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

[Randy_Carson]

I thought Catholicism settled the question of heretical baptism a long time ago and that today, anyone baptized in the name of the trinity, is validly baptized. Even Southern Baptists who do not believe baptism is for salvation, have valid baptism?

You are correct.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The fact Jesus is God is written several places in scripture because it is a fundamental point. Where is it written even once that Peter was head of the church on earth? This kind of thing is not just a given. Such an important central fact would have been clearly stated at least once and repeated several times if true. Your excuses simply admit the obvious: Peter was not in fact head of the church on earth.

Your endless denials ignore the obvious:

Matthew 16:18 indicates that Jesus is the rock that the Church would be built on. Peter was Jesus’ franchise player, so to speak.

Is. 22:22 is the “key” to understanding that Peter would be Jesus’ prime minister and vicar on earth.

John 21:15-18 give further evidence of Peter’s call to lead the universal flock.

Jesus never denied that there would be a leader; He simply clarified the character that such a leader should have.

 

[steve_b]

So you are rebuking Paul.

How about Paul was being taught by Peter.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5149249&postcount=689

dan:

**Peter deserved rebuke because he refused to eat with Gentile Christians who were uncircumcised. **

Paul AGAIN learned from Peter.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5149249&postcount=689

dan:

**Paul observed Jewish customs among non-Christian Jews and newly converted Chrisian Jews in order to win them to Christ, not because obedience to the law is a condition of salvation which he warned the Galatian Christians for being seduced into believing. **

you seem to be showing prejudice in imputing motives.

Peter and Paul were BOTH Jews. They BOTH knew the law and customs of the Jews. Paul even more so because he was a Pharisee, (a lawyer). In fact Saul (now Paul) was the follower and top student of Rabbi Gamaleal, who they called Raban. Saul was guilty of severe persecution of the Church and complicit in the stoning of Stephen the deacon. Now the Jews wanted to kill Paul with the same fervor.

So while you’re imputing false motives on Peter’s actions, you need to explain the following with regards to Paul

, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5149249&postcount=689

dan:

**Did Paul EVER teach or communicate that obedience to the law is a condition of salvation? NO. **

Did Peter? NO!!!

dan:

**Did Paul ever refuse to eat with uncircumcised Gentile Christians out of fear of the circumcision? NO. **

Why did Paul, who preached that the Mosaic law has no effect on salvation,

• circumcise a gentile convert Timothy?
• shave his head and walk barefoot, make sacrifice etc etc as part of the Mosaic law?

How does this come accross to non Jews AND Jews alike who are being taught the works of the Mosaic law means nothing to salvation?

dan:

Many Christian Jews today observe the law out of custom and to not offend the Jews, not as a condition of salvation.

Yet you impose negative motives back on Peter ?

dan:

**Paul was right. Peter was wrong in repeating his pattern of cowardice. **

How do you know this wasn’t a judgement call by Peter? A judgement call that Paul would use and adopt for himself, and completely excuse himself of any wrong doing?

Maybe Protestant polemics have this incident all wrong.

dan:

**Peter must have remembered how he denied the Lord three times and hopefully again felt shame and remorse. **

Scripture tells us Peter felt shame and remorse.

And nobody was surprised when Peter denied Jesus 3 times, including Peter. Jesus told Peter ahead of time what he would do and exactly how it would be done. Jesus told Peter this in front of ALL the apostles. So THEY knew Peter would deny Jesus also. No surprises.

Jesus then said in the upper room that Satan was going to sift them ALL like wheat. Not just Peter. But who did Jesus say He prayed for specifically? It was Peter alone, who AFTER he was sifted, he would turn and strengthen and confirm his brothers because they would be sifted also, but God makes Peter the leader.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Maaann you really are dense. It seems I have encountered this same question from you addressed to different people.

MATTHEW 16. Read that!

This kind of thing is definitely a given because Christ HIMSELF made it a given.

**The current question pertains to the meaning of Matthew 16. When Jesus said Peter is Rock and gave him the keys to the kingdom, what is the intended meaning?

Did Jesus intend thereby: 1) to make Peter head of the church on earth or 2) to call attention to Peter AND the confession he made of Christ, and to assign him the task of opening the kingdom doors?

I believe the meaning is the latter as played out in scripture. If the intention was the former, we would see unmistakable references to Peter as head of the church, not just a prominent apostle to the circumcised as Paul says.**

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

How about Paul was being taught by Peter.

Paul AGAIN learned from Peter.

you seem to be showing prejudice in imputing motives.

Peter and Paul were BOTH Jews. They BOTH knew the law and customs of the Jews. Paul even more so because he was a Pharisee, (a lawyer). In fact Saul (now Paul) was the follower and top student of Rabbi Gamaleal, who they called Raban. Saul was guilty of severe persecution of the Church and complicit in the stoning of Stephen the deacon. Now the Jews wanted to kill Paul with the same fervor.

So while you’re imputing false motives on Peter’s actions, you need to explain the following with regards to Paul

Why did Paul, who preached that the Mosaic law has no effect on salvation,

• circumcise a gentile convert Timothy?
• shave his head and walk barefoot, make sacrifice etc etc as part of the Mosaic law?

How does this come accross to non Jews AND Jews alike who are being taught the works of the Mosaic law means nothing to salvation?

Yet you impose negative motives back on Peter ?

How do you know this wasn’t a judgement call by Peter? A judgement call that Paul would use and adopt for himself, and completely excuse himself of any wrong doing?

Maybe Protestant polemics have this incident all wrong.

Scripture tells us Peter felt shame and remorse.

And nobody was surprised when Peter denied Jesus 3 times, including Peter. Jesus told Peter ahead of time what he would do and exactly how it would be done. Jesus told Peter this in front of ALL the apostles. So THEY knew Peter would deny Jesus also. No surprises.

Jesus then said in the upper room that Satan was going to sift them ALL like wheat. Not just Peter. But who did Jesus say He prayed for specifically? It was Peter alone, who AFTER he was sifted, he would turn and strengthen and confirm his brothers because they would be sifted also, but God makes Peter the leader.

The real question re Paul and Peter in the rebuking incident is this: Was Paul telling the truth or not when he said in Galatians 2:11 "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."

What I am hearing from different posters is: 1) This Peter is not the apostle but a different person who was one of the 70 disciples with the same name, 2) Paul was in the wrong, not Peter, because Paul was being hypocritical, and 3) Peter was in the wrong but it just shows God can use an imperfect person. I agree with #3.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You are correct.

So everyone who is baptized in the name of the trinity is really Roman Catholic since we know baptism is into the body of Christ?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

What a bogus argument…a new low, Dan.

Our nation is called the “United” States of America. We also have a leader.

A sports team may be united in their efforts to win a championship and still have a leader in their coach or best player.

Originally Posted by Daniel Keeran
Your reference to Jesus’ prayer for unity is central. If in fact Peter with his successors is the basis of unity as you say above, why does Jesus not make even a vague reference to this in his historic prayer for the unity of believers??? Did Jesus forget that he appointed Peter with the keys and successors to be the foundation of unity??? No, the fact is this was not the intention of Jesus in the first place.

My point remains unanswered. The President of the United States is referred to as such repeatedly. A coach of a sports team is referred to as such repeatedly. But Peter is not even once referred to as the head of the church on earth although Christ is referred to as such repeatedly.

This is my last post on this thread. Thanks to all for a respectful exchange of views.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So everyone who is baptized in the name of the trinity is really Roman Catholic since we know baptism is into the body of Christ?

Dan-

This is absolutely correct! I’m very pleased that you made this connection (no pun intended). The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

**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
Nice work, Dan.

 

[Randy_Carson]

My point remains unanswered. The President of the United States is referred to as such repeatedly. A coach of a sports team is referred to as such repeatedly. But Peter is not even once referred to as the head of the church on earth although Christ is referred to as such repeatedly.

This is my last post on this thread. Thanks to all for a respectful exchange of views.

Fine.

I understand that some of what you’ve been hearing can be unnerving…cognitive dissonance and all that.

Best wishes.

 

[steve_b]

The real question re Paul and Peter in the rebuking incident is this: Was Paul telling the truth or not when he said in Galatians 2:11 "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."

**What I am hearing from different posters is: **

**1) This Peter is not the apostle but a different person who was one of the 70 disciples with the same name, **

**2) Paul was in the wrong, not Peter, because Paul was being hypocritical, and **

3) Peter was in the wrong but it just shows God can use an imperfect person.

I agree with #3.

I would suggest another view.

Before Paul wrote the following

• “'To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews” etc etc etc 1 Corinthians 9:20

Paul learned this approach from Peter. An approach he earlier rebuked Peter for.

Neither Peter NOR Paul did wrong for doing this in order to win over converts. Nor in order to keep the weak in faith and not lose them. It wasn’t out of deceit they did this, but of love for people’s souls. IF either apostle tied these actions as necessary to salvation it would be condemned. But neither apostle did this. And Paul learned from Peter how to be more effective in winning converts.

For context start reading in chapter 2

newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

 

[steve_b]

My point remains unanswered. The President of the United States is referred to as such repeatedly. A coach of a sports team is referred to as such repeatedly. But Peter is not even once referred to as the head of the church on earth although Christ is referred to as such repeatedly.

This is my last post on this thread. Thanks to all for a respectful exchange of views.

Christ repeatedly identifies Peter as the head of the Church. He just doesn’t say it the way YOU want him to say it. Instead He says

• Simon, your name is now Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church. I, God the son, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, the one who spoke in the beginning and ALL creation came into existance. I give you Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you (singular) bind on earth will be bound in heaven. And whatever you(singular) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven
• Jesus again says to all the apostles so that they know that Peter is the one to (hegeomai) them. Lk 22:24… a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

Hegeomai definition

1) to lead
1) to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman

• After the resurrection and before the Ascension, Jesus in front of ALL the apostles, singled out Peter, AGAIN and told Peter to feed and rule my sheep (poimaino IS the Greek word used there* which means rule**) [Jn 21:16]***

 

[benedictus2]

Does that offend your Protestant sensibilities? I can’t help but noticing that many Protestants spend so much time reading Paul that they neglect Jesus in the Gospels.

That cannot be stated often enough!

Maybe it was Paul who rose from the dead for them!

 

[LionHeart777]

I mentioned this previously with LionHeart
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=689

What I am hearing from different posters is: 1) This Peter is not the apostle but a different person who was one of the 70 disciples with the same name, 2) Paul was in the wrong, not Peter, because Paul was being hypocritical, and 3) Peter was in the wrong but it just shows God can use an imperfect person. I agree with #3.

re: Steve B and Dan;

I always thought this was Peter (Simon) until I came across the quote I gave from Eusebius (from Clement.) Steve B, thanks for those excerpts from Jerome, both of these (i.e. Eusebius) give me something to mull over…I’m not sure if it was Simon or another Cephas:shrug:

Dan,

take care, I enjoyed/appreciate the back and forth. Sorry that I think my motives weren’t always pure (I hope some of them were:blush

peace…everyone else, I enjoyed following this thread. It is very relevant to me who is seriously considering becoming Catholic.

Nick

 

[paul_c]

re: Steve B and Dan;

I always thought this was Peter (Simon) until I came across the quote I gave from Eusebius (from Clement.) Steve B, thanks for those excerpts from Jerome, both of these (i.e. Eusebius) give me something to mull over…I’m not sure if it was Simon or another Cephas:shrug:

Dan,

take care, I enjoyed/appreciate the back and forth. Sorry that I think my motives weren’t always pure (I hope some of them were:blush

peace…everyone else, I enjoyed following this thread. It is very relevant to me who is seriously considering becoming Catholic.

Nick

Nick, I noticed that your religion is listed as Christian but your positions on this thread were clearly Catholic, so much so that I assumed you were already a convert. If there is anything further we can do to help you on your faith journey, just let us know. I have faith that the Spirit will lead you home…

 

[LionHeart777]

thanks for the kind words Paul C. You will (the Lord willing) see me around the forum. I don’t think that I can call myself a protestant (any more.) Hence, Christian. I have worked out most of my issues/protests against Catholicism and have learned very much from this website, and Catholic Answers. They are both so full of information. I also listen to a lot of Catholic radio so I am learning a lot. I was so opposed to Catholic Theology in my fundamentalist days. I think that better dialogues can be had between protestants and Catholics the more they understand each other. Sorry to hijack.

Please pray for me, all who call on the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[LionHeart777]

p.s. maybe the above is confusing so to keep it short, I waver still a little bit between(EO/Catholicism/Sola Scriptura) but am wanting to go talk to the local priest and perhaps
get enrolled in RCIA. Still working through some things

 

[Randy_Carson]

p.s. maybe the above is confusing so to keep it short, I waver still a little bit between(EO/Catholicism/Sola Scriptura) but am wanting to go talk to the local priest and perhaps
get enrolled in RCIA. Still working through some things

Let us know if there are any issues we can help you with.

 

[benedictus2]

p.s. maybe the above is confusing so to keep it short, I waver still a little bit between(EO/Catholicism/Sola Scriptura) but am wanting to go talk to the local priest and perhaps
get enrolled in RCIA. Still working through some things

I will keep you in my prayers

 

[benedictus2]

The current question pertains to the meaning of Matthew 16. When Jesus said Peter is Rock and gave him the keys to the kingdom, what is the intended meaning?

**Did Jesus intend thereby: 1) to make Peter head of the church on earth or 2) to call attention to Peter AND the confession he made of Christ, and to assign him the task of opening the kingdom doors? **

And the answer is…BOTH.

Peter was made head of the Church for the simple reason that Jesus renamed him Rock. By being the Rock the Church is built on He becomes the foundation of the Church. And pay attention to this: It is Christ who is making him the foundation. Peter did not do that. It was Christ who did it.

As for number two yes, he was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven to let those Christ calls to His Church through. What happens when you get given the keys to a house? You have the power to close and open. Imagine that, God himself giving Peter the right to open and close the gates of the kingdom.

So this is very important. He was not just given the keys to open the kingdom, he was also given the power to close it. That is quite something. So think about that.

And this is confirmed when He tells Peter, what ever you bind and loose on earth I Myself will bind and loose in heave. It is like Christ is saying, Peter, whatever you say goes. That is an incredible power. And the reason Jesus did that is because it will not be Peter doing this on his own. No, it will be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I suggest you think that over well because you tend to skim over these things.

**
I believe the meaning is the latter as played out in scripture. If the intention was the former, we would see unmistakable references to Peter as head of the church, not just a prominent apostle to the circumcised as Paul says.**

Well you are always going over Paul and Acts and keep forgetting the points I and many others have raised.

Notice how when they got to the tomb John got there first. But what did he do? He waited for Peter.

You see you focus on Paul and Acts too that you actually seem oblivious to the gospels.

NOW IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU GIVE A REPLY TO MY OTHER POSTS AS WELL.

 

[Cinette]

Here are two books which can be recommended for information regarding the papacy:

• The biblical Basis for the Papacy by John Salza
• Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid.

Cinette