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

[YADA]

 REPLY: Where does scripture say Timothy, Titus, or any of the deacons such as Philip could lay hands on others to receive supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit? Nowhere, but we do find apostles doing this.

Where do we find scripture say Peter was head of the church? Nowhere, but we do find many passages stating Christ is head of the church. No double standard.

REPLY: The Holy Spirit as a gift is indeed received in baptism as well as the forgiveness of sins. However, miraculous gifts of the Spirit were imparted only by the laying on of the apostles hands. There has been no gift of revelation or prophecy given after those died on whom the apostles laid their hands**.**

Daniel,

You do not listen because you are predisposed to your own personal interpretation …

Yes, Jesus is the head of the Church … no catholic christian has ever said the opposite is true … similarly in Isaiah [or in any organization] the King was always the KING, the King always is the Supreme Authority and Maintains the MASTER KEY … by delegating authority to a Prime Minister [AKA known as a Father to the People - which takes nothing away from the Fathership Role the King also occupies] the King gives nothing up … NOT ONE IOTA o fHIS AUTHORITY … the King does not loose His keys nor the ability to exercise them … The Prime Minister [Father to the people] exercises an office … he uses his keys for and on behalf of the King … if he fails to operate as the King desires he is replaced by a new office holder … if he dies or retires, the office is filled by another … the King maks this decision to delegate …

Yes, Jesus is the head of the Church, the Author of Life, the Corner Stone, the Builder, the Chief Architect … the King of Kings and Lord of Lords … and it is this King - Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ who gave to Peter [renamed from Simon], the Keys of Heaven and Earth … it was on Peter that Jesus built His Church … the Church Jesus built, the Church of Christ built upon the Peter - the Rock - the keeper of the Keys … that is Scripture clearly and concisely illustrating Peter as the Head [Father - pope - to the people of God] of the Church …

The role of Peter is unique, the Church lives on with a visible head in the Chair of Peter and the successors to the apostles, the Bishops … without the visible head you are left with the results of thousands of "little popes’ like you - each one determines what the Truth of scriputre is … what is essential, what is not …

You refuse to hear, see and experience the witnss of Scripture, the writings of the early christian community, and the living witness of the living Church throughout the previous 2000 years prefering your own ‘personal’ interpretation and tradition. This stance has left you stamping your foot and shouting “I’m right - you are wrong” … and 500 plus years of that understanding of scriptures has left the Christian Community fractured in its beliefs. Each adherant is left to decifer for themselves - each one led by the spirit - but to who knows where? … not to Truth - unlessTruth is relative … … and does that not make God irrelevant?

The successor of Peter serves Christ and Christ’s Church. Th successor of Peter serves the Truth and not his personal opinion of what is or is not …

 

[Cinette]

Of course Catholics believe there has never been error taught because whatever the church teaches in council with the Pope, is absolutely true.

Correct Daniel. The Pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra - guided by the Holy Spirit he is prevented from error.

 

[benedictus2]

This definitely proves Peter’s prominence but not his primacy as head of the church on earth.

His primacy rests on the fact that Christ built His Church on Peter.

There is no getting away from that fact.

Protestants do all sort of girations and convulusions to reason that out but Christ could not have been any more clearer.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Cinette,

I think twb and Benedictus ate him for lunch… Just the bones of ‘imaginative scripture’ and creative boasting are all that is left of him…! This ‘Daniel’ did not do so well in the ‘Lion’s Den’ of CAF…

God bless

No we didn’t. Like Hansel and Gretel, we’re still trying to fatten him up. No meat to his arguments at all

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, from inspired apostles, not their so-called successors who are uninspired.

A few questions:

How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?

Here you are interpreting Scripture the way you see it and and others interpreting it the way they see it.

How do we know which one is correct?

I mean just take the scripture you hold now (presumably protestant), how do you know that it is the correct canon?

You might think this has nothing to do with the thread but I assure you it has a lot of bearing on it.

 

[benedictus2]

REPLY: Rock here refers to Peter WITH the confession of Christ, no successors stated or necessary inference of such.

Aaah the sadness of relying on 500 years of history alone.

Nope: Rock here means Peter. In Aramaic Jesus said You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church. Straight English Translation: You are rock and upon rock I will build my Church.

REPLY: Yes which he used to open the kingdom to Jew and Gentile.

Let us say I grant you that keys here mean that it is used to open the kingdom to Jews and Gentle. The fact remains that it was still given to Peter. And because He has the keys then that means he has the right to LOCK and UNLOCK.

Can you imagine that kind of power that God is giving to a mere man? Can you even comprehend the promise He gave to Peter that whatever Peter binds or loose on earth, Jesus Himself will bind and loose in heaven?

Think about it, Jesus is saying to Peter what ever you say goes… That is quite a promise. And why? Because He will also promise to send the Holy Spirit. This all happens because God is good at keeping promises.

REPLY: Yes, Peter was a bishop/presbyter and apostle all of whom are shepherds to tend the flock. No reference here to Peter as head of the church.

You seem to have a different Bible. Can you please read the verses again?

Here it is:
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. “

Who was Jesus Christ addressing all the time during this conversation? Was he addressing all the disciples? NO! He was addressing Peter ONLY.

All this interpretative gyrations are necessary when you are trying to put a spin on the passage. Otherwise, this convulusions are unnecessary if you will just allow the passage to speak for itself.

REPLY: Indeed Peter was chosen to first speak to the Gentiles. He was NOT chosen to be head of the church on earth.

Yes he was. By God Himself. If you notice, Peter made the proclamation that Jesus was the Son of God and Jesus said only His Father in heaven could have revealed it to Peter. So it was not just Jesus who picked Him. It seems the Father Himself had a hand in choosing him.

REPLY: Yes, an apostle but no mention of Peter here as head of the church

Again, yes there was. By Christ Himself again in Matthew 16:18 and just before His death when He said that He prayed for Peter. Notice, instead of praying for ALL His apostles, He prayed for Peter ALONE. Why chose just one disciple when He could have easily prayed for all. Satan had requested to sift them all like wheat and God has given the permission but Christ prayed for Peter.

I really think you have a problem with Christ’s choices. You know what it is not the Catholic Church you are against but Christ. Because you do not like the way Christ decided to build His Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2

No we didn’t. Like Hansel and Gretel, we’re still trying to fatten him up. No meat to his arguments at all

God bless,

 

[benedictus2]

If it was Jesus intention to put Peter in charge of the whole church on earth, the church did not get it or reflect it in sacred scripture.

I think if Jesus was a mere man He’d be doing this :banghead::banghead::banghead: and saying Daniel how much more clearer do I have to be before you believe me when I said to Peter you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church. Peter, feed my sheep. Peter I prayed for you so that youwill strengthen your brother?

 

[benedictus2]

This is a statement which I went to bed with last night and to which I need a response.

Can you please tell me where in the Scriptures can I find reference to the “primacy” of James??

I hope you will respond to this question.

Thank you

Page 2 on the footnote to The Gospel according to Daniel Kieran. I can’t believe you missed that. It was written in gold and flashing letters:whacky:

 

[Cinette]

His primacy rests on the fact that Christ built His Church on Peter.

There is no getting away from that fact.

Protestants do all sort of girations and convulusions to reason that out but Christ could not have been any more clearer.

Absolutely! It is so clear.

Makes you wonder if Daniel is not saying these silly things just to make Catholic mad! Just to annoy

 

[stephraim]

Conclusion: Philip, who had received laying on of apostles hands, could perform miraculous signs among the Samaritans. But in order for the Samaritans to receive miraculous gifts, apostles had to be sent to lay hands on them.

This was Philip the deacon. Deacons have no authority to confirm, only Apostles and their successors.

 

[paul_c]

Absolutely! It is so clear.

Makes you wonder if Daniel is not saying these silly things just to make Catholic mad! Just to annoy

I don’t get that impression at all. In fact, I think that he is starting to come around. He is now willing to admit that Peter is the most predominant apostle and that he used the keys he was given to bring both Gentile and Jew into the church. It is not much of a step now for him to accept Peter as the leader of the Apostles and once he does that,his days as a Protestant will be short.

Keep the faith. God works wonders…

 

[Cinette]

I don’t get that impression at all. In fact, I think that he is starting to come around. He is now willing to admit that Peter is the most predominant apostle and that he used the keys he was given to bring both Gentile and Jew into the church. It is not much of a step now for him to accept Peter as the leader of the Apostles and once he does that,his days as a Protestant will be short.

Keep the faith. God works wonders…

Paul C you are a nice guy and have the patience of Job!

What needles me most with Daniel is his denial that Peter was appointed the Head of the Church on earth by Jesus and then the ridiculous comment that the Apostles did not have the power to appoint successors. This is absolutely absurd. If that were true then Jesus only founded His Church for the lifetime of the Apostles and then what??

This is a joke right? Just to annoy Catholics, of course!!!

 

[rinnie]

Paul C you are a nice guy and have the patience of Job!

What needles me most with Daniel is his denial that Peter was appointed the Head of the Church on earth by Jesus and then the ridiculous comment that the Apostles did not have the power to appoint successors. This is absolutely absurd. If that were true then Jesus only founded His Church for the lifetime of the Apostles and then what??

This is a joke right? Just to annoy Catholics, of course!!!

Hi Cinette:wave: Hope all is well. I guess he just skipped the part in the bible too when Jesus said he was sending the advocate the Holy Spirit.

Another part that kinda gets me is this. If you believe that Jesus had the power, then how could you deny the Apostles power and the Pope’s today.

Let me explain, Jesus said what my Father has given me, I give to you, now he had the power over heaven and earth. Now he passed on that power. Now wouldn’t them denying Apostolic succession and the power given to them mean they didn’t believe Jesus either then. See what I mean. If Jesus gave that power to be passed on until he comes back in glory, how could it die. It couldn’t. So to ME, to deny that power of today, you would have to deny the power yesterday also. Jesus either has the power and meant it when he passed it on, or he didn’t. To me you can’t just believe one thing in the bible, and then turn around and deny another. Its all gotta work together. ITs gotta fit.

And ours fits. We believe that Jesus has the power, passed it on, and it still exists today. If not IMO hades has taken over. And we know thats not possible because the Church still exists.

Have a wonderful day my love. Hope its nice there, its ugly and raining here today!

 

[paul_c]

Paul C you are a nice guy and have the patience of Job!

What needles me most with Daniel is his denial that Peter was appointed the Head of the Church on earth by Jesus and then the ridiculous comment that the Apostles did not have the power to appoint successors. This is absolutely absurd. If that were true then Jesus only founded His Church for the lifetime of the Apostles and then what??

This is a joke right? Just to annoy Catholics, of course!!!

Thanks for the kind words. He’s not trying to annoy you. He’s just defending his position. What Daniel is saying is consistent with what Protestants are forced to say to justify their protests. Afterall, if they admit that Jesus appointed Peter as Head of the Apostles and that there was a right of succession, then they admit that they are rebelling against God’s wishes. Once they recognize the Truth, than logically conversion has to follow. Be patient. Daniel was drawn to this site by powers beyond his control and those powers will not be thwarted. Our role is to point out the truth, nothing more. God will do the rest.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Paul C,

We do differ on this perception of what will eventually come to pass with this poster.

I don’t get that impression at all. In fact, I think that he is starting to come around. He is now willing to admit that Peter is the most predominant apostle and that he used the keys he was given to bring both Gentile and Jew into the church. It is not much of a step now for him to accept Peter as the leader of the Apostles and once he does that,his days as a Protestant will be short.

Keep the faith. God works wonders…

Yes, God does work wonders… I know I am proof of that! I think it best to take a wait and see attitude.

I think Cinette accurately expressed my thoughts on the matter - so, for your perception to be accurate, we should all see a change. One specific example would be for him to drop this repitition of the same already answered question about Christ not calling Peter “The First Pope” (Rock was not good enough!) and thereby for this obvious lack of clarity the position of the CC on the Successors of Peter is therefor null.

Him actually answering questions would be helpful, too…

Those are my thoughts.

God bless

 

[rinnie]

Hi, Paul C,

We do differ on this perception of what will eventually come to pass with this poster.

Yes, God does work wonders… I know I am proof of that! I think it best to take a wait and see attitude.

I think Cinette accurately expressed my thoughts on the matter - so, for your perception to be accurate, we should all see a change. One specific example would be for him to drop this repitition of the same already answered question about Christ not calling Peter “The First Pope” (Rock was not good enough!) and thereby for this obvious lack of clarity the position of the CC on the Successors of Peter is therefor null.

Him actually answering questions would be helpful, too…

Those are my thoughts.

God bless

Actually didn’t Jesus by calling Peter Rock indeed say he was pope? Does not rock translate into Pope?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Dan-

What you’re saying does not make any sense. Jesus could have chosen any imagery he wanted or even NONE AT ALL when He was speaking to Peter.

Yet, He chose the one image (the keys) from Is. 22:22 that was SO PREGNANT WITH MEANING that no Israelite would miss it.

You and I have to do some work to cross the cultural divide, but the Jews of that period would have instantly understood the significance of Peter’s appointment as vicar of Christ.

As for Christ being the head of the Church, no problem! But Jesus left Peter in charge because He knew He would be returning to heaven. Peter had been groomed for three years for the role he was to fill.

Certainly he was given an important role: to open the kingdom. And Christ named Simon Peter meaning Rock when Simon made the confession of Christ who is Head of the church. But to say Peter was thereby appointed to be head of the church AND that thereby Christ also established a perpetual office of head of the church on earth with successors, is reading far too much into scripture. One can test the Catholic theory by what occurred in the church after Peter was given the keys, from Acts 2 onward:

1. Did Peter first open the kingdom to Jews and then to Gentiles? Yes
2. Did Peter himself or any other NT authors refer to Peter as head of the church? No
3. Did Peter acts in a clearly identified capacity as head of the church (not merely apostle to the Jews)? No (e.g. Acts 15 or Gal.1&2)
4. Is an office of head of the church identified among the offices and gifts given to men within the church (Eph.4)? No
5. Are there qualfications given in order for one to become a head of the church on earth? No

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

**For Peter to be the head of the church on earth and for such an office to exist, we would need to have statements like the following, e.g. in at least one of the critical points in which Peter displayed leadership.:

1. Peter whom the Lord appointed to be head of the church after his departure.
2. Peter, a servant, apostle, and head of the church appointed by our Lord…
3. Peter, who presides over the church and the apostles…
4. I went up to see Peter because he was appointed to be head of the church…
5. Christ gave the office of head of the church on earth, and some to be apostles, pastors, …**

**We also would need to see such references in at least one place in the earliest literature after the NT: Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and even First Clement.

We would also need to see preserved pastoral literature from identified successive heads of the church after Peter. In the absence of these references, one must conclude that the notion of a singular head of the church on earth was a later gradual development.**

 

[rinnie]

Certainly he was given an important role: to open the kingdom. And Christ named Simon Peter meaning Rock when Simon made the confession of Christ who is Head of the church. But to say Peter was thereby appointed to be head of the church AND that thereby Christ also established a perpetual office of head of the church on earth with successors, is reading far too much into scripture. One can test the Catholic theory by what occurred in the church after Peter was given the keys, from Acts 2 onward:

1. Did Peter first open the kingdom to Jews and then to Gentiles? Yes
2. Did Peter himself or any other NT authors refer to Peter as head of the church? No
3. Did Peter acts in a clearly identified capacity as head of the church (not merely apostle to the Jews)? No (e.g. Acts 15 or Gal.1&2)
4. Is an office of head of the church identified among the offices and gifts given to men within the church (Eph.4)? No
5. Are there qualfications given in order for one to become a head of the church on earth? No

Yes, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, Jesus changed Peters name. 3 People are referred to as Rock in the bible. Jesus, Abraham, and Peter.

Also question number 2. The answer is yes. In acts 15: Peter says my brothers and sisters in the early days God made his choice among you that THROUGH MY MOUTH the gentiles will hear the word of the Gospel and believe.

Now all of the Apostles were in debate. Peter stood up and made the call. The apostles accepted that Jesus made Peter the Leader, they never fought him. THey let him speak, and let him use his authority. Now if they accepted it, why can’t you?