R
Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Could you explain for us what the keys in Is. 22:22 represent? How were the “Keys” used in ancient Israel?
Who acted in the place of Christ and paid the tax for Christ? Peter.
Do you not get the pattern that the scriptures are establishing here? Why not Andrew or Jude? Why is it ALWAYS Peter in these situations?
Do you think anyone prior to Peter had ever interpreted those prophecies as having anything to do with Judas Iscariot? Of course not. Yet, Peter (again, not any other apostle) stood up and gave the proper interpretation of an obscure passage and authorized the election of a new Apostle. No one questioned his interpretation or his authority to apply the verse to the present situation.
Peter. Always Peter. With the exception of Paul’s missionary work and writings, every other apostles appears as a minor player on this stage.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
I bought the book a little while back called “The Faith of The Early Fathers: Vol. 1” by William Jurgens (The Liturgical Press, 1970: Collegeville, Minnesota.)
Anyway, this book in the intro to Cyprian’s work “The Unity Of The Catholic Church”
talks about 2 different editions by Cyprian. I wasn’t aware of the other. Anway, He (Saint Cyprian) still talks about the Church being founded on 1 man (Peter) in the “second edition.”
*“The Faith of The Early Fathers: Vol. 1” by William Jurgens (The Liturgical Press, 1970: Collegeville, Minnesota.)
P
paul_c
Guest
Daniel,
You are so fixated on in denying Catholicism that you can’t see the truth. If Jesus himself told you he left Peter in charge, I think you would respond, " I’m sorry, that can’t be true because its not written in any of Paul’s epistles."
I left you a long list of biblical responses that showed Peter to be preeminent among the apostles. You never responded to them, despite my posting them 3 times. Your whole premise seems to be that Peter was not the leader of the apostles, because the words" Peter is the leader of the Church is never found in scripture. Well, why would it be?
The new testament is compromised of 27 books. 4 of these are biographies of Jesus Christ. He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Calls him the rock on which he will build my church, He Prays that Peter will support his brothers after the crucifixion and charges Peter with feeding his sheep after the resurrection. I’m sorry that Jesus didn’t use exactly the words you would have liked him to use to describe Peter’s leadership, but you’ll have to take it up with them.
In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter clearly acts as the leader, askign for Judas to be replaced, speaking for the Apostles at Pentacost, Bringing the first Gentile into the church and taking the leadership position at the Council of Jerusalem. So while he was not specifically called the leader, he clearly acted as such.
The Epistles were written to individuals or communities to address specific problems. Since recognition of Peter as the leader of the church was not a problem, there really was no reason to call it out. Nonetheless, in Galatians, Paul notes that he met with Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry and that he wanted to be the leader of the Gentiles as Peter was of the circumcized. Sure seems like he recognizes Peter’s role to me.
It is not surprising that Peter isn’t discussed in revelations, since he was martyred before it was written.
So really, Daniel, how can you deny all this? Do you think its just coincidental that Peter did all these things and that he is by far the most mentioned Apostle in the Gospels and in the first half of Acts? And what about 2000 years of Catholic tradition, the first 1500 years or more where Peter’s role was unchallenged? And the only reason it was challenged was that it was inconvenient for the Protestants to break from the church that Jesus founded on Peter…
You are so fixated on in denying Catholicism that you can’t see the truth. If Jesus himself told you he left Peter in charge, I think you would respond, " I’m sorry, that can’t be true because its not written in any of Paul’s epistles."
I left you a long list of biblical responses that showed Peter to be preeminent among the apostles. You never responded to them, despite my posting them 3 times. Your whole premise seems to be that Peter was not the leader of the apostles, because the words" Peter is the leader of the Church is never found in scripture. Well, why would it be?
The new testament is compromised of 27 books. 4 of these are biographies of Jesus Christ. He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Calls him the rock on which he will build my church, He Prays that Peter will support his brothers after the crucifixion and charges Peter with feeding his sheep after the resurrection. I’m sorry that Jesus didn’t use exactly the words you would have liked him to use to describe Peter’s leadership, but you’ll have to take it up with them.
In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter clearly acts as the leader, askign for Judas to be replaced, speaking for the Apostles at Pentacost, Bringing the first Gentile into the church and taking the leadership position at the Council of Jerusalem. So while he was not specifically called the leader, he clearly acted as such.
The Epistles were written to individuals or communities to address specific problems. Since recognition of Peter as the leader of the church was not a problem, there really was no reason to call it out. Nonetheless, in Galatians, Paul notes that he met with Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry and that he wanted to be the leader of the Gentiles as Peter was of the circumcized. Sure seems like he recognizes Peter’s role to me.
It is not surprising that Peter isn’t discussed in revelations, since he was martyred before it was written.
So really, Daniel, how can you deny all this? Do you think its just coincidental that Peter did all these things and that he is by far the most mentioned Apostle in the Gospels and in the first half of Acts? And what about 2000 years of Catholic tradition, the first 1500 years or more where Peter’s role was unchallenged? And the only reason it was challenged was that it was inconvenient for the Protestants to break from the church that Jesus founded on Peter…
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Yes I have the book. Certainly the papacy was a gradual development and a number of factors contributed. Another interesting book is by the late Robert Eno, a professor of theology at Catholic University of America, titled The Rise of the Papacy.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
I left you a long list of biblical responses that showed Peter to be preeminent among the apostles. You never responded to them, despite my posting them 3 times. Your whole premise seems to be that Peter was not the leader of the apostles,
REPLY: The fact Peter is prominent does not make him the leader of the apostles or the head of the whole church.
He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Calls him the rock on which he will build my church, He Prays that Peter will support his brothers after the crucifixion and charges Peter with feeding his sheep after the resurrection. I’m sorry that Jesus didn’t use exactly the words …
REPLY: The fact is that not only is Peter never referred to as head of the church, the office or gift of pope or of a singular earthly head of the church is never once mentioned in sacred scripture.
In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter clearly acts as the leader, askign for Judas to be replaced, speaking for the Apostles at Pentacost, Bringing the first Gentile into the church and taking the leadership position at the Council of Jerusalem. So while he was not specifically called the leader, he clearly acted as such.
REPLY: Those instances show Peter was prominent, but no where is it stated that Peter was head of the church or that there was such an office as head of the church other than Christ.
The Epistles were written to individuals or communities to address specific problems. Since recognition of Peter as the leader of the church was not a problem, there really was no reason to call it out. Nonetheless, in Galatians, Paul notes that he met with Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry and that he wanted to be the leader of the Gentiles as Peter was of the circumcized. Sure seems like he recognizes Peter’s role to me.
REPLY: Paul does not recognize Peter as head of the church but as having the role of apostle to the Jews just as Paul was apostle to the Gentiles. Paul in fact says Peter was reputed to be one of three pillars of the Jerusalem church.
It is not surprising that Peter isn’t discussed in revelations, since he was martyred before it was written.
REPLY: What IS surprising is that Peter does not even refer to his role as head of the church, in his own letters, but he does refer to his role as apostle and fellow-elder.
So really, Daniel, how can you deny all this? Do you think its just coincidental that Peter did all these things and that he is by far the most mentioned Apostle in the Gospels and in the first half of Acts?
REPLY: This says Peter had a prominent role but that’s all.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Could you explain for us what the keys in Is. 22:22 represent? How were the “Keys” used in ancient Israel?
REPLY: The keys in the Isaiah passage refer specifically to the power or responsibility to open the gate of the city. In Rev.3:7, Jesus has this power, for he is the one who adds people to his church. Peter opened the gate to the kingdom for Jews in Acts 2 and for Gentiles in Acts 10.
Who acted in the place of Christ and paid the tax for Christ? Peter.
Do you not get the pattern that the scriptures are establishing here? Why not Andrew or Jude? Why is it ALWAYS Peter in these situations?
Do you think anyone prior to Peter had ever interpreted those prophecies as having anything to do with Judas Iscariot? Of course not. Yet, Peter (again, not any other apostle) stood up and gave the proper interpretation of an obscure passage and authorized the election of a new Apostle. No one questioned his interpretation or his authority to apply the verse to the present situation.
REPLY: Prominence does not mean Peter was head of the church. The passages are missing where one would expect mention of Peter as head of the church or of the existence of an office of head of the church.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Gee, if Peter wasn’t really all that important, then why does Paul make such a big point of highlighting that he went to see Peter? Why not Thaddeus? Or Thomas?
REPLY: Perhaps because as Paul says, Peter was apostle to the Jews while Paul was apostle to the Gentiles, all without happening to mention that Peter was head of the whole church but only one of three pillars, with James and John.
Yes, Jesus is the head of the entire Church which includes saints in heaven and on earth. However, Jesus has left Peter (and his successors) as visible head of the visible Church on earth
REPLY: Where does it say Peter was the visible head of the church on earth? Where does it mention the office of pope or the qualifications needed for such an office?
S
Sunflower15
Guest
Just a note about the titles Popes use for themselves…are you aware that the favorite title, the most used by them is “Servant of the Servants of the Lord”?
This title is considered by many to be the highest title of all and is used exclusively for the Popes.
Another note: on the matter of whose doctrine it was to not have to obey food regulations and circumcision in order to become Christians, it was Peter who was given the dream by the HS…not James…So, when later the doctrine was sent to all the churches about simply abstaining from blood, pagan offerings to idols, drowned/strangled animals and sexual impurity…this doctrine came from Peter, since it came to Peter from God.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Reinstated as what??? A shepherd?
Well, that’s a good starting point. How many flocks does Jesus reference in the scriptures?
**REPLY: Yes Peter was a shepherd with the apostles, James and John in Jerusalem, as shepherds and with the elders/shepherds of the churches. Peter even calls himself a fellow elder (shepherd), and not the Chief Shepherd of the church on earth.
1 Peter 5:1-4 “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.” **
John 10:16
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
Now, you have just acknowledged that the scriptures indicate that Jesus left Peter responsible for feeding and tending the flock of Christ. The text doesn’t say, “some of the sheep” or “part of the flock”…it says, “feed my sheep.” That’s ALL of them.
REPLY: It does not say ALL of the sheep but simply in a general sense. This is not designating Peter as Chief Shepherd of the church on earth. There is one Chief Shepherd of the church on earth AND in heaven: Christ himself.
Hold that thought…
Now, let’s return to Matthew 16:
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."
Jesus is speaking to Peter alone in this verse. It is to Peter alone that Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven; it is Peter alone who has the power to bind and loose on earth.
See the picture that is being painted here?
Peter is the rock. Peter has been given the keys. Peter is left in charge of the one flock after Jesus’ ascension. Peter is the head of the Church.
REPLY: Peter used the keys to open the gates to Jews and Gentiles, but this did not make him head of the church on earth. As you point out above there is but one shepherd of the whole flock, and the verse you cite refers to Jesus Christ.
John 10:16
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
I do not doubt that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus built his church. But it was Peter AND the confession revealed to him by God. And I do not doubt that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, which he used to open the door to Jews and Gentiles. But this does not mean or say that Peter was appointed to be the head of the church on earth nor does it mean that the office of pope or of an earthly head of the church was established by Christ. These notions are simply missing from sacred scripture, especially in the very places one would expect to see them if true.
Peter’s own letters
Paul’s encounters with Peter
Paul’s writings on gifts and offices in the church
The Book of Acts (ch.15) etc.
P
paul_c
Guest
Daniel,
You are being fairly ridiculous here, don’t you think. Peter is the leader of the church. he was annointed as such by Jesus. He clearly took that role at Pentacost and afterward. He is more than just prominent and pre-eminant. This doesn’t even take faith, it just requires the ability to read without blinders.
Additionally, you completely deny Tradition, which is very clear that Peter was the leader of the church and therefore the first Pope. Here you are taking the flawed position of sola scriptura to absurd levels, requiring specific wording to believe what is already obvious. Do you not understand that the word of God was passed on by word of mouth? Jesus never wrote anything. And that word of God is fully embraced by Catholic Tradition. Scripture was created as a teaching tool by the church and was never meant or expected to cover the whole Deposit of Faith. As with Tradition, scripture is divinely inspired but it is only a subsegment of the total knowledge imparted to the church. Nothing in tradition contradicts sacred scripture, but not everything in tradition is covered by sacred scripture.
Please note also, that scripture was not available to the masses until 1500 years after Christ when the printing press was invented. Prior to that books could not be mass produced and were by definition rare and extremely expensive. The whole concept of Sola Scriptura is absurd and has only been propagated by those that exited the Church and abandonned the full truth of their own free will and were left with only scripture available to them.
You are being fairly ridiculous here, don’t you think. Peter is the leader of the church. he was annointed as such by Jesus. He clearly took that role at Pentacost and afterward. He is more than just prominent and pre-eminant. This doesn’t even take faith, it just requires the ability to read without blinders.
Additionally, you completely deny Tradition, which is very clear that Peter was the leader of the church and therefore the first Pope. Here you are taking the flawed position of sola scriptura to absurd levels, requiring specific wording to believe what is already obvious. Do you not understand that the word of God was passed on by word of mouth? Jesus never wrote anything. And that word of God is fully embraced by Catholic Tradition. Scripture was created as a teaching tool by the church and was never meant or expected to cover the whole Deposit of Faith. As with Tradition, scripture is divinely inspired but it is only a subsegment of the total knowledge imparted to the church. Nothing in tradition contradicts sacred scripture, but not everything in tradition is covered by sacred scripture.
Please note also, that scripture was not available to the masses until 1500 years after Christ when the printing press was invented. Prior to that books could not be mass produced and were by definition rare and extremely expensive. The whole concept of Sola Scriptura is absurd and has only been propagated by those that exited the Church and abandonned the full truth of their own free will and were left with only scripture available to them.
A
anthony022071
Guest
bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm
< As for Paul’s use of the term “Kephas” for Peter, this is a classic Jewish pun referencing Peter’s headship. True, “Kephas” (frequently rendered as “Cephas” in English Bibles) is merely a Greek form of the Aramaic name “Kepha” (Rock); but in Greek it also implies Headship, in that “Kephale’” is the Greek word for head. And we can see this pun (a pun that’s never lost on Greek-speaking readers) all throughout the New Testament (e.g. John 13:8-9; 1 Cor 9:5; 1 Cor 15:5; Gal 2:9; Gal 2:11,14; etc). All these as veiled references to Peter’s “headship” and when understood in Greek and in context, one cannot miss them. >
catholic-legate.com/dialogues/peterinrome.html
See also post 67.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5075150#post5075150
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’ve been thinking overnight about your line of reasoning, and I have this thought:
As you well know, the word “trinity” does not appear in the pages of scripture. Yet, no one who reads the NT carefully would deny that the concept of the Trinity can be deduced from what is found there.
Similary, anyone who reads the NT objectively (that is, without an agenda) will see that Jesus selects Peter to be the leader of the Apostles and the head of the Church.
There is more to support the primacy of Peter than there is to support the doctrine of sola scriptura, for example.
P
paul_c
Guest
Randy, I like where you are going with this.
Daniel, your whole argument against Peter is based on the wording of Scripture and your demand that for Peter’s Primacy to be true, then it must be stated explicitly. So let’s do the consistency check. Show us where it says explicitly, that the all truths of Christian doctrine are contained explicitly in Scripture. If you can’t show us this with the absolutely clarity that you require for Peter’s Primacy, then I would say your argument against Peter has no merit…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
True. But there is more to support Peter’s primacy than mere prominence.
True. We simply see Peter acting in that role while the others acquiesce.
True. And by your logic, we cannot conclude strictly from the scriptures that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Nowhere is it state that He is. Perhaps He was God who only APPEARED to be a man.
And yet, of the three, Paul specifically mentions that he spent time with Peter because Paul knew that the Galatians knew that Peter was the man.
Actually, given Jesus’ clear teaching that the Apostles should be servants of all (cf. Mark 9:33-35), I would be surprised to find Peter blowing his own horn. Paul’s touting of his own credentials comes across as quite arrogant by comparison. Perhaps that’s why God gave him a “thorn” to keep him humble!
Really, Daniel? Is that what scholars and ordinary believers have concluded down through the centuries?
Isn’t the REAL issue that you need Peter to be nothing special because if the primacy of Peter is legitimate, then you have to deal with the possibility that the papacy is of God? And if the papacy is from God, then the Catholic Church must…whoa!
That scares you, doesn’t it?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter
**Clement of Alexandria **
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (*Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? *21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
**Tertullian **
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
**Letter of Clement to James **
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
**Origen **
"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
**Cyprian **
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], 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 [the apostles] 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 [should] 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]).
Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 AD)
“the chiefest and foremost of the apostles” (Catechetical Lectures, 2, 19).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis” [Acts 9:32–34] (Catechetical Lectures, 17:27 [A.D. 350]).
**Ephraim **
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).
**Ambrose **
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
**Clement of Alexandria **
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (*Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? *21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
**Tertullian **
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
**Letter of Clement to James **
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
**Origen **
"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
**Cyprian **
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], 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 [the apostles] 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 [should] 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]).
Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 AD)
“the chiefest and foremost of the apostles” (Catechetical Lectures, 2, 19).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis” [Acts 9:32–34] (Catechetical Lectures, 17:27 [A.D. 350]).
**Ephraim **
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).
**Ambrose **
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
When the early Christians were struggling with matters of faith, did they consult Peter? Did they consult the bishop of Rome re gnosticism and a myriad of heresies and false gospels? No, **they consulted the scriptures **that had been circulated, and we know this from the writings of the ECF’s. And in the case of Corinth in c.90 AD, they asked for the advice of the church at Rome re the leadership challenge in the congregation at Corinth. In view of all the issues that emerged in the early centuries and the myriad of heresies, where are the general pastoral letters to the whole church from the bishop of Rome? Since we have the letters of the first apostles and prophets, and if there was a succession of the bishop of Rome as Chief Shepherd of the flock of Christ in the whole world, where are the **preserved pastoral letters **of the bishop of Rome after Peter?
The difference in “trinity” and the phrase “head of the church” is that the latter CAN be found in scripture, and it refers to Christ alone.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. (and blessed Peter represents Christ on earth?)
If Matt 16 terms “rock” and “keys” refer to Peter as head of the church on earth, no New Testament writer seems to know it.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
I agree completely. List all the truths of christian doctrine and we’ll have a look. The primacy of Peter is a Catholic doctrine, so we may need to distinguish Christian from Catholic, but it will be interesting.
- Status