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

[tqualey]

Hi, Daniel

Randy presented an excellent message when he quoted from 2 Timothy…

**2 Timothy 2:1-2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.**

…and, I do not recall you arguing against this.

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.

The concept of Apostolic Succession is firmly estabished. The Apostles were inspired by God to select certain men who were to carry on the leadership of the multiple flocks that continued to come to Christ despite hardship and persecution. Christ knew all this would happen - and to make sure that all of these leaders kept the Heavenly Crown in focus - Christ set up the Leader of the leaders for His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) - who we now call the POPE.

Is there any organization that you know of that is run without a recognized head? Doesn’t a family have a head and that is the man (Eph 5:22)? Notice, God does not want anyone to flouder in chaos.

John 21:20 clearly tells you that you must look to non-scriptural sources to find out what is going on - and this is where Apostolic Tradition comes in. These are not the ‘…traditions of men…’ but God inspired actions that have moved the CC from that group of 12 Apostles huddled in a locked room out of ‘…fear of the Jews…’ into a fearless and courageous congregation willing to preach the Good News as inspired by God on that First Pentecost Sunday. And, notice, this congregation is being lead by Peter - you guessed it, the First Pope.

I would be interested in you actually telling me how your religion establishes its leadership.

God bless

 

[rinnie]

**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, …**

And in my last post displayed that leadership. It was a critical point and Peter made the call.

 

[paul_c]

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

Well, think of it from his perspective for a minute. He came on this web site as a religious author and a Protestant to try to prove to Catholics that the Pope was not scriptural. He probably was under the normal Protestant misconceptions that Catholics don’t read the Bible and that we blindly follow the Pope without much thinking on our own. Such are the stereotypes we often encounter.

What he found of couse is that Catholics do read the Bible and think alot about the truths of the Fatih. And he found consistency of views from Catholics from around the globe and probably a dozen of us providing insight at all hours of the day and night. He found numerous, cogent arguments to support the Papacy, both from Scripture and tradition as demonstrated by the early church fathers. He also found that his own arguments didn’t sway the audience in the least, And he found that many people were asking for responses to their comments.

I know from my own writings here that it takes time to answer back intelligently if you are encountering new information. It is not surprising that Daniel is having a hard time keeping up with us. I’m sure its a bit overwhelming. Plus, you see that he is starting to understand that his original views were incomplete if not incorrect - he has already conceded several points in the last few days. This takes a lot of thought and prayer. Give the guy a break…He’s actually doing well in what he is doing. There is always denial first, then awareness, then conversion. We may not witness it here, but God willing, it will come… Keep the faith.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Hi, Daniel

Randy presented an excellent message when he quoted from 2 Timothy…

**2 Timothy 2:1-2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

…

The concept of Apostolic Succession is firmly estabished. The Apostles were inspired by God to select certain men who were to carry on the leadership of the multiple flocks
I would be interested in you actually telling me how your religion establishes its leadership.

God bless**

Paul gave Timothy and Titus the qualifications for identifying bishops/presbyters and deacons. Today we use these qualfications to identify those among us who occupy these roles/offices. All congregations are independent with each governed by the above. There is no central or singular head or office or administrative conference. Our only head is Christ, and we refer to ourselves as the body of Christ.

We observe the bread and cup as a memorial of the death of our Lord, each Lord’s day. We offer the sacrifice of praise by the fruit of our lips in prayer and hymns to God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

One becomes a member of Christ through personal faith, repentance, and baptism into Christ for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. When we have children born to us, we persuade them to become Christians, and if a child dies in infancy we rejoice that they have passed through the world without sins.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Daniel,

Thank you for your response.

Paul gave Timothy and Titus the qualifications for identifying bishops/presbyters and deacons. Today we use these qualfications to identify those among us who occupy these roles/offices. All congregations are independent with each governed by the above. There is no central or singular head or office or administrative conference. Our only head is Christ, and we refer to ourselves as the body of Christ.

We observe the bread and cup as a memorial of the death of our Lord, each Lord’s day. We offer the sacrifice of praise by the fruit of our lips in prayer and hymns to God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

One becomes a member of Christ through personal faith, repentance, and baptism into Christ for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. When we have children born to us, we persuade them to become Christians, and if a child dies in infancy we rejoice that they have passed through the world without sins.

God bless

 

[paul_c]

Paul gave Timothy and Titus the qualifications for identifying bishops/presbyters and deacons. Today we use these qualfications to identify those among us who occupy these roles/offices. All congregations are independent with each governed by the above. There is no central or singular head or office or administrative conference. Our only head is Christ, and we refer to ourselves as the body of Christ.

We observe the bread and cup as a memorial of the death of our Lord, each Lord’s day. We offer the sacrifice of praise by the fruit of our lips in prayer and hymns to God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

One becomes a member of Christ through personal faith, repentance, and baptism into Christ for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. When we have children born to us, we persuade them to become Christians, and if a child dies in infancy we rejoice that they have passed through the world without sins.

Daniel, thanks for sharing. I looked up your website as well. It seems you are a prolific author of late. It makes me wonder how you have time to converse with us.

I would like to ask you a couple of questions. As you say in your counseling book, it may be difficult and you don’t have to answer to us. Just think about the answers.

Why do you resist having a religious heirarchy? (i.e. the Pope) This is fundamental.

Do you resist because you think you know the way to Heaven better than the Pope?
If so, is this because you think you have better information, more insight or a better connection to God? Is it because you think you are smarter than the Pope and his counselors. Is it because you think that the Pope is a puppet of Satan as some have been lead to believe? if so, what would make you think so? Is it because you simply desire to think for yourself and don’t want to rely on others to help you find the way to Christ?

You see, we Catholics believe that the Apostles were trusted with the deposit of Faith, the truths that lead to salvation and that Peter in particular was given the job of leading us all back to Jesus. It is their job to pass that knowledge on to the ends of the earth. This means both physically (ie., to enangelize the world) and from a time perspective (i.e., to future generations). We trust that they will lead us to heaven with the help of the Holy Spirit and are not afraid to put our souls in their hands…

…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Paul C.,

That was a very nice response. I have been on this list for only a few months… and, there are many things that I have learned and my Faith is much stronger as a result. Praise God!

Well, think of it from his perspective for a minute. He came on this web site as a religious author and a Protestant to try to prove to Catholics that the Pope was not scriptural. He probably was under the normal Protestant misconceptions that Catholics don’t read the Bible and that we blindly follow the Pope without much thinking on our own. Such are the stereotypes we often encounter. Keep the faith.

Yes, this entire process takes time…and, patience.

“Keeping the Faith” is a good idea … spreading it - probably better…

God bless

 

[stephraim]

Paul gave Timothy and Titus the qualifications for identifying bishops/presbyters and deacons. Today we use these qualfications to identify those among us who occupy these roles/offices.

That’s fine. The question remains, though: who originally had authority to “lay hands upon” those qualified and “commission” them and “invest [them] with some of [their] own dignity” (Numbers 27)? The Apostles were Jews, who knew Jewish custom and ceremony. They invested some of their own authority into others through the imposition of hands (Acts 8; Acts 13; 1 Tim 4; 1 Tim 5)

All congregations are independent with each governed by the above. There is no central or singular head or office or administrative conference. Our only head is Christ, and we refer to ourselves as the body of Christ.

Yes, but a body divided in doctrine and discipline. All are privately enlightened by the Spirit, and yet there is still disagreement on doctrine. How can this be? Is He not the Spirit of Truth, the Advocate, promised to lead us into all truth?

We observe the bread and cup as a memorial of the death of our Lord, each Lord’s day. We offer the sacrifice of praise by the fruit of our lips in prayer and hymns to God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

We will not get into the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist here, for that is a topic for another thread. However, this quote still does not answer St. Clement of Rome. The Apostles “appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” (1 Clem, 44) In Chapter 40, he had previously given a division between the common priesthood of all believers by virtue of our baptism (laity, λαϊκὸς) and the ordained ministerial priesthood (high priest, priest, levite).

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.

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.

Remember, this is still within the New Testament era, while St. John was still alive.

 

[Cinette]

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!

You are kinda cute you know - you have put it in a nutshell with your cowboy language.

Sure, ours fits. Makes sense.

Here it is 3.20 in the morning and I’m up - can’t say what kinda day we’re gonna have but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is clear skies and sunshine.

Hav a goooooood day Rinnie.

Ciao
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

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.

:nope::nope:That is not why Daniel was drawn to this site :nope: there is another reason. You mean you have not figured it out yet?

 

[LionHeart777]

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.

Daniel,

I don’t see Acts 8 talking explicitly about “the gifts of the Spirit.”

It just says that they hadn’t received yet the Spirit. Nothing about gifts.

 

[Cinette]

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!

Why don’t you answer some of the other questions put to you instead of harping on the same few like a broken record?

Like a broken record I will repeat part of my earlier posting from page 39:

*Peter was:

• First to preach the gospel Acts 2:14
• First to work miracles Acts 3:6
• Judge of Ananias and Saphira Acts 5:1-10
• First to preach to the gentiles Acts 10
• First to receive pagan convert Acts 10
• Presides at the Council of Jerusalem even though James was Bishop Acts 15

Peter goes on to say Acts 15:7 “…Peter stood up and said to them "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you that I should be the one through whom the gentiles would hear this message of the good news*…”

Why don’t we advance now Daniel? Try answering the questions put to you. :ehh:

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Daniel

Randy presented an excellent message when he quoted from 2 Timothy…

**2 Timothy 2:1-2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.**

…and, I do not recall you arguing against this.

The concept of Apostolic Succession is firmly estabished. The Apostles were inspired by God to select certain men who were to carry on the leadership of the multiple flocks that continued to come to Christ despite hardship and persecution. Christ knew all this would happen - and to make sure that all of these leaders kept the Heavenly Crown in focus - Christ set up the Leader of the leaders for His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) - who we now call the POPE.

Is there any organization that you know of that is run without a recognized head? Doesn’t a family have a head and that is the man (Eph 5:22)? Notice, God does not want anyone to flouder in chaos.

John 21:20 clearly tells you that you must look to non-scriptural sources to find out what is going on - and this is where Apostolic Tradition comes in. These are not the ‘…traditions of men…’ but God inspired actions that have moved the CC from that group of 12 Apostles huddled in a locked room out of ‘…fear of the Jews…’ into a fearless and courageous congregation willing to preach the Good News as inspired by God on that First Pentecost Sunday. And, notice, this congregation is being lead by Peter - you guessed it, the First Pope.

I would be interested in you actually telling me how your religion establishes its leadership.

God bless

Couldn’t have answered it better myself! LOL!

I rest my case, says tqualey - and we all second that I am sure:thumbsup:

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel,

I don’t see Acts 8 talking explicitly about “the gifts of the Spirit.”

It just says that they hadn’t received yet the Spirit. Nothing about gifts.

Luke’s language does not differentiate plural gifts of the Holy Spirit but rather he describes the effects when the apostles laid hands. One must look at Paul’s language to find the reference to specific or individual gifts.

 

[anthony022071]

You assume that anyone cannot give thanks for the bread and cup, recognizing the body and blood of Christ. You assume a priest is required for valid sacraments.

Anyone can give thanks for the bread and cup,but only a priest of the Church can call down the Spirit to transsubstantiate the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
It is for that purpose,and for baptism and the forgiveness of sins,that priests are ordained with the Spirit. The word “sacrament” means “to make holy;to set apart”. The bread and cup can only be a valid sacrament if the one who administers them has been made holy and set apart in the sacrament of holy orders.

 

[steve_b]

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, …

covered here. God made it very clear.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5142757&postcount=635

dan:

**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.

Dan,

has no one ever gone over this with you before? The material that can be presented is avalanche proportions

 

[anthony022071]

**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.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm
< As for Paul’s use of the term “Kephas” for Peter, this is a classic Jewish pun referencing Peter’s headship. True, “Kephas” (frequently rendered as “Cephas” in English Bibles) is merely a Greek form of the Aramaic name “Kepha” (Rock); but in Greek it also implies Headship, in that “Kephale’” is the Greek word for head. And we can see this pun (a pun that’s never lost on Greek-speaking readers) all throughout the New Testament (e.g. John 13:8-9; 1 Cor 9:5; 1 Cor 15:5; Gal 2:9; Gal 2:11,14; etc). All these as veiled references to Peter’s “headship” and when understood in Greek and in context, one cannot miss them. >

< “You have never envied anyone, you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed, which in your instructions you enjoin [on others].” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chapter 3)

So, coming from the other side of the known world (Antioch in Syria), St. Ignatius is familiar with Rome’s teaching authority. I wonder why that is? Perhaps it’s because Ignatius also says that Rome “presides in the chief place” and how it “presides in love” or “holds the presidency of love” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chapter 1). Here, Ignatius uses the Greek word “prokatheemai,” which is defined as an authoritative, jurisdictional position; and this is the meaning of the word “presides” whenever Ignatius uses it (e.g. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1).

Also, what about St. Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170 AD), who writes to Pope Soter of Rome, and says:

“Today we kept the Holy Day, the Lord’s Day (Sunday), and on it we read your letter (Pope Soter’s epistle). And we shall ever have it with us to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter in Eusebius)

Here we not only see the church of Corinth taking instruction from the church of Rome, but we see that the Corinthians had a long-standing tradition of taking such instruction – still retaining the epistle of St. Clement, which was sent to them some 80 years before. And Dionysius continues to address the Roman bishop, saying:

“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome 25:8 in Eusebius).

So Dionysius compares the teaching of Pope Soter to that of Peter and Paul. And, he continues:

“For from the beginning, it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city…This custom your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only preserved, but is out-doing, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father [to] his children, the brethren who are journeying.” (Dionysius, Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius’ Church History 4:23:9 [AD 170])

So Dionysius refers to the bishop of Rome as a “father” ( i.e. the root of the word “Pope” cf. 1 Cor 4:15; Phil 2:22; 1 Thess 2:11; 1 Tim 5:1; etc), speaking of the Christians in every city as his “children,” whom he “urges,” “consoles,” and provides for – Dionysius says that this has been the custom of the Roman church “from the beginning.” >

 

[anthony022071]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

St. Clement of Alexandria

“…the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples …” (Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [AD 200]).

St. Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . 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 that also which 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; first edition [AD 251]).

See John Chapman on Cyprian and the Papacy for much greater detail.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly.” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [AD 350])

St. Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution [the Church] so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures.” (Homilies 4:1 [AD 351])

St. Ambrose of Milan

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church…’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [AD 379]).

St. Jerome

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well… one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division.” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [AD 393])

St. Augustine of Hippo

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies.” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [AD 415])*

 

[SHW]

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

Everyone knew that Peter was the chief apostle. It did not need to be written in Scripture as “Peter is the chief apostle” or “Peter is the head of the Church.”

Jesus gave the “keys of the kingdom” to Peter alone. This is a chief stewardship position over all other stewards (apostles). See Isaiah 22 for background information on this position. Isaiah 22:22 “The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open.”

Compare this to Jesus choosing Peter as head of His Church because the Father chose Peter first by giving him the correct answer to Jesus’ question:

Matthew 16:15-19 "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19** And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.**”

Peter is chosen specifically by the Father to be His Son’s Church’s chief leader/steward. No other person receives the keys of the kingdom because only one person at a time can have this top position of chief steward.

Referring to Acts 15: James backed Peter’s decision. He did not make it for Peter. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Galatians 2: If you look at the original Greek, Paul is speaking of two different men. Cephas, a man who has the same name as Peter, is the person whom Paul rebuked. This James and John are also not the apostles.

Peter is always listed first in the lists of apostles as a sign of respect for his leadership position. Paul says that these three men, James, Cephas, and John are “reputed” to be pillars.

The apostles, Peter and James and John, “are” pillars. There is no doubt as to their honored reputations among the Christians!!! Eusebius also states in the Church History that these three men were not the apostles but were instead of the group of the first 70 disciples of Jesus. Mystics who have seen visions of early Christian times also state that they have seen that these men were not the apostles.

Ephesians 4 is not a complete list. There is no mention of Bishop, elder/presbyter/priest, or deacon in this one list yet they are ministerial positions in the sacerdotal priesthood. (Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 4:14)

It really is quite plain to see that Peter was chosen to be the head of Jesus’ Church, if a person is truly seeking truth.

Pax,
SHW

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Everyone knew that Peter was the chief apostle. It did not need to be written in Scripture as “Peter is the chief apostle” or “Peter is the head of the Church.”…

Galatians 2: If you look at the original Greek, Paul is speaking of two different men. Cephas, a man who has the same name as Peter, is the person whom Paul rebuked. This James and John are also not the apostles.

Peter is always listed first in the lists of apostles as a sign of respect for his leadership position. Paul says that these three men, James, Cephas, and John are “reputed” to be pillars.

The apostles, Peter and James and John, “are” pillars. There is no doubt as to their honored reputations among the Christians!!! Eusebius also states in the Church History that these three men were not the apostles but were instead of the group of the first 70 disciples of Jesus. Mystics who have seen visions of early Christian times also state that they have seen that these men were not the apostles.

You see the problem. I am very interested in the reference or quote in Eusebius you refer to above. I am also very interested in the references to the mystics who say the ‘pillars’ are not the apostles James, Cephas, and John.

Ephesians 4 is not a complete list. There is no mention of Bishop, elder/presbyter/priest, or deacon in this one list yet they are ministerial positions in the sacerdotal priesthood. (Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 4:14)

The pastors listed in Ephesians 4 are the same as bishop/presbyters in Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5. The office of head of the church being the most important would not have been left off the list if it existed, yet it is not mentioned there or anywhere except in reference to Christ alone.