M
Mickey
Guest
“The Church, the House of the Lord, is built upon the foundations of the faith of the apostles and prophets.” Saint Basil the Great (379 A.D.) Second Chapter of Isaiah
Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
“The word ‘Rock’ has only a denominative value–it signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles.” -**Saint Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D)
**
**
M
Mickey
Guest
*The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. **…***For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God? (Psalm 18:2,31)
M
Mickey
Guest
Peter declares in his epistle, by his own hand, and under divine inspiration no less, that he was only one among the bishops (sumpresbuteros). See 1 Peter 5:1-5
1 The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre’s sake, but voluntarily: 3 Neither as lording it over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 4 And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. 5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.
1 The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre’s sake, but voluntarily: 3 Neither as lording it over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 4 And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. 5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.
M
Mickey
Guest
I know nothing. I am the most wretched of sinners. And I ask Jesus Christ to have mercy on me.
- The particular form of primacy among the Churches exercised by the bishops of Rome has been and remains the chief point of dispute between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, and their chief obstacle to full ecclesial communion with each other. Disagreement has often centered on the way in which the leadership exercised by Peter in expressing and confirming the faith of the other disciples (Matt 16.17f.; Lk 22.32; John 21.15-19) is to be realized in Church life. The Orthodox have emphasized that the role of Peter within the apostolic college is reflected principally in the role of the church. Roman Catholics have claimed for the bishops of Rome, since the fourth century, not only the first place in honor among their episcopal colleagues but also the “Petrine” role of proclaiming the Church’s apostolic tradition and of ensuring the observation of canonical practices.
As our Consultation has suggested in its earlier statement, “Apostolicity as God’s Gift in the Life of the Church” (1986; par. 12), “There is no intrinsic opposition between these two approaches.” The Orthodox do accept the notion of universal primacy, speaking of it as a “primacy of honor” accorded to a primus inter pares; at the same time, they cannot accept an understanding of the role of the primate which excludes the collegiality and interdependence of the whole body of bishops, and in consequence continue to reject the formulation of Papal primacy found in Vatican I’s constitution Pastor Aeternus. Engaged since the Second Vatican Council in further development of the doctrine of Papal primacy within the context of a collegially responsible episcopate (see especially Lumen Gentium 22-23), the Roman Catholic Church is presently seeking new forms of synodal leadership which will be compatible with its tradition of effective universal unity in faith and practice under the headship of the bishop of Rome. - The fullest synodal expression of the Church’s universal reality is the gathering of bishops from various parts of the world in “ecumenical council,” to deal with questions of urgent and universal importance by clarifying and defining the “ecumenical” faith and practice of the apostolic tradition (see the statement of the International Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, “The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church” [New Valamo, 1988] 54). The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches agree in recognizing the seven great councils of the early Church as ecumenical in character and import. Because the circumstances of their convocation, their preparation and membership, and the process of their subsequent recognition by the Churches vary, history offers us no single juridical model of conciliar structure as normative. Still, the acceptance of the binding authority of certain councils by the apostolic churches in worldwide communion - however and whenever that acceptance becomes clear - constitutes for the whole Body of Christ an event of charismatic unity at the highest level. It is in the reception of a common faith, especially as that faith is formulated by the ecumenical councils, that the Churches experience most authentically the unity in the Lord that is the foundation of Eucharistic communion.
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/conciliarityandprimacy.html
P
paul_c
Guest
Mickey et al,
Your denial’s of Peter’s primacy are futile. Look at the data from scripture alone.
Simon is renamed Peter, the rock on which the church is founded. Isn’t it a little too coincidental that he is named “rock”. Its foolish to get into the semantic games of Pebble vs rock in this. Why would he name him “Pebble”?
Here is Matthew 16: 17-19:
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Peter gets the revelation from God, the new name and the keys to heaven. What more is needed to show his primacy?
Read Luke 22: 24-32: the Apostles are arguing among themselves as to who is the Greatest:
Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves. It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers
Notice, he says it is Peter who will strengthen his brothers, thus signifying him as the leader.
Same thing in John 21: 15-17
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Notice how the Lord gives Jesus primacy here, defined as providing service and support to the others.
Couple that with the Fact that Peter is mentioned far more oftern than all the other Apostles put together in the Gospels. It is his story we follow in parallel to Jesus in the Passion, not any of the others about whom the scriptures are silent. Do you think that this is coincidental.
How about Acts?
Acts 1: Peter takes the lead in picking a successor for Judas
Act 2: Peter speaks for the Apostles at Pentecost, giving the new converts instruction on what they should do.
Acts 3: Peter cures the man born lame
Acts 4: Peter speaks for the Apostles to the people of Jerusalem and then the Chief Priest.
Acts 5: Peter deals with Ananias and Sapphira, People begin laying out the sick for Peter’s shadow to pass over, and then Peter speaks again for the Apostles to the Sanhedrin.
Acts 9: Peter is shown to be visiting every region. On his journey, He cures Aeneas and brings Tabitha back to life
Acts 10: Peter is called by God to bring the first gentile (Cornelius) into the Faith
Acts 15: Peter states that he was picked form among the Apostles to speak to the Gentiles, a point that is not debated, and takes the decisive position of not requiring Christians to follow the Jewish law at the Council of Jerusalem
Paul singles Peter out more than once from among the apostles. In Galatians, it is Peter who he visits in 35AD for 15 days prior to starting his missionary journeys. He also recognizes Peter as pre-eminant among the circumcized in Galations 2. He also makes a big deal out of challenging Peter not to be hypocritical, in the same epistle, when it is obvious that James is doing the same thing.
In 1Corinithians 9:5 He says:
Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas.
thus singling Peter out from the other Apostles.
How much proof do you guys need? And this of course, doesn’t even count 2000 years of tradition.
Your denial’s of Peter’s primacy are futile. Look at the data from scripture alone.
Simon is renamed Peter, the rock on which the church is founded. Isn’t it a little too coincidental that he is named “rock”. Its foolish to get into the semantic games of Pebble vs rock in this. Why would he name him “Pebble”?
Here is Matthew 16: 17-19:
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Peter gets the revelation from God, the new name and the keys to heaven. What more is needed to show his primacy?
Read Luke 22: 24-32: the Apostles are arguing among themselves as to who is the Greatest:
Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves. It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers
Notice, he says it is Peter who will strengthen his brothers, thus signifying him as the leader.
Same thing in John 21: 15-17
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Notice how the Lord gives Jesus primacy here, defined as providing service and support to the others.
Couple that with the Fact that Peter is mentioned far more oftern than all the other Apostles put together in the Gospels. It is his story we follow in parallel to Jesus in the Passion, not any of the others about whom the scriptures are silent. Do you think that this is coincidental.
How about Acts?
Acts 1: Peter takes the lead in picking a successor for Judas
Act 2: Peter speaks for the Apostles at Pentecost, giving the new converts instruction on what they should do.
Acts 3: Peter cures the man born lame
Acts 4: Peter speaks for the Apostles to the people of Jerusalem and then the Chief Priest.
Acts 5: Peter deals with Ananias and Sapphira, People begin laying out the sick for Peter’s shadow to pass over, and then Peter speaks again for the Apostles to the Sanhedrin.
Acts 9: Peter is shown to be visiting every region. On his journey, He cures Aeneas and brings Tabitha back to life
Acts 10: Peter is called by God to bring the first gentile (Cornelius) into the Faith
Acts 15: Peter states that he was picked form among the Apostles to speak to the Gentiles, a point that is not debated, and takes the decisive position of not requiring Christians to follow the Jewish law at the Council of Jerusalem
Paul singles Peter out more than once from among the apostles. In Galatians, it is Peter who he visits in 35AD for 15 days prior to starting his missionary journeys. He also recognizes Peter as pre-eminant among the circumcized in Galations 2. He also makes a big deal out of challenging Peter not to be hypocritical, in the same epistle, when it is obvious that James is doing the same thing.
In 1Corinithians 9:5 He says:
Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas.
thus singling Peter out from the other Apostles.
How much proof do you guys need? And this of course, doesn’t even count 2000 years of tradition.
S
stephraim
Guest
Mickey, thank you for the clarification.
M
Mickey
Guest
Primacy is different than supremacy. Are you one of the Borg? Resistance is futile!
M
Mickey
Guest
You are welcome. God bless you. I love your name by the way–St Ephraim is one of my favorites!
I do not wish anyone to be offended. The Holy Orthodox Church has no problem with St Peter or his successors. The Orthodox Church took exception many centuries later when the Pope of Rome decided to declare supreme authority and infallibilitiy spurred on by the ultramontanists. St Peter is highly venerated during the great feast of Ss Peter and Paul preceded by a three week fast.
It is my prayer that the the Churches can once again re-unite by recognizing the office of the papacy as it once existed before the great schism. That would be a wonderful starting point. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI ) worded it aptly:
Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco*, CA: Ignatius Press]**
Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]
L
lion_of_judah
Guest
I agree, the RCC went wrong when it got all that power and then said that the Bishop of Rome is surpreme.
I think the Orthodox and RCC can get back together if they go back to how the Bishop of Rome really was in the earlier centuries.
I think the Orthodox and RCC can get back together if they go back to how the Bishop of Rome really was in the earlier centuries.
M
Mickey
Guest
Will you join us?
Y
YADA
Guest
Jesus Christ is the Rock of our Salvation
… Jesus Christ is the Head of His Church, Jesus is God - the Second Person of the Holy Trinity … Jesus is the Cornerstone that the builders rejected … Jesus is the Messiah, the Annointed One, the Only Begooten Son of the Father … Jesus and the Father are One …Not one iota of the above negates that Jesus founded His Church upon Simon - renamed Rock - the Rock Jesus sated he was building His Church … Jesus did not say that he was buiding His Church upon Himself … as Simon, you are very astute and I name you Rock and upon Myself [as the Rock] I will build my Church …
No, what Jesus did was provide an authority that the people could see represent Him in His absence … that is why Jesus quotes Isaiah … I get that you do not want to see the connection … and write it off as some bizarre coincidence that Isaiah speaks of a Prime Minster who exercises autrhority in the name of the King - opening and closing what no one can then close or open …
But the reality is that Jesus gave Peter keys … Jesus at no time changes anothers name or give them “keys” - only to Peter … this is an “office” … that is filled upon vacancy …
Similarly, the Apostles, too, held an office, one which exercises authority - bind sins and remitting sins … [no keys - a similar office with somme but not all of the authority given to Peter] … And it is an office that they understood - if not before Peter was given the Keys then from that time on if not by all Peter knew and understood that … how do we know this? Because even Judas is an office holder - one whose office needed filling upon its vacancy … and there is no sense in scriptures that these offices where only filled for the Apostolic age and no more … in facts scripture itself gives testimony to the developement of Chrch structure as the infant church begn to grow, spread and it becamme apparent that Jesus was not retunring as soon as they initially thought … we have presbyters and deacons etc …
So Peter [and his successors] is the Rock of the Church founded by Chirst who is the Rock of our Savaltion … why did Jesus make the choice of Peter … because of Peter;s confession …
Thus Peter [the man] is the foundational rock [an office] of the Church [the New Jerusalem, the New Isreal, the fillfillemnt of the promise to David] as illustrated and made known by his confession of faith [belief in Jesus as the Messiah] because Jesus [the Fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords - God Incarnate - the Word Made Flesh - ] declared it to be, giviing to him the duty to love serve and tend the Church with authority …
Peter’sauthority comes directly from Jesus and reflects the Godhead of Christ … it does not detract …
Peter and his successors are the Servants of the Servants of God …
L
lion_of_judah
Guest
well, then Peter would have been choosen Bishop of Jerusalem.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
I don’t think **frequency of Peter’s mention is adequate **to show headship. But renaming **Simon as “Cephas” meaning “head” is certainly worth **a closer look. Maybe Jesus named Simon “Cephas” to remind everyone that he made the confession of “You are the Christ, the Son of God” and that Christ is actually the Rock/Head. So when you look at Cephas, you immediately think of who/what Jesus is. The church is built on this package. But I don’t think Cephas or anyone else at that time thought of Cephas as the head of the church or of this head as a transferable position.
Cephas is given the keys to open the kingdom to Jew and Gentile, but this does not imply that he was head of the church as this position for Cephas is not played out in scripture. Scripture does however repeatedly refer to Christ as head of the church.
If Cephas were head of the church, we would expect to see him and others asserting his identity as the singular voice of Christ in their midst.
Then there is the matter of the successors and questions this raises:
- **Would Christ on earth be silenced by persecution **or would his church still hear his voice and have his teaching preserved for their benefit for all time? Yet we have nothing from Linus, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander I, Sixtus I, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius I, Anicetus, Soter, Eleuterus, Victor I (only his error), Zephyrinus, etc.
- And we have **nothing about the proper inspired appointment of so-called popes **after Cephas as we have for Christ’s appointment of Cephas.
- If the same duties and functions of Cephas as head of the church giving inspired teaching to the church, were passed to others, where are their inspired teachings? Or did the function of successive popes change after the death of Cephas?
M
Mickey
Guest
Amen.Jesus Christ is the Rock of our Salvation
Correction. The foundation is the Apostles and Prophets with Christ as the cornerstone.
All of the Apostles and hence all the bishops (their successors) were given authority.
Are you saying that the other Apostles can open and close nothing?
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
Eph 2:19-20
T
twb1621
Guest
Peter was always the final authority as long as He was available to seek counsel with.
From this Coenaculum the first Christian bishops ruled the Church of Jerusalem. They were all converts from Judaism, as were their flocks. Eusebius (Church History) gives the list of these bishops. According to a universal tradition the first was the Apostle St. James the Less, the “brother of the Lord”. His predominant place and residence in the city are implied by Galatians 1:19. Eusebius says he was appointed bishop by Peter, James (the Greater), and John (II, i). Naturally the other Apostles when they were at Jerusalem shared the government with him (Acts 15:6, etc.; Eus., “Hist. Ecclesiastes”, II, 23).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08355a.htm
From this Coenaculum the first Christian bishops ruled the Church of Jerusalem. They were all converts from Judaism, as were their flocks. Eusebius (Church History) gives the list of these bishops. According to a universal tradition the first was the Apostle St. James the Less, the “brother of the Lord”. His predominant place and residence in the city are implied by Galatians 1:19. Eusebius says he was appointed bishop by Peter, James (the Greater), and John (II, i). Naturally the other Apostles when they were at Jerusalem shared the government with him (Acts 15:6, etc.; Eus., “Hist. Ecclesiastes”, II, 23).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08355a.htm
M
Mickey
Guest
Interesting point.
M
Mickey
Guest
Let us look at this quote again by St John Chrysostom:
There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom, Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.
T
twb1621
Guest
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Exactly, if there was such a thing as a singular bishop and given that Jerusalem was the headquarters of the universal church on earth.well, then Peter would have been choosen Bishop of Jerusalem.
I think though that Peter was one of three “pillars” in Jerusalem, a bishop along with James and John. Peter refers to himself as as fellow-presbyter, and this probably refers to his office in Jerusalem along with James and John. The Ephesian presbyters are called bishops and shepherds (pastors) in Acts 20:17,28, and in Philippians 1:1 there are only bishops and deacons. Contrary to Catholic teaching, there are only two levels of ministry (bishop/presbyters and deacons) in the New Testament, after the apostles.
- Status