Paul did as well … they never questioned it … but then they were trying to get their faith around the idea that jesus was not coming back in thier life times … the first Christians were selling their property - giving all to the collective - to take care of short term needs until Jesus came back …

As Paul came on the scene, the people began to die off - were they saved or not? … What about those who weren’t working - waiting for a return of Jesus that was delayed fro their expectations … etc …

 

[paul_c]

So you are saying the word Cephas or Peter was actually the title of “head” of the church?
Is that what we find where Christ is called the head of the church, the body, in Ephesians 4:15; 5:23 and Colossians 1:18; 2:10; 2:19?

Cephas is a Hebrew/Aramaic term. Kephale is a Greek term. Certainly kephale means head. Does Cephas mean head in the Hebrew/Aramaic? Paul and all Christians in the NT recognized Kephas as the head of the church and the voice and presence of Christ in their midst? If so, they would have deferred to him in everything just as they did Christ himself. They would have sought out the teaching, blessing, and approval of Kephas above all others.

What makes you think this did not happen? They deferred to Peter in the naming of Judas successor, at Pentacost, it was Peter who spoke. Peter was the one who spoke in Acts 4 to the High priest and in Acts 5 to the Sanhedrin. It was Peter who opened the door to the Gentiles and it was Peter who made the proclamation to accept Gentiles into the Church without becoming Jewish at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. It was Peter who Paul sought out in 35AD at the start of his mission.

What more do you want?

 

[Mickey]

EUSEBIUS (bishop)****
(the father of ecclesiastical history)
‘And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps. 18.14)…By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ **For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ **These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176).