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

[paul_c]

Did Paul think Peter’s role was important?

Galatians 2:6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message.

Did Paul go up so others would know he was in union with Peter?

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

I don’t know if you can speak for Paul here. You are talking 2000 years later and you don’t know what he thought. But regardless what he thought, the fact that Peter was pre-eminent among the Apostles and was put in charge of the church is clear from scripture. I noticed you didn’t answer this post from this morning:

Those that deny Peter’s leadership of the church have a lot of scripture to ignore.

Peter is by far the most mentioned Apostle in the New Testament
Peter is at the transfiguration, the raising of the dead Girl- part of all the unique stories.
Peter is the one who attempts to walk on water
Peter is the one who first acknowledges Christ as the Messiah
Peter is the one who is named the Rock, on which Christ Church will be built
Peter is given the keys to Heaven
it is Peter who is told to strengthen his brothers by Jesus in anticipation of the Passion
It is Peter that tries to defend the lord at the Garden of Gethsemane, chopping off the ear of the High Priest’s servant, Malcus
It is Peter’s story that we follow in parallel to the crucifixion, first as he is the one who follow’s Christ as he is tried and ultimately as he denies Christ
Peter is the first Apostle to see the risen Christ
Peter is the one who is told after the resurrection to tend to the sheep
It is Peter that speaks for the Apostles at Pentecost
It is Peter that defines the need to pick a successor (Matthias) to Judas in the Apostolic ministry
It is Peter who heals the cripple after Pentecost
It is Peter who is called to bring Cornelius as the first Gentile into the Church
it is Peter to whom Paul first confers when starting his mission, note that Paul also talks of seeing him to insure that he hadn’t been “running in vain”
it is Peter who takes the definitive stand at the Council of Jerusalem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Hmmm…
New International Version
VS.
New American Bible:

What translation tells us that Paul regarded Peter as having the important central role as head of the whole church?

Galatians 2:6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Before the great forum crash a poster named SteveG posted the following on the papacy:

Solo Ecclesia
When faced with the obvious unworkability of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, …

Here’s the bottom line. Paul was the most prolific of all apostles. Did he in any of his writing regard or refer to Peter as having the central important role as head of the whole church?

Galatians 2:6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me

 

[YADA]

Here’s the bottom line. Paul was the most prolific of all apostles. Did he in any of his writing regard or refer to Peter as having the central important role as head of the whole church?

Galatians 2:6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me

One passage in isolation of all of the rest of the scritptures [including the Gospels] does not support your point …

Paul was one to boast of his own importance… he was also accused of theft and not being a true apostle …

Paul came and worte lots of letters … Peter and the original apostles walked with Jesus … Jesus did not rename Paul … Jesus re-named Simon … re-named Simon ROCK and stated that Jesus would build His Church upon Peter whom he gave the Keys of the Kingdom to …

Stamp your foot all you want, quote isolated scripture passages all you want you cannot change the totality of the scriptures, the establishment of a Chruch [not a collection of writings decades later] headed up by people …

Our founding fathers established a county with a constitution … selected an initial first president, supreme court and congress …

Then when they all left office … we were not left without leadership, structure and organization … “Good Luck” … each citizen is now free to interpret and inact the Constitution as they are “Inspired” …

The Hebrews of old were not independent "spirits’ and neither were [or are] Christians … Jesus founded a Church … not a collection of churches, One Church

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

One passage in isolation of all of the rest of the scritptures [including the Gospels] does not support your point …

Paul was one to boast of his own importance… he was also accused of theft and not being a true apostle …

Paul came and worte lots of letters … Peter and the original apostles walked with Jesus … Jesus did not rename Paul …

So **you discredit Paul because you realize **the significance of what he said and that if it were true that Peter was the head authority of the whole church, Paul would have stated this rather than: “As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me” Galatians 2:6

 

[Randy_Carson]

Notice that Peter did not tell his readers that after his departure they would have the magisterium or his successor to consult. Rather he urged them to remember things he told them and that he would make every effort for them to be able to remember after his departure.

Dan-

Could you perhaps direct me to the verse where Jesus or Peter told their audiences that they would have a BOOK to follow after their respective departures?

That never happened. So, let’s consider first what Jesus said and did prior to His departure: 1) He left behind a “God-breathed” leadership of the Church (cf. John 20:21-23) which might be considered to be a proto-magisterium, and 2) He left one person clearly in charge of caring for the flock (cf. John 21:15-18).

That person, of course, was Peter. Near the end of his own life, Peter wrote just as you noted above: “And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.”

What effort could Peter make to ensure his message would be remembered after his departure? I submit that Peter made sure that someone was prepared to take over the responsibility for the care and feeding of the flock just as Jesus had modelled for him years earlier.

Nowhere are we directed to a book; rather, it is the Church that is “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15) Consequently, are Catholics wrong to listen to her?

 

[Randy_Carson]

To eat Jesus means to hear and obey his word. See John 6:63

I have as follows:

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, “the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man”. Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can only give you the words of John 6 and hope you will take all into account within that chapter/passage. Is it what the text says?

If the bread and cup were **transformed into real flesh and blood **when Jesus spoke the words “my body” “my blood,” then **were they changed back **when he said “this fruit of the vine” before they drank it?

Will you or anyone respond to me about this?

Sure. The “fruit of the vine” is wine. It is common to refer to the body and blood of our Lord as the bread and wine even after consecration (when transubstantiation has occurred) because although the substance has changed from bread and wine to flesh and blood, the accidents of the bread and wine (taste, smell, appearance, etc.) remain.

The chalice of blood still looks and tastes like a chalice of wine; hence, the term “fruit of the vine” may be employed as a colloquialism even though it is not a technically correct description of the contents of the cup.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You want to believe the bread and cup change in substance. I want to believe the meaning is changed but not the substance. I say, “Lord we ask you to bless this bread for which we give thanks, that to us as Christians is the body of Christ that took on the sins of the world.” And so we discern the body of Christ.

Want to talk about was Peter regarded as the head of the church by Paul, John, James, Jude, and by Peter himself?

Sure…let’s start here:

Luke 22:31
“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift youa] as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

a]The Greek is plural; Satan wanted to test all the Apostles. In verse 35, Jesus states that he has prayed for Simon alone (the Greek is singular) that Simon might strengthen the others. This is another example of Peter’s primacy within the Church.****

Or here:

Matthew 17:24-27

24After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax**("http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=17&version=31#fen-NIV-23724b")]?"

25"Yes, he does," he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?”
26"From others," Peter answered. “Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

The tax collectors approached Peter because he was the leader of the Apostles. But notice further that Peter acts in the place of Christ - as His vicar - by paying the tax in Christ’s place or in persona Christi.

Thoughts?

 

[YADA]

So **you discredit Paul because you realize **the significance of what he said and that if it were true that Peter was the head authority of the whole church, Paul would have stated this rather than: “As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me” Galatians 2:6

No I do not discredit Paul … Paul has a place in the historical church and the development of the canon of the church …

It is you who denegrate Peter [and in so doing Christ] as he placed Peter at the head of His Church… .asked Peter to feed and strengthen his brethren and care for the believers …

What I do is take the scriptures as a whole - the entire message … The Gopels, Acts, the Letters of Paul and the catholic Letters, Revelation … the whole …

Please tell me what it was that so agrieved you that you left the Church with such ‘contempt’ …

Some person or some teaching must have had hurt you very much …

 

[paul_c]

Dan, you continue to ignore all the evidence that Peter was set in charge of the church:
in favor of one single statement from Paul in Galatians that you interpret to mean that he had no respect for Peter’s position.
Are you trying to win an argument or trying to understand the truth? You should check your own motivations.

Quote:
Those that deny Peter’s leadership of the church have a lot of scripture to ignore.

Peter is by far the most mentioned Apostle in the New Testament
Peter is at the transfiguration, the raising of the dead Girl- part of all the unique stories.
Peter is the one who attempts to walk on water
Peter is the one who first acknowledges Christ as the Messiah
Peter is the one who is named the Rock, on which Christ Church will be built
Peter is given the keys to Heaven
it is Peter who is told to strengthen his brothers by Jesus in anticipation of the Passion
It is Peter that tries to defend the lord at the Garden of Gethsemane, chopping off the ear of the High Priest’s servant, Malcus
It is Peter’s story that we follow in parallel to the crucifixion, first as he is the one who follow’s Christ as he is tried and ultimately as he denies Christ
Peter is the first Apostle to see the risen Christ
Peter is the one who is told after the resurrection to tend to the sheep
It is Peter that speaks for the Apostles at Pentecost
It is Peter that defines the need to pick a successor (Matthias) to Judas in the Apostolic ministry
It is Peter who heals the cripple after Pentecost
It is Peter who is called to bring Cornelius as the first Gentile into the Church
it is Peter to whom Paul first confers when starting his mission, note that Paul also talks of seeing him to insure that he hadn’t been “running in vain”
it is Peter who takes the definitive stand at the Council of Jerusalem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Dan-

Could you perhaps direct me to the verse where Jesus or Peter told their audiences that they would have a BOOK to follow after their respective departures?

That never happened. …Nowhere are we directed to a book; rather, it is the Church that is “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15) Consequently, are Catholics wrong to listen to her?

**Peter never in any writing, nor did Paul, ever refer to an earthly head of the whole church **as a means to remind Christians of what to believe. Rather the writings of the apostles and prophets are referred to:

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The **words I have spoken **to you are spirit and they are life.

John 17:17
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

Ephesians 1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you **heard the word of truth, the gospel **of your salvation.

Colossians 1:5
the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel

Colossians 4:16
After **this letter **has been read to you, **see that it is also read **in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

2 Tim.3:16-17
**All Scripture **is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be **thoroughly equipped **for every good work.

2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

James 1:18
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I have as follows:

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

I replied in a previous post to transubstantiation and now turn my attention to Peter as head of the whole church Neither Paul, John, James, nor Peter himself refer to him in any terms as head of the whole church.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Sure. The “fruit of the vine” is wine. It is common to refer to the body and blood of our Lord as the bread and wine even after consecration (when transubstantiation has occurred) because although the substance has changed from bread and wine to flesh and blood, the accidents of the bread and wine (taste, smell, appearance, etc.) remain.

The chalice of blood still looks and tastes like a chalice of wine; hence, the term “fruit of the vine” may be employed as a colloquialism even though it is not a technically correct description of the contents of the cup.

Randy do you mind if I ask what kind of Protestant were you? Are other close family members also Catholic before you?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

No I do not discredit Paul … Paul has a place in the historical church and the development of the canon of the church …

It is you who denegrate Peter [and in so doing Christ] as he placed Peter at the head of His Church… .asked Peter to feed and strengthen his brethren and care for the believers …

What I do is take the scriptures as a whole - the entire message … The Gopels, Acts, the Letters of Paul and the catholic Letters, Revelation … the whole …

Please tell me what it was that so agrieved you that you left the Church with such ‘contempt’ …

Some person or some teaching must have had hurt you very much …

Paul’s statement settles the question for me regarding whether or not he regarded Peter as head of the whole church. “As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me” Galatians 2:6

He would **not dare make such a statement in the same discussion about Peter if he were in fact head of the whole church appointed by the same Jesus who appeared to Paul **on the road to Damascus. We are talking about a **fundamental doctrine **if true.

 

[LionHeart777]

‘…With that church [Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition’ .

link:
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

but what do you make of those specific words?

In my opinion the words are stronger than an argument from silence.

it’s not the only hint, just one of the strongest in my opinion.

" ‘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’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] 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 also what 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; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). "

link:
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

add that together with the keys, the bibding and loosing, authority to forgive sins, these Scriptural passages all things that I just kind of glossed over with my Protestant goggles (not calling you a Protestant)*

 

[paul_c]

**Peter never in any writing, nor did Paul, ever refer to an earthly head of the whole church **as a means to remind Christians of what to believe. Rather the writings of the apostles and prophets are referred to:

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The **words I have spoken **to you are spirit and they are life.

John 17:17
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

Ephesians 1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you **heard the word of truth, the gospel **of your salvation.

Colossians 1:5
the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel

Colossians 4:16
After **this letter **has been read to you, **see that it is also read **in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

2 Tim.3:16-17
**All Scripture **is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be **thoroughly equipped **for every good work.

2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

James 1:18
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Notice he says words of truth in most of these verses. This does not mean the written word. Instead, it means the verbal word (i.e., what we call tradition). Jesus never wrote down what he said. Others did, after the fact (and after many years). 2 Timothy is talking about the old testament (really the Jewish scripture), while in Colossians, he is talking about sharing letters, not declaring that his letters are scripture. This is a very poor attempt at justifying scripture through your own biased interpretation. I hope you can look back critically at your own work and see this.

 

[paul_c]

Paul’s statement settles the question for me regarding whether or not he regarded Peter as head of the whole church. “As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me” Galatians 2:6

He would **not dare make such a statement in the same discussion about Peter if he were in fact head of the whole church appointed by the same Jesus who appeared to Paul **on the road to Damascus. We are talking about a **fundamental doctrine **if true.

You are not being intellectually honest when you pull out that one line (actually half a sentence) from the context of what Paul is saying. Here is the whole sequence: (Galations 1: 12-24 - Galations 2:1-10)
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it, and progressed in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my race, since I was even more a zealot for my ancestral traditions. But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. (As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown personally to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only kept hearing that “the one who once was persecuting us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” So they glorified God because of me.

Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain. Moreover, not even Titus, who was with me, although he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, but because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, that they might enslave us-- to them we did not submit even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain intact for you. But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–those of repute made me add nothing. 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, and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, we were to be mindful of the poor, which is the very thing I was eager to do.

While you are trying to claim that paul did not recognize the jurisdiction of Peter, he clearly did. He consults him at the beginning of his missions and then 14 years later, goes back to him to ensure that he is not running in vain. He recognizes those of repute (to Peter he adds John and James) and then he recognizes that Peter has been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised. While he appears to put himself on equal footing with Peter by declaring that he will go to the uncircumcized as Peter goes to the circumcized, in the next sentence, he shows his subserviance by recognizing that they gave him an order to be mindful of the poor.

I think you should also recognize that Paul’s letters were to churches he founded. He was always very sensitive to the charge that he wasn’t really an apostle, having not been an associate of Christ. This sensitivity is brought up throughout the epistles. And he needed authority to spread the Gospel. He says his authority comes directly from Christ through his vision on the road to Damascus but he also needed the authority that came from Peter, which is why he mentions in Galatians that he recieved that authority from Peter twice (the second time noting he also had the approval of John and James).

 

[Mickey]

No, my roots re the bread and cup are in Matt.26:29

Your interpretation of the Holy Eucharist is protestant.

 

[Mickey]

what do Orthodox Christians think about this passage by Irenaeus? I really am curious. peace

We have no problem with that passage. It is true. The Church at Rome was founded by Ss Peter and Paul. The Church at Rome was completely Orthodox–in communion with the other sees–and as the capital of Christianity the pre-eminent Church.