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

[Randy_Carson]

quotes from St John Chrysostom

Was this REALLY what John Chrysostom thought about Peter? Consider the following from newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfillment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock – the sheep and the lambs alike – in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, “Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep” indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): “Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron”.

The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: “Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these”? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God’s flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.

The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom:

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria (“In Joan.” 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.

 

[LionHeart777]

You assume that anyone cannot give thanks for the bread and cup, recognizing the body and blood of Christ. You assume a priest is required for valid sacraments.

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (“The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans”) (Emphasis mine)

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Daniel,

point 1: Notice what Saint Ignatius sets forth as the requirement for a “proper Eucharist”

point 2: Notice “…the bishop…the presbytery…and…the deacons…” above.

–you can say that Saint Ignatius of Antionch’s writings are not inspired (and you are correct), but I take his words over your (nearly 2,000 years removed) interpretations of the Scripture. In my opinion (for what it’s worth) he is a very credible witness.

here is a link for anyone who may read this and wants to learn who St. Ignatius of Antioch is:
newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

–Nick

 

[Randy_Carson]

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 *[A.D. 251]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I already answered this question a while back. Yes, my faith is that Peter WITH the confession that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, IS the rock upon which Jesus would build the church.

Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament

Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

a] Peter means rock.

Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:

“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrative are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)

In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:

It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Chris is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rest on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Dan-

I’m sorry I missed your response previously.

If Peter is the rock upon which Jesus would build the Church, what does this mean in practical terms? Would this be akin to a professional football team naming Peter their “franchise player” or taking him in the first round of the draft, and building the rest of the team around him?

If you’re not a sport enthusiast, I can switch analogies.

Jesus named Simon Cephas, so that everytime we look at Simon or say his new name, we remember the confession he made. It is on this combo of Peter WITH the confession, that the church is forever built; no successors required.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (“The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans”) (Emphasis mine)

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Daniel,

point 1: Notice what Saint Ignatius sets forth as the requirement for a “proper Eucharist”

point 2: Notice “…the bishop…the presbytery…and…the deacons…” above.

–you can say that Saint Ignatius of Antionch’s writings are not inspired (and you are correct), but I take his words over your (nearly 2,000 years removed) interpretations of the Scripture. In my opinion (for what it’s worth) he is a very credible witness.

here is a link for anyone who may read this and wants to learn who St. Ignatius of Antioch is:
newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

–Nick

In making the above innovation of ministry, Ignatius contributed to the development of early Catholicism and hierarchy not found in sacred scripture. The second innovation is to tie the eucharist (and baptism) to the singular bishop as well.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Cyprian of Carthage

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 *[A.D. 251]).

This was an innovation to which Cyprian subscribed and that has no basis in sacred scripture according to which unity is based on:

Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to keep the **unity of the Spirit **through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all…11 It was he (Christ) who gave some to be **(pope ?), **apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

The above is an example of a passage where the most important basis of unity in the Catholic church would have been mentioned if it were so. Cyprian was wrong.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus named Simon Cephas, so that everytime we look at Simon or say his new name, we remember the confession he made. It is on this combo of Peter WITH the confession, that the church is forever built; no successors required.

Wow…not even close.

We know that God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, and in Isaiah 51:1-2 we read:

1 "Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness
and who seek the LORD :
Look to the rock from which you were cut
and to the quarry from which you were hewn;
2 look to Abraham, your father,
and to Sarah, who gave you birth.
When I called him he was but one,
and I blessed him and made him many.

So, Abram received his new name from God at the time that the nation of Israel was being founded. Thus, Abraham was known to the Jews as the rock from which they were hewn. Abraham is the Father of the Jews and the patriarchal head of the first covenant.

Similarly, Simon received his new name from God at the time that the Church was being founded. Thus, Cephas (or Peter) is known to Christians as the rock upon which the Church was built, and in a sense, we have received our faith from Peter to whom the Father first revealed that Jesus was the Christ. Peter is the Father of the Church and a “patriarch” of the New Covenant.

Jesus’ audience would have made the connection immediately.

Really, Dan, isn’t it hard to kick against the goads?

 

[Randy_Carson]

This was an innovation to which Cyprian subscribed and that has no basis in sacred scripture according to which unity is based on:

Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to keep the **unity of the Spirit **through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all…11 It was he (Christ) who gave some to be **(pope ?), **apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

The above is an example of a passage where the most important basis of unity in the Catholic church would have been mentioned if it were so. Cyprian was wrong.

Ah…I see. Whenever an ECF writes of something that the Church believed but with which you disagree, you cry, “Innovation!”

Strange, but we don’t have any similar cries from the writings of the other Fathers, do we? We have extensive writings from the Fathers against all sort of early heresies…where is the charge of “novelty” from the contemporaries of Ignatius and Cyprian? Why weren’t these “wrong” inventions shouted down?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Wow…not even close.

We know that God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, and in Isaiah 51:1-2 we read:

1 "Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness
and who seek the LORD :
Look to the rock from which you were cut
and to the quarry from which you were hewn;
2 look to Abraham, your father,
and to Sarah, who gave you birth.
When I called him he was but one,
and I blessed him and made him many.

So, Abram received his new name from God at the time that the nation of Israel was being founded. Thus, Abraham was known to the Jews as the rock from which they were hewn. Abraham is the Father of the Jews and the patriarchal head of the first covenant.

Similarly, Simon received his new name from God at the time that the Church was being founded. Thus, Cephas (or Peter) is known to Christians as the rock upon which the Church was built, and in a sense, we have received our faith from Peter to whom the Father first revealed that Jesus was the Christ. Peter is the Father of the Church and a “patriarch” of the New Covenant.

Jesus’ audience would have made the connection immediately.

Really, Dan, isn’t it hard to kick against the goads?

None of the above says or implies that Peter was head of the church on earth. The rock IS Peter WITH the confession of our faith.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Ah…I see. Whenever an ECF writes of something that the Church believed but with which you disagree, you cry, “Innovation!”

Strange, but we don’t have any similar cries from the writings of the other Fathers, do we? We have extensive writings from the Fathers against all sort of early heresies…where is the charge of “novelty” from the contemporaries of Ignatius and Cyprian? Why weren’t these “wrong” inventions shouted down?

The obvious evidence of innovation is from the sacred scripture itself that speaks of the true basis of unity and the true ministry of the New Testament church.

Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to **keep the unity **of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all…11 It was he (Christ) who **gave some to be (pope ?), **apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

The above is an example of a passage where the most important basis of unity in the Catholic church would have been mentioned if it were so. Cyprian was wrong.

 

[twb1621]

When you say “Catholic Church” you mean the papacy alone? or papacy with councils? or councils alone? In any case, sounds like it brings us back to whether or not the infallible papacy is fully defined in sacred scripture.

You have no basis for your dispute other than a defense you want to present on belhalf of your pride when yu could be looking more deeply into the information you are offered. Below are some excerpts verifying the Church Authority and hierarchy. Unless you have some crcedible source which you still have not offered, learn something from them. There is a great deal more to help you learn if you really want to.
Compare the symbol of the keys with that in the following:
In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. (Isaiah 22:20-22)
Note: the power of `loosing and binding’ in heaven and on earth.
After starting Churches in various places, Peter set up his See (or place of authority) in the capital of the Empire: Rome. Here he won the martyr’s crown by being crucified upside-down (not considering himself worthy to die in exactly the same way as Christ). His body was buried on a hill that was then on the outskirts of Rome, known as Vatican Hill.
Excavations this century beneath St. Peter’s Basilica have uncovered what appears to be the remains of St. Peter, the first Pope. Tours, I believe, are still available through the excavation (or scavi) by special arrangment, though they are now more restricted for fear of excessive damage to the relics.

---

---

Irenaeus’ Against Heresies Book III (c. 180 A.D.)
Topics you can refer to for the truth.
The Heretics Follow neither Scripture nor Tradition.
A Refutation of the Heretics, from the Fact that, in the Various Churches, a Perpetual Succession of Bishops Was Kept Up.
Primacy of the Roman Church
Succession of the First Bishops of Rome

From St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 44
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office(1) of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions,(2) that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them,(3) or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from(1) the episcopate(4) those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.(5) Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

Peace…

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/magistra.html#scripture

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

The first mention of a singular bishop appears to be in Ignatius. This again demonstrates that Peter was not a singular bishop of any church: Rome or Jerusalem. The fact an ECF may have known an apostle means little. Paul lamented that the Galatians had so soon departed from the gospel.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Compare the symbol of the keys with that in the following:
In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. (Isaiah 22:20-22)
Note: the power of `loosing and binding’ in heaven and on earth.

This passage may help understand a unique role for Peter which no one denies, but not as head of the church on earth and successors for such an office, as no NT author recognized him as such or gave qualification for a successor although qualifications for other offices ARE given: bishops and deacons.

After starting Churches in various places, Peter set up his See (or place of authority) in the capital of the Empire: Rome. Here he won the martyr’s crown by being crucified upside-down (not considering himself worthy to die in exactly the same way as Christ). His body was buried on a hill that was then on the outskirts of Rome, known as Vatican Hill.

Excavations this century beneath St. Peter’s Basilica have uncovered what appears to be the remains of St. Peter, the first Pope. Tours, I believe, are still available through the excavation (or scavi) by special arrangment, though they are now more restricted for fear of excessive damage to the relics.

Yes, I have been to more Catholic churches in Italy than Italians, seen the Vatican several times, and do not doubt Peter may be buried there.

Irenaeus’ Against Heresies Book III (c. 180 A.D.)
The Heretics Follow neither Scripture nor Tradition.A Refutation of the Heretics, from the Fact that, in the Various Churches, a Perpetual Succession of Bishops Was Kept Up
Primacy of the Roman Church
Succession of the First Bishops of Rome

Ireaeus chooses Rome for prominence not for holding the position of an infallible successive head of the church on earth. By the time of Irenaeus, the monarchial bishop model had spread throughout the church.

From St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 44
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

These are the qualifications of bishops/presbyters given in letters to Timothy and Titus.

Clement again:
We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we **eject from the episcopate **those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

Notice that Clement uses presbyters and episcopate interchangeably. He knows nothing about a monarchial bishop in Rome or Corinth, and the letter was from the church of Rome not from Clement himself. Hermas says Grapte and Clement were joint leaders in Rome.

 

[paul_c]

Daniel,
you are very true to your Protestant roots in your denials that the church has both traditions and a hierarchy, striving ever so desperately to find the truth in scripture alone. Everything in scripture is true. The problem is, scripture doesn’t contain all truth and even the truth it contains must be understood based on tradition. Remember, what the new testament is: 4 biographies of Jesus, the story of the Apostle’s actions in the 30 years or so after Jesus’s ascension, a series of letters to various communities and individuals addressing certain aspects of the Faith and John’s Apocalyptic work. It is not suprising that the New Testament is therefore silent on some issues that were not points of contention. No one needed to say explicitly that Peter was the church’s leader or that a hierarchy was necessary to manage the church or that all the truths were contained in verbal tradition since these were obvious to all involved and were not a matter of dispute. This is the same reason that sometimes issues like the Immaculate Conception are not written explicitly into Dogma until centuries after the fact. They simply weren’t issues in dispute.

if you look back over this thread, you will recognize that all of your arguments are basically ones of scriptural silence, (i.e.< it never says the words, “Peter is our leader”) rather than scriptural denial ( for example, a scriptual passage that defines a leader other than Peter or that demands that each man be his own leader). Such arguments are weak by definition. Compare that to all the scriptural references that demonstrate Peter’s leadership and 2000 years of tradition that confirm it. The truth will set you free

 

[stephraim]

Hermas says Grapte and Clement were joint leaders in Rome.

And yet it was only Clement’s duty to spread the instruction to other Churches.

 

[Randy_Carson]

None of the above says or implies that Peter was head of the church on earth. The rock IS Peter WITH the confession of our faith.

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. 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)

 

[Randy_Carson]

None of the above says or implies that Peter was head of the church on earth. The rock IS Peter WITH the confession of our faith.

Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

 

[Randy_Carson]

None of the above says or implies that Peter was head of the church on earth. The rock IS Peter WITH the confession of our faith.

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)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The obvious evidence of innovation is from the sacred scripture itself that speaks of the true basis of unity and the true ministry of the New Testament church.

Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to **keep the unity **of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all…11 It was he (Christ) who **gave some to be (pope ?), **apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

The above is an example of a passage where the most important basis of unity in the Catholic church would have been mentioned if it were so. Cyprian was wrong.

Dan-

You said the same thing in post #503…it’s not any more pertinent now than it was then.