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

[Daniel_Keeran]

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. …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).

**Paul NEVER says he needed authority from Peter **but quite the opposite. He wanted to cooperate in his ministry to the Gentiles while Peter and others were in ministry to the Jews, but at no time did he need or receive orders from “from those who were reputed to be important” on any matter. Helping the poor was a reminder to Paul, not an order. Again, this is the passage where one would expect to find a clear reference to Peter as head of the church, yet not a word is mentioned.

Also, the **position of head of the whole church in scripture is reserved for Christ alone **and never ascribed to Peter. Note especially the following where mention of such a central fundamental position would be mentioned if true:

**Luke 11:49
Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’

1 Corinthians 12:28
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 12:29
Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

Ephesians 2:20
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Ephesians 3:5
which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.

Ephesians 4:11
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,

2 Peter 3:2
I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

Revelation 18:20
Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you.**

Peter himself NEVER refers to an earthly position of head of the whole church. If it was not prideful to speak of himself as an apostle which means “one sent,” it would not have been prideful to refer to himself as “one chosen” to be head or chief shepherd or some other similar title to indicate his central fundamental God-appointed role as head of the whole church.

**1 Peter 1:1
Peter, an apostle *(and chosen rock?) *of Jesus Christ…

1 Peter 5:1
To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder *(and chosen rock?), *a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed…

2 Peter 1
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle (and chosen rock?) of Jesus Christ…

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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.

What sacred scripture clearly says over and over is that people who want to do God’s will should listen to His words. NEVER is anyone told to listen to an earthly head of the whole church who has power to bind and loose. Surely if such a doctrine were true it would be stated at least once if not repeatedly in sacred scripture…

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

‘…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)

‘…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’ .
REPLY: “Superior origin” refers to Peter and Paul as founding apostles. “All churches must agree” because Rome was founded by Peter and Paul and so can be trusted as having the truth they taught. The same thought is repeated in the next sentence, i.e. the “apostolic tradition” has been “maintained” in the church at Rome by all who are faithful. There is not a word about the bishop of Rome regarded as head of the whole church, nor of the church of Rome having ecclesial authority over the whole church, only that the truth taught at Rome can be trusted, as over against heretical teachings.

" ‘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]). "

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)

On him [Peter] he builds the Church,
**REPLY: What does this mean in sacred scripture played out in the writings of Paul, James, John, and Peter himself who never mention an earthly head of the whole church? ***

to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17]
**REPLY: Yes, three times corresponding to the three denials. This passage has nothing to do with the idea of Peter as earthly head of the whole church. **

he founded a single chair [cathedra], and
**REPLY: The idea of a teaching chair is not mentioned in scripture. **

he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.
**REPLY: This idea is never mentioned in scripture. Rather the basis of unity is given in Ephesians 4:3-6 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (One earthly head, the blessed Peter, established by the authority of Christ?) **

a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.
REPLY: See above

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?’
REPLY: It is true rather to say, if someone does not hold fast to the unity of Ephesians 4:3-6, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?

 

[stephraim]

Brother,

You continually assert that each doctrine must be explicitly stated. Yet the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Hypostatic Union were not explicitly defined until centuries after the revelation. Each is implicit in Scripture, but never are they clearly stated. It took Tradition to formally define these (once they were challenged).

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Brother,

You continually assert that each doctrine must be explicitly stated. Yet the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Hypostatic Union were not explicitly defined until centuries after the revelation. Each is implicit in Scripture, but never are they clearly stated. It took Tradition to formally define these (once they were challenged).

All the teaching essential to faith is contained in sacred scripture. In order for the fundamental idea of an earthly head of the whole church to be true, it must be fully stated and formed from the beginning, as it asserts infallible teaching authority located in Peter and his successors. There are not even any qualifications given for such an office, let alone any reference to it by Paul, James, John, or Peter himself.

 

[davidv]

All the teaching essential to faith is contained in sacred scripture. In order for the fundamental idea of an earthly head of the whole church to be true, it must be fully stated and formed from the beginning, as it asserts infallible teaching authority located in Peter and his successors. There are not even any qualifications given for such an office, let alone any reference to it by Paul, James, John, or Peter himself.

What book, chapter and verse in the Bible states this?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

What book, chapter and verse in the Bible states this?

The nearest concept in sacred scripture to the idea of a singular human head of the church, is the desire to be first…Diotrephes, and it is from this spirit that I suspect the notion of a singular bishop and a singular earthly head of the whole church, came.

3 John 1:9
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us.

The idea of primacy, of pre-eminence, is the very definition of the papacy, of the notion of “prince of the apostles,” and of the concept of hierarchy.

 

[LionHeart777]

So Daniel,

I’m not so sure if I agree with that interpretation of Irenaeus. But moving on,

you would concede, it seems, that Cyprian of Carthage is referring to Peter having authority over the whole Church. I have heard it compared to “the chair of Moses” that Jesus speaks about, but I think it is not the same chair, but a new one founded with/on Peter . So it seems for me to hold your view, I would have to deal with this parallel, ignore the other parallel I heard about regarding the Sanhedrin ( paralleled w/ the Magisterium) and conclude that Cyprian is misinformed, or maybe worse-making things up. I personally am not so comfortable brushing aside Cyprian’s words and then holding to your offered interpretations of Irenaeus. Also, there are at least hints of the papacy in the Bible, in my opinion. I’m not convinced fully of your interpretation of the Keys also. How about the authority to forgive sin given to the Apostles? It just seems like one has to amost swim against the evidence. If you came to believe that Sola Scriptura was an incorrect doctrine, would you still feel the same way?

If anyone know the Eastern Orthodox response to the passages I quoted from the tract, I would be interested in hearing their side. Or better, if any Orthodox brother or sister would answer.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

So Daniel,

I’m not so sure if I agree with that interpretation of Irenaeus. But moving on,

you would concede, it seems, that Cyprian of Carthage is referring to Peter having authority over the whole Church. I have heard it compared to “the chair of Moses” that Jesus speaks about, but I think it is not the same chair, but a new one founded with/on Peter . So it seems for me to hold your view, I would have to deal with this parallel, ignore the other parallel I heard about regarding the Sanhedrin ( paralleled w/ the Magisterium) and conclude that Cyprian is misinformed, or maybe worse-making things up. I personally am not so comfortable brushing aside Cyprian’s words and then holding to your offered interpretations of Irenaeus. Also, there are at least hints of the papacy in the Bible, in my opinion. I’m not convinced fully of your interpretation of the Keys also. How about the authority to forgive sin given to the Apostles? It just seems like one has to amost swim against the evidence. If you came to believe that Sola Scriptura was an incorrect doctrine, would you still feel the same way?

If anyone know the Eastern Orthodox response to the passages I quoted from the tract, I would be interested in hearing their side. Or better, if any Orthodox brother or sister would answer.

I believe in sola Spirit, the witness of sacred scripture and that whatever is spoken by a council or an ECF must agree with scripture as the voice of the Spirit. Cyprian was mistaken on various issues. There is **no reference **in scripture to Peter’s having a teaching chair. The church of scripture has neither sanhedrin nor magisterium. Jesus forgave sin and gave this authority to the apostles, but there is **no evidence **this was passed on to anyone else. After baptism, forgiveness is obtained by asking God directly as in Acts 8: 22 “Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord” and in 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

 

[YADA]

I believe in sola Spirit, the witness of sacred scripture and that whatever is spoken by a council or an ECF must agree with scripture as the voice of the Spirit. Cyprian was mistaken on various issues. There is **no reference **in scripture to Peter’s having a teaching chair. The church of scripture has neither sanhedrin nor magisterium. Jesus forgave sin and gave this authority to the apostles, but there is **no evidence **this was passed on to anyone else. After baptism, forgiveness is obtained by asking God directly as in Acts 8: 22 “Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord” and in 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

We knew that … “Pope” Daniel Keeran …

Or as perhaps you like to say it … Inspired by the Holy Spirit Daniel Keeran … You are right Cyprian - and so many, many , many others … was mistaken [guess his spirtual inspiration was not as well formed as yours] … and the Christian Church is Unified in faith and belief by this individually determined movement of Sola Spirit … it is One SPirit that moves in multi-millions to bring conformity of understanding …

You Daniel - have convinced me - You are the infallable, inspired determinator of what is truth - there can be no other …

When is your Biblical passage by passage commentary on scriptures coming out that I may obtain it

Okay, Daniel … just having a bit of fun … Please take no offense …

you never answered … Why did you leave the Church? …

 

[stephraim]

All the teaching essential to faith is contained in sacred scripture. In order for the fundamental idea of an earthly head of the whole church to be true, it must be fully stated and formed from the beginning, as it asserts infallible teaching authority located in Peter and his successors. There are not even any qualifications given for such an office, let alone any reference to it by Paul, James, John, or Peter himself.

Fully stated and formed from the beginning…

Where in the Bible does it say that Our Lord has two natures, one fully human, the other fully Divine, and are unite hypostatically in one Person?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Fully stated and formed from the beginning…

Where in the Bible does it say that Our Lord has two natures, one fully human, the other fully Divine, and are unite hypostatically in one Person?

I don’t know what hypostatically even means, but scripture does speak of Jesus as divine in many places and also as human in many places.

**John 1:1,14 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”

Philippians 2:5-7 “Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”

Colossians 2:9
“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”**

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter never in any writing, nor did Paul, ever refer to an earthly head of the whole church

Right. Only Jesus did.

“You are Peter and on this rock I will build what I must call my church.” (Mt. 16:18)

“Feed my sheep…tend my lambs…feed my lambs.” (John 21:15-18)

Still, one has to wonder why Paul went to Jerusalem to spend two weeks with who? WHO?

Yeah, it was Peter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

My paternal grandparents were Baptists, and my maternal grandparents were Baptists. My father leaned toward Episcopalianism, but my mother was a Baptist, and so they compromised by becoming Methodists. My sister and I were baptized and confirmed as Methodists. I converted to the Catholic Church in 1979 while my sister has been baptized two more times (once as a Baptist). Today, she is a non-denominational “Bible Christian.”

I did not know any Catholics growing up.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Also, the **position of head of the whole church in scripture is reserved for Christ alone **and never ascribed to Peter.

Sure it is. Jesus knew that he would be departing this earth soon, and He left Peter in charge.

Let’s start with the following:

PETER AS VICAR OF CHRIST PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE

Matthew 16:13-19
"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I 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 gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

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?” 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."

Jesus specifically commands Peter to pay the tax that He Himself owed. Peter acted on Jesus’ behalf in fulfilling the requirement to pay the tax.

John 21:15-17
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

We know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage above, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter, the first Pope, as Vicar of Christ

In John 21 we read:

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

We know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage above, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Right. Only Jesus did.

“You are Peter and on this rock I will build what I must call my church.” (Mt. 16:18)

“Feed my sheep…tend my lambs…feed my lambs.” (John 21:15-18)

Still, one has to wonder why Paul went to Jerusalem to spend two weeks with who? WHO?

Yeah, it was Peter.

“You are Peter and on this rock I will build what I must call my church.” (Mt. 16:18)
REPLY: No mention of Peter as head of the church here. Building the church on Peter as Rock could mean various things: e.g.the revelation given to Peter, revelation by the Holy Spirit, opening the new kingdom to Jew and Gentile.

“Feed my sheep…tend my lambs…feed my lambs.” (John 21:15-18)
REPLY: No mention of Peter as head of the church here. Peter was reinstated as a shepherd after he denied Christ three times.

Still, one has to wonder why Paul went to Jerusalem to spend two weeks with who?
WHO?**
REPLY: No mention of Peter as head of the church here. Peter IS identified as apostle to the Jews and Paul is apostle to the Gentiles. The apostles in Jerusalem agreed they would go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.**

Is there a reference to a head of the church anywhere in the New Testament?
REPLY: Yes, to Jesus 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.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Sure it is. Jesus knew that he would be departing this earth soon, and He left Peter in charge.

Let’s start with the following:

PETER AS VICAR OF CHRIST PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE

Matthew 16:13-19
"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I 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 gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. …” (Isaiah 22:22)
REPLY: This refers to Eliakim, not to the messianic kingdom.

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?” 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."

Jesus specifically commands Peter to pay the tax that He Himself owed. Peter acted on Jesus’ behalf in fulfilling the requirement to pay the tax.
REPLY: No mention of Peter as head of the church here, but only to pay the tax for Jesus and him since the collectors came to Peter and challenged him with the tax question…

John 21:15-17
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!
REPLY: No mention of Peter as head or chief shepherd of the church. All the apostles were shepherds of the flock. Peter needed to be reconfirmed after he had denied Christ three times, hence he asked Peter three times

We know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage above, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.
REPLY: The passage does not say Jesus left Peter in charge to the exclusion of other apostles. There is no provision in scripture for a successor to any apostles except Judas whose replacement was prophecied. The qualifications for that replacement could be duplicated after the passing of that generation: part of the ministry since John the Baptist and witness of the resurrection of Christ…

 

[Randy_Carson]

“You are Peter and on this rock I will build what I must call my church.” (Mt. 16:18)
REPLY: No mention of Peter as head of the church here. Building the church on Peter as Rock could mean various things: e.g.the revelation given to Peter, revelation by the Holy Spirit, opening the new kingdom to Jew and Gentile.

Let’s deal with the error that Jesus was actually building not on Peter but on the revelation given to Peter.

I’m going to allow Protestant scholars to refute this, okay? I have more than a dozen quotes available, but these two should suffice:

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied…Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built the Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Feed my sheep…tend my lambs…feed my lambs.” (John 21:15-18)

Reinstated as what??? A shepherd?

Well, that’s a good starting point. How many flocks does Jesus reference in the scriptures?

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.

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.