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

[stephraim]

Tertullian adds to scripture that says nothing about Peter holding a unique "office."

Acts 1:20
‘His office let another take.’
Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω ἕτερος.

Strong’s
1984. *episkope *ἐπισκοπἠ ep-is-kop-ay’ from 1980; inspection (for relief); by implication, superintendence; specially, the Christian “episcopate”:–the office of a “bishop”, bishoprick, visitation.

The word episkope ἐπισκοπἠ is the same word used in 1 Tim 3:1, “The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop ἐπισκοπῆς], he desires a noble task.“

 

[paul_c]

If sacred scripture does not say Peter is Pope, by what authority do we say Peter is Pope? Tradition has been wrong before. The papacy must be defined from the beginning in order to be true; one cannot read it back into the silence of scripture. Yes, in Acts 15 Peter says he was first chosen to bring the gospel to Gentiles; why not say right there he was also chosen by the Lord to be head of his church? Because he was not.

1. Scripture is not silent as to Peter being the leader. He is called the Rock on which the church will be built. He is handed the keys to heaven. He is charged with tending to the flock after Jesus rose from the Dead. He takes a leadership role throughout Acts. He is distinguished from the other Apostles by St. Paul in his epistles and presumes leadership in his own epistles. He is clearly the second most discussed person in the New Testament, (of course, Jesus is Paramount). and by a wide margin.

1. Catholic Tradition is the basis for Scripture and is protected by the Holy Spirit (which is shown scripturally). You state brazenly that Traditiion has been wrong before. Justify that statement.
2. The Papacy was defined before Jesus even died as we have collectively demonstrated over and over to you. While you acknowledge that Peter was chosen by the Lord to lead the Gentiles,(which you must because its stated in Acts 15), you jump to the conclusion that he was not also chosen to lead the Circumcized. Why would he bring that up here? The issue was the Gentiles in the church, was it not? And didn’t Paul acknowledge that Peter was charged with bringing the Gospel to the Circumcized in Galatians 2:7-8? So there you have it. Peter is in charge for both the Jews and the Gentiles and its straight from scripture. What further proof do you need?

Join us in the truth. Isn’t your soul worth more than your pride?

 

[stephraim]

Well, at least as regards an official priesthood (which we see with the ordination of the deacons in Acts 6), we have Clement of Rome’s witness. Certainly this falls within the period of Sacred Scripture, for St. John was about to compose, or had just recently composed (depending on which date you accept for Clement’s letter) Revelation. In fact, in either scenario, St. John was still alive and presumably in Ephesus.

XL

1. Προδήλων οὖν ἡμῖν ὄντων τούτων, καὶ ἐγκεκυφότες εἰς τὰ βάθη τῆς θείας γνώσεως, πάντα τάξει ποιεῖν ὀφείλομεν, ὅσα ὁ δεσπότης ἐπιτελεῖν ἐκέλευσεν κατὰ καιροὺς τεταγμένους. 2. τάς τε προσφορὰς καὶ λειτουργίας ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, καὶ οὐκ εἰκῆ ἢ ἀτάκτως ἐκέλευσεν γίνεσθαι, ἀλλ’ ὡρισμένοις καιροῖς καὶ ὥραις. 3. ποῦ τε καὶ διὰ τίνων ἐπιτελεῖσθαι θέλει, αὐτὸς ὥρισεν τῇ ὑπερτάτω αὐτοῦ βουλήσει, ἵν’ ὁσίως πάντα γινόμενα ἐν εὐδοκήσει εὐπρόσδεκτα εἴη τῷ θελήματι αὐτοῦ. 4. οἱ οὖν τοῖς προστεταγμένοις καιροῖς ποιοῦντες τὰς προσφορὰς αὐτῶν εὐπρόσδεκτοί τε καὶ μακάριοι· τοῖς γὰρ νομίμοις τοῦ δεσπότου ἀκολουθοῦντες οὐ διαμαρτάνουσιν. 5. τῷ γὰρ ἀρχιερεῖ ἴδιαι λειτουργίαι δεδομέναι εἰσίν, καὶ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἴδιος ὁ τόπος προστέτακται, καὶ Λευΐταις ἴδιαι διακονίαι ἐπίκεινται· ὁ λαϊκὸς ἄνθρωπος τοῖς λαϊκοῖς προστάγμασιν δέδεται.

40
Forasmuch then as these things are manifest beforehand, and we have searched into the depths of the Divine knowledge, we ought to do all things in order, as many as the Master hath commanded us to perform at their appointed seasons. Now the offerings and ministrations He commanded to be performed with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons. And where and by whom He would have them performed, He Himself fixed by His supreme will: that all things being done with piety according to His good pleasure might be acceptable to His will.They therefore that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed: for while they follow the institutions of the Master they cannot go wrong. For unto the high priest his proper services have been assigned, and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and upon the levites their proper ministrations are laid. The layman is bound by the layman’s ordinances.

Thus, we have a hierarchy of high priest, priest, levite, and laity. That this priesthood is successive, is seen in 1 Clement 44:

1. Καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοῆς. 2. διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν πρόγνωσιν εἰληφότες τελείαν κατέστησαν τοὺς προειρημένους, καὶ μεταξὺ ἐπινομὴν δεδώκασιν, ὅπως, ἐὰν κοιμηθῶσιν, διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄντρες τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν.

Our Apostles, too were given to understand by our Lord Jesus Christ that the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, equipped as the were with perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry.

Strong’s
3009. *leitourgia *λειτουργία li-toorg-ee’-ah from 3008; public function (as priest (“liturgy”) or almsgiver):–ministration(-try), service.

This is the same word used in regards to Paul and Barnabas (apostles) in Acts 13:2, where they are “worshiping” the Lord.

 

[rinnie]

I agree completely. List all the truths of christian doctrine and we’ll have a look. The primacy of Peter is a Catholic doctrine, so we may need to distinguish Christian from Catholic, but it will be interesting.

When Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter and gave him the keys to the kingdom, Thats Catholic doctrine. Ok, I agree that Catholic doctrine, but it also in the bible and it’s Christian doctrine too.

When he said peter feed my sheep. thats Catholic doctrine, but its also in the bible also. When he said you are the Peter (Rock)

ITs all the bible, and you are right its all Catholic doctrine also. ITs also the truth.

And remember what Peter said (Jesus made his choice( It is through my mouth)

 

[twb1621]

If sacred scripture does not say Peter is Pope, by what authority do we say Peter is Pope.

Now you insist the only teachings of Jesus are those in the written Bible so answer these questions solely from Scriptural quotes as you claim all is needed.

Who saw to it that Paul was accepted by the others as one of them? How do you know? I’ll help you with this one; Peter did, the Bible says it.

What is the original contents supposed to be in the Bible and where is that information presented in Scripture?

Where is it in Scripture that other prophets would come to alter the contents of the Bible and that would be acceptable?

Where does Scripture provide the index or contents of the Bible?

Which Apostle provided the list for an index?

Have you compared your bible to the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate to be sure it has not been edited or censored and were the contents the same?

Where did the Bible you refer to originate from?

Where is it recorded that the Apostles or any of their faithful contemporaries gathered all the inspired Gospels and epistles and declared to the Christian world, “this will be the sole rule of faith after we have gone to the Lord.” ?

Where does it say, the written New Testament would supplant Church Teachings?

Where does it say that Christ intended to leave all His teachings in a single book, not in the Church, whether written, oral or otherwise?

Did Christ promise to give us an authoritative book, or did He promise us an authoritative Church?: “on this rock I will build my Church” (St. Matt. 16:18). St. Paul attests that “the Church of the living God … is the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

When Christ ascended into heaven He left behind a hierarchical authority to continue His mission in the world. This hierarchy was invested with divine authority to govern in His name (St. Matt. 16:13; 18:18); is to be obeyed by all the faithful (St. Luke 10:16); and will last until the end of the world (St. Matt. 16:18; 28:20).

Sola Scriptura, by implication, rejects the need for an authoritative body outside of the Bible to determine vital questions of faith and morals. It must be also remembered that it was the Catholic Church who assembled and canonized the books of the Old and New Testaments, translated them faithfully, safeguarded them in times of persecution and interpreted them free from error throughout the rise and fall of every heresy under the sun. Without the Church and Tradition, there would have been no Bible to base Sola Scriptura on in the first place. As another convert from Protestantism, James Akin, states: “The Protestant apologist is in a fix. In order to use Sola Scriptura he is going to have to identify what the scriptures are, and since he is unable to do this from scripture alone, he is going to have to appeal to things outside of scripture to make his case, meaning that in every act of doing this he undermines this case. There is no way to escape the canon of tradition.”
Continued;

 

[twb1621]

**Papias ****(inter ****125-160 ****AD) ****[fragments in Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical **
***History *3, 39, 4 (c. 303 AD)] **
“And then too, when anyone came along who had been a follower of the presbyters, I would inquire about the presbyters’ discourses: what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. It did not seem to me that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from a living and abiding voice.”

---

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3, 4, 1 (c. 180 AD)
“If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches?”

---

**Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics 19, 3 (200 AD) **
“Wherever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christian discipline and faith are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures and of their explanation, and of all the Christian traditions.”

---

Origen, Fundamental Doctrines 1, Preface, 2 (c. 220 AD)
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.”

**St. Basil the Great, The Holy Spirit 27, 66 (375 AD) **
“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals.”

St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Against all Heresies 61, 6 (377 AD)
“It is not necessary that all the divine words have an allegorical meaning. Consideration and perception is needed in order to know the meaning of the argument of each. It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The Holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition.”

**St. John Chrysostom, Homily on 2 Thessalonians 4, 2 (c. 400 AD) **
*“‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have **been taught, whether by word or by our letter.’ From this it is clear that **they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that **was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of **belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. **Is it a tradition? Seek no further.” *
**
St. Augustine of Hippo, Against the Letter of Mani 5, 6 (397 AD)
“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel, what would you answer him when he says: ‘I do not believe?’ Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”

**St. Augustine of Hippo, Letter to Januarius 54, 1, 1 (c. 400 AD) **
*“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which **the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from **Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and **ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary *councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church.”

 

[stephraim]

1. If sacred scripture does not say Peter is Pope, by what authority do we say Peter is Pope? Tradition has been wrong before. The papacy must be defined from the beginning in order to be true; one cannot read it back into the silence of scripture. Yes, in Acts 15 Peter says he was first chosen to bring the gospel to Gentiles; 2. why not say right there he was also chosen by the Lord to be head of his church? Because he was not.

*1. *If Sacred Scripture does not say there is one God, three consubstantial, equal Persons, with the Father as the source of divinity, by what authority do we say it? Remember, Arians proved that the Son (and later the Holy Spirit) was not equal to the Father using Scripture alone. The greatest argument against their heretical view was whether or not the teaching was Apostolic. It took a Church council, many years, and ultimately the grace of God to finally squash the heresy. The Most Holy Trinity was defined from the beginning, but it was not stated so explicitly that it couldn’t be denied.

*2. *Humility is one of the most important marks of a saint. This is why “fellow presbyter” is used. It’s almost akin to the President of the United States beginning an address with “my fellow Americans.” Does this imply that he holds no greater office or authority than any other American? Of course not.

 

[stephraim]

Until Ignatius we do not find any mention of a monarchial bishop, so Peter could not have been a monarchial bishop of either Jerusalem or Rome.

Using this logic, one could say we do not find any mention of “the seat of Moses” until Our Lord Jesus, so there could not have been such a thing. Similarly, since we don’t hear about the “rock that followed the Israelites in the desert” until Paul, then Jesus could not have been the rock.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Acts 1:20
‘His office let another take.’
Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω ἕτερος.

Strong’s
1984. *episkope *ἐπισκοπἠ ep-is-kop-ay’ from 1980; inspection (for relief); by implication, superintendence; specially, the Christian “episcopate”:–the office of a “bishop”, bishoprick, visitation.

The word episkope ἐπισκοπἠ is the same word used in 1 Tim 3:1, “The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop ἐπισκοπῆς], he desires a noble task.“

Yes, so Tertullian was not speaking of Peter as a singular bishop let alone head of the church.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Using this logic, one could say we do not find any mention of “the seat of Moses” until Our Lord Jesus, so there could not have been such a thing. Similarly, since we don’t hear about the “rock that followed the Israelites in the desert” until Paul, then Jesus could not have been the rock.

Except the scripture DOES reveal all of the above but NOT a monarchial bishop.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

*1. *If Sacred Scripture does not say there is one God, three consubstantial, equal Persons, with the Father as the source of divinity, by what authority do we say it? Remember, Arians proved that the Son (and later the Holy Spirit) was not equal to the Father using Scripture alone. The greatest argument against their heretical view was whether or not the teaching was Apostolic. It took a Church council, many years, and ultimately the grace of God to finally squash the heresy. The Most Holy Trinity was defined from the beginning, but it was not stated so explicitly that it couldn’t be denied.

*2. *Humility is one of the most important marks of a saint. This is why “fellow presbyter” is used. It’s almost akin to the President of the United States beginning an address with “my fellow Americans.” Does this imply that he holds no greater office or authority than any other American? Of course not.

These facts remain:

1. Peter is never identified in scripture as head of the church.
2. Peter is never identified in scripture as the monarchial bishop of any diocese.
3. Peter never refers to himself with the same position Catholicism refers to the papacy.
4. There is no office of head of the church in scripture.
5. There are no qualifications in scripture given for the most important office of head of the church.

 

[YADA]

Jesus named Simon Cephas, so that everytime we look at Simon or say his new name, we remember the confession he made. It is on this combo of Peter WITH the confession, that the church is forever built; no successors required.

Really, where is that spelled out in the Scriptures … I cannot find any passage that says “You art Peter so that whenever a believers looks upon you name in print or hears your name spolen they will remember the confession you made” … That Daniel Keeran is your intepretation forced upon the passage …

And you sid that you could find no ECF who discussed Isaiah …so - just to be clear - yu find absolutely no parallel between Matthew and Isaiah … Jesus quotes the passage almost word for word … you see absolutlely no parallel between Simon renamed Peter and the prime minister … the keys imagergy in Isaiah is not echoed in Matthew …

But when Peter quotes a Psalm about filling an office … THAT is a prophesy that refers directly upon and only upon Judas not simply a parallel between office holders in general but a direct prophecy regarding the replacement of Judas …

Just to be clear -

Isaiah - Prime Minster - Keys - Kingdom - Open/Shut-ShutOpen - does not have meaning in relation to Peter when quoted by Jesus in Matthew …

Psalms - Office - let another take - does have meaning in relation to Judas [and only Judas] when quoted by Peter in Acts …

 

[jkpreece]

Who’s to say that your right? according to the way Catholics interpret it does say that and mean it, but they way you interpret it, it means something completely different… Well, it’s too bad Jesus didn’t establish anything to tell who was right and who was wrong… That would make things way easier and people able to be more faithful… Wait a second, Jesus did set that up with Peter! WOOHOO!
God bless friends

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Daniel,

As a general statement, I think we all do a serious to Scripture by trying to add our own 21st Century view of how “we” would express ourselves. It should not be forgotten that the Holy Spirit was quite active in the infant Church that began on Petecost Sunday. This activity goes both for speakers and for listeners. But, let’s take a look at your ideas and offer another view.

1. “Why is that? Peter’s and his successors’ roles had already been playing out for 3-4 centuries before the Bible was formally canonized.”
   REPLY: Such a fundamental role as head of the church needs to be defined and in place from the start, like the deity of Christ, qualifications of bishops and deacons, baptism, etc. Yet an earthly **head of the church is conspicuously absent **in scripture.

I honestly fail to understand why you think it is necessary for Peter to annouce his leadership role (when, as he is obviously leading and making decisions at the First Council of Jerusalem). Maybe, I missed it … but does Benedict XVI say something like, “As the head of the Church, I now decide…” This is not done because it is totally unnecessary - everyone knows who is in charge. I think if you look at meetings (business, social, governmental…etc.) people do not conduct meetings they way they did 10 or 20 years ago. Can you imagine how meetings have changed over 2,000 years ago. Yes, there are issues to resolve (e.g., circumcision and keeping the Mosaic Law in order to follow Christ) but, how people express themselves has not remained the same.

1. “What does having the “keys” mean in OT Davidic kingdom terms?”
   REPLY: An OT text about a the Davidic kingdom, needs to be understood in terms of its application in the NT. Was Peter appointed to be head or king of the church? No.

“No”? Surely you have more to say then this… I think the concept identified in Matthew is rather clear about Peter being in charge - and, appointed to that position by Christ, Himself. But, “keys” are of interest because, as is clear in the text, ther is only one set - not twelve sets of keys. The idea is that Christ is corner-stone - the one with the Authority of God Himself to establish His Church - and he has appointed Peter as the leader (Prime Minister) - not to replace Christ - but, to act for Him on earth. This single set of keys is imporant for another reason (just like paying the tax for Christ and Peter from the fish Peter caught) it shows a special bond - and, one not given in this way to any other
Apostle.

1. “Why would the “servant of servants of God” say such a prideful thing.”
   REPLY: It would be **no more prideful **for him to say he was chosen to be head of the church if it were true, than for him to say he was **chosen to present the gospel **to the Gentiles, which he DID say.

I am not sure I would agree with the the idea of ‘prideful’ being used as the adjective to describe Peter’s behavior in the post-Pentecost experience. Would Barack Obama be ‘prideful’ by declaring, “I am the President”, or Gordon Brown declaring “I am the Prime Minister”? I don’t think so. Those who heard them say such a thing may wonder why such a statement is being made - but, prideful probably would not be considered.

1. “I don’t accept your arbitary limitation that it has to be so stated. That your personal opinion and is not support by Scripture”
   REPLY: One would expect such a fundamental position or role for Peter to be CLEARLY stated either by Peter himself or by other NT writers, especially since such a title as “head of the church” IS used in scripture. To say Peter was head of the church is going beyond what is written (1 Cor.4:6).

It was stated very clearly in the NT - by no less an authority then Jesus Christ, Himself! What more could Peter be doing by saying it again? Reminding the group? (“In case you guys forgot, Christ and I, along with the rest of the Apostles, were in the area of Ceaseria Philipi, and He told me loud enough for every one to hear that I’m in charge.” ) Telling the grou that he was “No.1” (“I’m the man - and you guys aren’t even close!”) or some such other statement.

As I appreciate the writings of the NT, a lot of the writings were focused on those who believed ALREADY. This collection of inspired scriptures was not the first Catechism - rather it was for those who believed that Christ was God, had been born, grew up, founded His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) suffered, died, was burried and then rose from the dead. Items not in dispute were not addressed.

God bless

 

[Randy_Carson]

If sacred scripture does not say Peter is Pope, by what authority do we say Peter is Pope? Tradition has been wrong before. The papacy must be defined from the beginning in order to be true; one cannot read it back into the silence of scripture. Yes, in Acts 15 Peter says he was first chosen to bring the gospel to Gentiles; why not say right there he was also chosen by the Lord to be head of his church? Because he was not.

Here is your error exposed:

Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”

The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.

These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.

When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.

Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In scripture, whenever there was a disagreement, no one ever said “go ask Peter.”

Heh…yeah, right.

Acts 11:1-18
1The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

4Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: 5"I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’
8"I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’
9"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.
11"Right then three men who had been sent to me from Caesarea stopped at the house where I was staying. 12The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. 13He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. 14He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized witha]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" 18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”

Peter silenced this argument about Gentile believers, didn’t he? :yup:

Acts 15:1-3
1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way

The Church sent Paul and Barnabas where? To see Peter in Jerusalem? Gee, why couldn’t Paul settle this on his own by his own authority if he was equal to Peter, hmmmmmm? :dancing:

Oh…how about this incident?

Acts 5:1-11
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”
5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” 10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Who spoke for the Holy Spirit to whom Ananias and Saphira lied? Peter? Who pronounced judgment on them? Peter?

Acts 5:12-15
12The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. 13No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. 14Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. 15As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by.

Whose shadow did the people try to touch? Peter?

Finally, consider this passage:

Acts 5:29-32
29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

Peter and the other apostles. Consider that phrase. The other eleven apostles are reduced to simply being mentioned as “the other apostles”. Peter is always mentioned by name.

Why, Dan? Why is Peter always mentioned first? Why is Peter mentioned more frequently than all other apostles combined? Peter’s boat, Peter’s house, Peter’s mother-in-law. Peter’s faith, Peter’s denials, Peter’s redemption. Peter on Pentecost. Peter and Cornelius. Peter to the Jews. Peter to the Gentiles. Peter in Rome (Babyon). Peter, keeper of the keys. Peter, the rock. Peter, shepherd of the Church. Peter, vicar of Christ. Peter. Peter. Peter.

This appears to be the rock that has made you stumble.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Didja ever notice how Protestants try to belittle Peter by pointing to 1 Peter 5 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?

Do you think that maybe the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?

1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that Peter of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Might they have been inspired to practice some humility, also?

And our Protestant antagonists want to berate us for calling Peter the first pope because Peter did not exalt himself? :tsktsk:

 

[paul_c]

Daniel,
you have a lot invested in trying to make Peter just be one of the Apostles because after all, if Jesus did make Peter the leader of the church, then by rebelling against Peter and his successors, you rebel against Christ.

However, your arguments do not change the truth. Peter WAS the leader of the Apostles, having been clearly apointed by Christ as taught scripturally and traditionally. I think any non-biased observer would concede that we’ve shown that. Afterall, Peter claimed without dispute in Corinthians 15 that he was appointed out of all the Apostles to lead the Gentiles to Christ and Paul says in Galatians 2:7 that Peter was also given the responsibility of leader to the Jews. That makes up the entire church. He was renamed the rock, on which Christ’s church would be built and given the keys to heaven. Peter acted the part throughout the Gospels and Acts and was told by Jesus in John’s Gospel after the resurrection to tend his sheep. What more proof do you need?

I urge you to give up your pride and join us in the one true church. Your soul is worth so much more than your pride. As Jesus famously put it to St. Paul on the road to Damascus, (acts 26:14) you are kicking against the Goad

 

[YADA]

Didja ever notice how Protestants try to belittle Peter by pointing to 1 Peter 5 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?

Do you think that maybe the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?

1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that Peter of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Might they have been inspired to practice some humility, also?

And our Protestant antagonists want to berate us for calling Peter the first pope because Peter did not exalt himself? :tsktsk:

Great Post … I have often mediated upon this …

And our Orthodox brethren at times speak of “supremacy” as if the successors of Peter acted headed the church like these leaders … Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin etc … or some dictator that rules with an iron hand and an ego as big as an ocean …

Somehow the idea of a Servant of Christ and a Servant of the Servants of God is just a concept that is too hard to imagine

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

**Papias ****(inter ****125-160 ****AD) ****[fragments in Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical **

***History *3, 39, 4 (c. 303 AD)] **
“And then too, when anyone came along who had been a follower of the presbyters, I would inquire about the presbyters’ discourses:

DOCUMENTATION OF THE RISE OF ERROR

Papias (inter 125-160 AD) [fragments in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History 3, 39, 4 (c. 303 AD)]
“And then too, when anyone came along who had been a follower of the presbyters, I would inquire about the presbyters’ discourses: what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. It did not seem to me that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from a living and abiding voice.”

**REPLY: This shows Papias sought out those who knew the followers of the “presbyters” and heard what they said. E.g. Philip taught Bob who reported what Philip said to Papias: word of mouth. **

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3, 4, 1 (c. 180 AD)
“If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches?”

REPLY: Irenaeus made an error in trusting tradition. He presents a false hypothetical situation in saying “what if the apostles had not left writings to us?”

Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics 19, 3 (200 AD)
“Wherever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christian discipline and faith are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures and of their explanation, and of all the Christian traditions.”

REPLY: The truth of tradition should be tested by the truth of scripture. Tradition should never be set above scripture.

Origen, Fundamental Doctrines 1, Preface, 2 (c. 220 AD)
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.”

REPLY: Origen, what if tradition is at variance with scripture?

St. Basil the Great, The Holy Spirit 27, 66 (375 AD)
“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals.”

REPLY: Basil admitted many customs not found in scripture but only in a mystery tradition.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Against all Heresies 61, 6 (377 AD)
“It is not necessary that all the divine words have an allegorical meaning. Consideration and perception is needed in order to know the meaning of the argument of each. It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The Holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition.”

REPLY: Epiphanius was in error to accept tradition without discerning presumptuous practices and teachings.

St. John Chrysostom, Homily on 2 Thessalonians 4, 2 (c. 400 AD)
“‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter.’ From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further.”

REPLY: Is it a false tradition, an innovation to scripture? Seek no further.

St. Augustine of Hippo, Against the Letter of Mani 5, 6 (397 AD)
“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel, what would you answer him when he says: ‘I do not believe?’ Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”

REPLY: Augustine did not believe the gospel itself is the power of God? If he did not believe, he was in error.

St. Augustine of Hippo, Letter to Januarius 54, 1, 1 (c. 400 AD)
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church.”

REPLY: Did Augustine believe the councils and traditions to be free from error? If so, he was in error.