why st peter ?

[michael777]

you wrote

“Jesus created a Church – an organization”
I think you misunderstand what was happening.

The church wasnt just another “organization” like some club or corparation.

He was delivering human souls from the Kingdom of darkness and bringing them into the kingdom of heaven!

Unless you understand the spirtual significance of this you will go in a very confused direction leading to more confusion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michael777:

you wrote

“Jesus created a Church – an organization”
I think you misunderstand what was happening.

The church wasnt just another “organization” like some club or corparation…

Nobody said it was “just another organization.”

But it WAS and IS an organization.

michael777:

He was delivering human souls from the Kingdom of darkness and bringing them into the kingdom of heaven!

Unless you understand the spirtual significance of this you will go in a very confused direction leading to more confusion.

What makes you think I don’t understand it?

When you speak of souls being delivered, which souls are you talking about? I think we are talking about ALL souls, including those of children not born for a thousand years after Peter’s death.

Now, how are we to deliver THOSE human souls? Only through continuing the ministry that Christ established – and to do that, we need people to do it. Those people need to be taught how to do it. They need direction. They need support. They need specialization (some to be priests, some bishops, some teachers, some workers among the poor.)

That means they need organization.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“Organizations need heads. He chose Peter”

No i disagree with your understanding of spiritual leadership there.

Fine – think as you like…

"" God chose us in christ who is the head of the church which is his body"

Christ is the head of the church and God is the head of christ.

The church only has one spiritual head and one spiritual teacher.It is true to say that the church has various leaders of individual congregations but christ is the head over all as both leader and teacher. not to mention priest…

But Christ has not returned in the flesh. The Second Coming (the Parousia) is not yet.

Therefore we humans must work as best we can. The role of leadership is filled by the Vicar of Christ on Earth – the Pope.

michael777:

Peter to my knowlegde was not a leader of any of the early congregations…

Then your knowledge is faulty. Peter established the Church in Antioch and was bishop of the Church at Rome.

michael777:

And he wasnt the first to believe in christ as the messiah either.
Infact his brother Andrew believed Jesus to be the meesaih before Peter (simon peter) had even met Jesus!! …

And where in the gospels does Jesus say, “Thou art Andrew and on this Andrew I build my Church?”

The fact is, Jesus CHOSE Peter. If you think Jesus was wrong, tell Him, not me…

michael777:

I think this is why Jesus made sure that Peter was told it was by the Holy spirit that he had believed and confessed Jesus to be Messaih and not by any man .
because Peter had already been told Jesus was the Messiah by his brother Andrew,yet had to come to faith himself…

So we now have three sources of revelation, Scripture, Tradition, and What Michael777 Thinks? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

michael777:

So Jesus stressed for his sake that to believe you have to have the Holy spirit in your heart, and Jesus was reassuring Peter of the validity of his faith, that it was God given and not just the words of man, yet andrew would have been speaking via the spirit of the father, peter wouldnt have understood that fact at the time…

Peter, an Apostle chosen by Jesus, didn’t understand, but Michael777 does?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

michael777:

Also he was telling Peter the significance of his faith by mentioning the his church and how Peter had become a part of it.
And as Jesus foreknew how the devil wanted Peter to fail in his faith.
Jesus added for peters own confidence and the devils ears.
The gates of hell shall not prevail against you either because you are part of my church.

Michael.

And that’s a direct quote?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Ghosty]

No one here would argue that Christ is not the King. That’s why the “keys of the kingdom” are so significant. Jesus knew that He would be leaving for awhile, and would not be directly active of Earth. He has gone ahead to prepare the Kingdom in Heaven, and left duties to us that must be completed before the full glory of the Kingdom can be manifest, such as bringing the full number of Gentiles into the Covenant.

This is where the “keys” come in. In ancient times, the true King gave the keys to the city gates to his steward when he would be away, symbolizing that the steward acted in the King’s authority while the King was away. The King was still King, but while the King was away, the trusted steward was to be obeyed as King. It was a way for the authority of the King to not lapse even in his absence; people still had laws and a ruler. When the King returned, the keys would be given back to the true King, and all would be well. That is what is so significant about Jesus giving Peter, and only Peter, the keys to the Kingdom. Jesus is saying “I’m going away, and I won’t be here to directly command my people. I’m trusting you, Kepha, to be my steward in my absence. The Holy Spirit will guide you while I’m gone, and you must not fear that the Kingdom will be destroyed before my return.”

That’s huge. That’s unprecendented, in fact. The Church has continued passing the keys by the authority of the collected Bishops, an authority given to them by Jesus with the “power to bind and loose”. Christ always protects His acting steward from teaching error, thus keeping the promise that the Kingdom will not fall in His absence. We never say that Peter is the King, we say he is the Vicar of the King (vicar means someone of lower-rank acting in the place of a higher-ranked individual in their absence). The same holds for all the individuals who have been given the keys over the past 2,000 years. We obey the Vicar because the King demands it, and the King has promised that the Vicar will be specially protected by God, just as the whole Church will be. We follow the Pope because we absolutely, positively trust in Christ the King.

As for “Why Peter”, that’s something you’d have to ask God. Personally I think it’s for a number of reasons. First off, he wasn’t the most educated of the bunch. Far from it, in fact. His faith was genuine, but his human frailties got in the way as often as not. He was also a very, very stubborn guy, not given to changing his ways, even going so far as to argue with the man he himself proclaimed was the Messiah and Son of God! Here’s the thing, though, if you read Acts you see an absolute transformation in Peter’s behavior. He stops being the loyal but all-too-human lackey, and steps up as a leader in an unprecedented way. Suddenly this poor fisherman who was as likely to punch you in the face as pray for you has a commanding presence, and even the educated and well travelled such as Paul are falling in line behind him. This “hick” Galilean who may never even have talked to a Gentile before meeting Jesus, someone who has been dedicated to the Law in a way that only someone who’s literally known nothing else could be, is suddenly declaring that the Gentiles are to be welcomed into the Covenant. So why do I think Jesus chose Peter? Because only the true transformative power of the Living God could bring about such a change in a person, and Jesus wanted everyone to realize that He was the real deal. People saw Peter, saw the change, and knew that something was new and different, and that these changes just don’t happen overnight without the touch of God.

There are, of course, parralels with other biblical figures, most notably Moses. In fact, it seems as if both Peter and Moses had very, very similar personalities before and after their transformations. Both were sheltered, both were prone to fits of passion that as often as not led them away from holiness, and both were very stubborn individuals. God chose Moses to lead His people out of bondage and into the Promised Land, and God chose Peter to lead His people out of the bondage of death and into the Kingdom to Come, and even pick up the “straggler” Gentiles along the way. We’re still travelling, but only because this time God has demanded we leave no one behind, not even the Egyptians, unless they absolutely reject us. When the full number of Gentiles come on board, we will see the true Kingdom to Come. I think there are a ton of commonalities between Peter and Moses that could be explored, and this only scratches the surface. It just shows how deeply intertwined the Old and the New Covenants really are.

 

[michael777]

Well do you think Peter did at the time?

I certainly do having the hindsight of the very scripture concerning it and the knowledge of God.
Oh and by the way i have the Holy Spirit also.

I hope that doesnt seem to incredible to you?

 

[Della]

vern humphrey:

The Cardinals are not separate levels of the heirarchy – they are simply bishops with special honorifics and rights, one of them being to be electors of the next Bishop of Rome.

The selction of bishops by vote of sitting bishops (called “co-option”) is a very ancient tradition.

Who said otherwise? I was just trying to keep it simple for someone asking a couple of basic questions about Peter and the papacy. If he wants to know more he can always consult a good Catholic encyclopedia.

 

[michael777]

vern humphrey:

Fine – think as you like…

But Christ has not returned in the flesh. The Second Coming (the Parousia) is not yet.

Therefore we humans must work as best we can. The role of leadership is filled by the Vicar of Christ on Earth – the Pope.

Then your knowledge is faulty. Peter established the Church in Antioch and was bishop of the Church at Rome.

And where in the gospels does Jesus say, “Thou art Andrew and on this Andrew I build my Church?”

The fact is, Jesus CHOSE Peter. If you think Jesus was wrong, tell Him, not me…

So we now have three sources of revelation, Scripture, Tradition, and What Michael777 Thinks? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Peter, an Apostle chosen by Jesus, didn’t understand, but Michael777 does?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

And that’s a direct quote?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

I think you will be shocked to see that what Jesus was doing when he spoke to Peter about his confession of him as Messiah was less to do with Peters Fiath but more to do with Christs confirmation of its validity.

Maybe God will show you this maybe not.

I hope what i have written doesnt offend you view of things, It was not meant to offend you.

I also believe Jesus loved peter deeply and was telling Peter things about where he stood as a believer.

For it is clear Peter didnt have an overall leadership role assigned to him in the way it is portrayed by the catholic church.

For there are numerous acounts of Peters mistakes and of him not knowing what to do next.
As i someotimes am like that i consider it human to be so. Peter was human and needed guidance.
The idea he was infallible is nonsense.

No one is.
St paul wasnt either, but God used him to teach Peter.
And as you rightly point out peter established a church in antioch. but my emphasis still stands , he wasnt overall leader and certainly wasnt the first foundation stone of the church.

that much is absolutley certain.

If you take the view he was you have to disregard the faith of the twelve who had been comissioned to have authority to heal the sick and drive out demons before peters confession.
I know enough and have been taught via the Spirit of God to know that
unless you actually believe Jesus to be the messiah already, such authority would be inafectual if you hadn’t recieved christ as lord and saviour .
And if you dont accept that you cant not accept the truth that andrew knew Jesus to be the messiah before Peter.
And so if you want to use your logic andrew would be the first rock or stone or whatever you want to call it that church was built on.
If you want to take what Jesus said in that sense, you would have to conclude Andrews faith was the first rock/stone in the living temple of God i.e the Body of CHRIST.

To dispute it would to be negating you own understanding of what
UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH MEANS.

For Peter would have another before him who’s faith in the Messiah was not BY FLESH AND BLOOD AND WHO WAS A LIVING STONE IN THE BODY OF CHRIST IF NOT THE FIRST!!

Also as a believer both the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the binding on earth and in heaven would both be at Andrews disposal.

Why?

because Andrew was given the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.

Also he could bind and loose.
And something to ponder,If bind and loose in Peters case meant he could allow and dissallow anything he chose
why then was he dissallowed to revert the entire church back to food laws???

And that reminds me didnt st peter tell the church in his letter YOU ARE ALL LIVING STONES BEING BUILT UP INTO THE TEMPLE OF GOD?
i wonder where he got that idea from ?
It was used by peter to confirm and inspire the first believers was it not?

My argument was just that if you remember
Jesus said it to build Peter up in the faith he had just entered.

Michael.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michael777:

I think you will be shocked to see that what Jesus was doing when he spoke to Peter about his confession of him as Messiah was less to do with Peters Fiath but more to do with Christs confirmation of its validity.

Maybe God will show you this maybe not…

You’ve had a Private Revelation from God on this, have you?

michael777:

For it is clear Peter didnt have an overall leadership role assigned to him in the way it is portrayed by the catholic church…

So we should just throw the Bible in the trash, because it clearly says that Peter WAS the leader of the Church after Christ’s departure?

michael777:

For there are numerous acounts of Peters mistakes and of him not knowing what to do next…

Been there myself, as a rifle company commander in combat – but mistakes or not, I was still the Old Man.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

michael777:

As i someotimes am like that i consider it human to be so. Peter was human and needed guidance.
The idea he was infallible is nonsense…

You clearly don’t understant the concept of infallibility as the Church understands it.

michael777:

No one is.
St paul wasnt either, but God used him to teach Peter…

To this day, Canon law requires the Pope and bishops to listen to those below them, and even to the laity who may be called on by God to deliver messages to them.

michael777:

And as you rightly point out peter established a church in antioch. but my emphasis still stands , he wasnt overall leader and certainly wasnt the first foundation stone of the church.

that much is absolutley certain…

Well, somebody forgot to tell Jesus and the other Apostles – because they were sure he was.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

michael777:

If you take the view he was you have to disregard the faith of the twelve who had been comissioned to have authority to heal the sick and drive out demons before peters confession.
I know enough and have been taught via the Spirit of God to know that
unless you actually believe Jesus to be the messiah already, such authority would be inafectual if you hadn’t recieved christ as lord and saviour .

Michael.

So what is YOUR authority to interpret scripturre for the rest of us? Are YOU claiming to be infallible?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[michael777]

So we now have three sources of revelation, Scripture, Tradition, and What Michael777 Thinks?

Peter, an Apostle chosen by Jesus, didn’t understand, but Michael777 does?

Ok i see humour here

But i state i believe jesus christ to be the Messiah the Son of The Living God.

Who revealed that to me?

 

[michael777]

So what is YOUR authority to interpret scripturre for the rest of us? Are YOU claiming to be infallible?

No im not infallible, and i dont claim to be so.
But neither did the christian /saint whatever you want to inteprate it to -Peter.

 

[michael777]

To this day, Canon law requires the Pope and bishops to listen to those below them, and even to the laity who may be called on by God to deliver messages to them.

That maybe be so But God requires his disciples to Obey him .

 

[michael777]

There is absolutely no point whatsoever in quoting to me rules taught by men

I am discussing the scripture not the wild assumptions of heretics

 

[adnauseum]

So michael777 had his mind made up before he came here and now he’s frustrated to find his flimsy position isn’t as simple as his false teacher led him to believe.

A common story.

Good luck to you michael777.

 

[Ghosty]

michael777: You are guilty of asking a dishonest question. You were not seeking our answer out of curiousity, but as a chance to get on your own soapbox. If you aren’t interested in the Catholic position, then don’t ask us for it. Please don’t waste our time in the future.

 

[challenger]

Peter was chosen because of his confession of faith.

 

[michael777]

challenger:

Peter was chosen because of his confession of faith.

many are called but few are chosen

those who believe in christ are called to believe
then they chose to believe and are chosen

Peter was just like every other christian
He was Blessed with every spiritual blessing in christ. Just lik everyone else and those before him who believed9 like his brother for example)

But he didnt rule the church universal.

Olny Jesus did that.

Plus Peter was not infallible so it follow the pope isnt , seeng the popes claim to infalibilty relies on the dubious claim via Peter.

To be infalible Peter would be in total line with God on everything and never make a mistake about doctrine. But he did make a gross mistake about food laws, even after he was shown it was now permisable and totally in Gods will to both eat with gentiles and eat non kosha food stuffs.

St paul had greater Knowlegde on that subject and corrected Peter.

 

[michael777]

Ghosty:

michael777: You are guilty of asking a dishonest question. You were not seeking our answer out of curiousity, but as a chance to get on your own soapbox. If you aren’t interested in the Catholic position, then don’t ask us for it. Please don’t waste our time in the future.

My question was not dishonest it was to all here who hold the catholic position/view on this. I asked to see how you as catholics saw this.

“If you aren’t interested in the Catholic position”

correction,
I am interested still and was very interested to know exactly that.

 

[michael777]

adnauseum:

So michael777 had his mind made up before he came here and now he’s frustrated to find his flimsy position isn’t as simple as his false teacher led him to believe.

A common story.

Good luck to you michael777.

Who are you calling a false teacher?

my teacher is christ and His Spirit of truth.

May God forgive you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michael777:

So we now have three sources of revelation, Scripture, Tradition, and What Michael777 Thinks?

Peter, an Apostle chosen by Jesus, didn’t understand, but Michael777 does?

Ok i see humour here

But i state i believe jesus christ to be the Messiah the Son of The Living God.

Who revealed that to me?

Wait a minute – don’t tell me. I know the answer. You read it in a book!!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

(A book compiled by the Catholic Church, and proclaimed to be scripture by Pope Damasus I.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

michael777:

There is absolutely no point whatsoever in quoting to me rules taught by men

Yet you, yourself show no hesitancy in quoting to us rules taught by men – especially by a man who uses the handle, Michael777http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

michael777:

I am discussing the scripture not the wild assumptions of heretics

In gentlemanly debate, the one who resorts to name-calling loses the argument.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif