Matthew 16:13-20 [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

VFarris01

March 8th 2004, 01:53 PM

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/engl...rnold.CH.7.html (http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.h.Arnold.CH.7.html)

The Claim: The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter was the first Pope, the Church being founded upon Peter (Matt. 16:13-19), and that he was the first bishop of Rome, his pontificate lasting 25 years, from A.D. 42 to 67. It also claims Peter was martyred in Rome around A.D. 67.

The Issue: The whole structure of the Roman Catholic Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-49 Christ appointed Peter the first pope and so established the papacy. If one can disprove the primacy of Peter, the foundation of the papacy is destroyed. If the papacy is thus undermined, the whole Roman hierarchy must topple with it.

Major Arguments Against Peter Being the First Pope:
The Rock of Matthew 16:13-19 is Christ, not Peter: In context, Peter has just acknowledged the Lord to be the Christ, the Son of God, acknowledging his deity. Our Lord replies, “Thou art Peter (petros) and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Petros is masculine, meaning a little rock, and petra is feminine, meaning a large, immovable rock. The rock refers to Christ, not to Peter, for Christ is the chief cornerstone of the church (Eph. 2:20). Christ is often called “the Rock” in the Bible (Isa. 8:14; 28:16; Ps. 118:22; 1 Cor. 10:4). Christ did not build his church upon a weak, sinful man. Rather he built it upon the essential deity of Christ, which was so forcefully set forth in Peter’s confession. Christ was the starting point and rock upon which the church would be built.

It is interesting to notice that some of the Church fathers, Augustine and Jerome among them, gave this Protestant explanation of this verse. Others, of course, gave the papal interpretation. But this shows that there was no unanimous consent of the fathers, as the Roman Catholic Church claims.

Peter’s Own Claim: Peter claimed to be an apostle and an elder (1 Pet. 1:1; 5:1-3). He did not claim the highest place in the church as one would expect a pope to do or as some would claim for him. He assumed no ecclesiastical superiority, but with profound humility put himself on a level with those whom he exhorted.

Peter Rebuked by Paul: In Galatians 2:11-14, the apostle Paul rebuked the apostle Peter for falling into legalistic tendencies. If the Roman Catholic Church is right, then the first infallible pope was reprimanded by another apostle.

Paul Is the Outstanding Apostle: Paul was easily the greatest of the apostles, with a deeper insight into the way of salvation and a larger revealed knowledge concerning the mysteries of life and death. He wrote much more of the New Testament than did Peter. His 13 epistles contain 2,923 verses, while Peter’s two epistles contain only 166 verses. Peter’s epistles do not stand first among the epistles, but after those of Paul. In fact, his second epistle was one of the last to be accepted by the church. Paul worked more recorded miracles than did Peter, and seems to have established more prominent and more permanent churches than did Peter.

Peter Was a Married Man: On some of his missionary journeys he was accompanied by his wife, for Paul says, “Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor. 9:5). The Confraternity Version here reads “sister” instead of “wife,” but the Greek word is gyne meaning “wife,” not adelphe meaning sister. A married pope would go against Roman Catholic dogma.

Peter Was Not in Rome: Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 58) at the very height of Peter’s alleged papal reign there. Yet Paul did not address the letter to the apostle Peter, nor did he even mention his name. If Peter was the first pope, then Paul’s letter was a terrible insult to Peter. Obviously Peter was not in Rome at this time.

Archeology: Incredibly extensive archaeological research has been conducted throughout the centuries in order to find some inscription in the catacombs or other ancient Roman ruins that would indicate that Peter at least visited Rome. Archaeology has yet to recover one shred of such evidence.

Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15): At the Jerusalem Council, where the problem of the Gentile Christians’ relationship to the Mosaic Law was solved by the early church, James, not Peter, presided over the meeting and made the final pronouncement. Until Jerome in the fifth century, none of the early church fathers lent support to the belief that Peter was the first pope.

The eastern church, which broke from Rome and the western church in A.D. 1054, never really went along with the idea of the papacy or Rome’s claim to be the only true church.

Conclusion: The Roman Church builds its papal system not on New Testament or the facts of history, but only on unfounded traditions.

rocketman

March 8th 2004, 03:08 PM

In response to Solly...

So Peter was human. We never claimed otherwise. I think Chesterton made a good point on this subject. He wrote in the Everlasting Man that structures are only as strong as the weakest link, and all other churches/religions tried to build on the strong link. Yet Jesus put the weak man first, and on this decision does His Church rest. Besides, Jesus always said the weak would be first...He simply followed His own teaching in placing Peter as the leader of the temporal Church after He ascended.

To VFarris...

First, the petros/petra argument is still one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard in this discussion...the others are indeed somewhat meritable, if (in my view at least) flawed. First we seem to forget that petros/petra is Greek, not Aramaic, which is the language of Jesus. In Aramaic, there are no gender distinctions in words. Jesus would have used "cephas". In the translation, furthermore, in a highly patriarchal society as the Greeks or Romans, calling Peter a feminine name (Petra) would have been an offense to him. So they use the masculine (Petros) to keep that sense, since it is indeed a new name for Peter. I simply cannot see any merit in the petros/petra argument.

Second, the most universal claim among the ECFs was that both the confession of Peter and Peter himself were the rocks, under different interps. There is the literal, in direct reference to Peter, and the allegorical, in reference to Peter's statement. The Catholic Church admits both and uses both as valid interps of the passage.

Third, Paul's rebuke of Peter was a rebuke of his personal practice, not a doctrine. In fact, Paul even says that Peter was teaching correctly but not following his own teaching, and that is what he rebuked. If the Catholic Church defined infallibility to be the inability to in, then yes indeed your argument would stand. Buth infallibility only holds for doctrinal or moral statements binding for the whole church. Peter's personal practice of not eating with the Gentiles was not doctrinal or moral or binding on the whole Church.

To rebuke a Pope for not following the teaching of the Church is perfectly acceptable. Catherine of Siena in the 1300s did the same thing to the Popes in her day for doing questionable practices that led some people astray. And she was later canonized.

Fourth...so Paul wrote more. So Paul extended the realm of the Church to more places. Great. That was his duty. Peter was called to a different duty. His duty was to lead and unite these churches. Not all people do the same thing. Just because I write more and defend the faith more than my brother does not make me a better Christian or more important than my brother, who focuses on charity and helping others. Both of us have our different jobs to perform in the Church, but neither necessarily makes one more important than the other.

Fifth...what dogma? There are only 7 dogmas. None have to do with whther a Pope can be married or not. And that really is a moot point. A priest may be married in extenuating circumstances (I personally know one), and in the early church there were married priests. But the important point is this...priests should be celibate, whether they were married or not. The church barred married priests ordained under normal circumstances at a later date because it provided too much temptation to those priests to break the celibacy requirement. Married/unmarried clergy is a practice, albeit one that is not going to change anytime soon.

Sixth, there are plenty of ECFs who remark that Peter went to Rome. I will pull these up for you when I get the chance.

Seventh...before answering your argument pertaining to the Council of Jerusalem, I would like to know which James you are referring to. There are at least 4 different Jameses in the NT. Which of these are you referring to?

VFarris01

March 8th 2004, 04:40 PM

Rocketguy, thanks for your response!

Concerning your response to Solly, has the pope always been the "weakest link?"

Since the NT was written in Greek, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, you are saying Matthew mistranslated Jesus’ name for Peter and the word Jesus used for rock? Wouldn’t Matthew have used the proper Greek to express Jesus’ use of the Aramaic? How something is said is at least as important as what is said, don’t you think? Do we know Jesus spoke in Aramaic when he made the statement of v18? Might he have spoken in Greek to make the meaning clear? If Matthew was such a poor translator and historian why should we accept his account at all? Should we trust a tax collector?

Here is my belief. The rock is a metaphor for a solid foundation. The formost foundation of the church is Jesus is the Son of God. See also the Parable of the Foolish Builder in Matthew 7 starting @ v26.

From ‘Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:’
“The word “Peter,” in Greek, means “a rock.” It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, Joh 1:42

Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter - a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: “Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness, solidity, stability, and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion.”

This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word “rock” refers to Peter’s confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isa 28:16; 1Pe 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, “Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church.” Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word “rock” refers to Peter himself.

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. “Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.” This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Gal 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Gal 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: “I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church.”

From ‘Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible:’
“Thou art Peter - This was the same as if he had said, I acknowledge thee for one of my disciples - for this name was given him by our Lord when he first called him to the apostleship. See Joh 1:42.

Peter, ðåôñïò, signifies a stone, or fragment of a rock; and our Lord, whose constant custom it was to rise to heavenly things through the medium of earthly, takes occasion from the name, the metaphorical meaning of which was strength and stability, to point out the solidity of the confession, and the stability of that cause which should be founded on The Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Upon this very rock, åðé ôáõôç ôç ðåôñá - this true confession of thine - that I am The Messiah, that am come to reveal and communicate The Living God, that the dead, lost world may be saved - upon this very rock, myself, thus confessed (alluding probably to Psa 118:22, The Stone which the builders rejected is become the Head-Stone of the Corner: and to Isa 28:16, Behold I lay a Stone in Zion for a Foundation) - will I build my Church, ìïõ ôçí åêêëçóéáí, my assembly, or congregation, i.e. of persons who are made partakers of this precious faith. That Peter is not designed in our Lord’s words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was only one of the builders in this sacred edifice, Eph 2:20 who himself tells us, (with the rest of the believers), was built on this living foundation stone: 1Pe 2:4, 1Pe 2:5, therefore Jesus Christ did not say, on thee, Peter, will I build my Church, but changes immediately the expression, and says, upon that very rock, åðé ôáõôç ôç ðåôñá, to show that he neither addressed Peter, nor any other of the apostles. So, the supremacy of Peter, and the infallibility of the Church of Rome, must be sought in some other scripture, for they certainly are not to be found in this.”

From ‘John Gill’s Exposition on the Entire Bible:’
“By the rock on which Christ builds his church, is meant, not the person of Peter; for Christ does not say, upon thee Peter, but upon this rock, referring to something distinct from him: for though his name signifies a rock, or stone, and there may be some allusion to it; and he is so called because of his trust and confidence in the Lord, on whom he was built; but not because he was the foundation on which any others, and especially the whole church, were built: it is true, he may be called the foundation, as the rest of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are, Eph 2:20 without any distinction from them, and preference to them; they and he agreeing in laying doctrinally and ministerially Christ Jesus as the foundation of faith and hope, but not in such sense as he is; neither he, nor they, are the foundation on which the church is built, which is Christ, and him only. Moreover, what is said to Peter in these, and the following words, is not said to him personally and separately from the rest of the apostles, but is designed for them, as well as him, as appears by comparing them with Mat 18:18. As he spoke in the name of them all, to Christ; so Christ spake to him, including them all. Peter had no preeminence over the rest of the apostles, which he neither assumed, nor was it granted; nor would it ever have been connived at by Christ, who often showed his resentment at such a spirit and conduct, whenever there was any appearance of it in any of them; see Mat 18:1 and though Peter, with James, and John, had some particular favours bestowed on him by Christ; as to be at the raising of Jairus's daughter, and at the transfiguration of Christ on the mount, and with him in the garden; and he appeared to him alone after his resurrection, and before he was seen by the rest of the disciples; yet in some things he was inferior to them, being left to deny his Lord and master, they did not; and upon another account is called Satan by Christ, which they never were; not to mention other infirmities of his, which show he is not the rock: and, after all, what is this to the pope of Rome, who is no successor of Peter's? Peter, as an apostle, had no successor in his office; nor was he bishop of Rome; nor has the pope of Rome either his office, or his doctrine: but here, by the rock, is meant, either the confession of faith made by Peter; not the act, nor form, but the matter of it, it containing the prime articles of Christianity, and which are as immoveable as a rock; or rather Christ himself, who points, as it were, with his finger to himself, and whom Peter had made such a glorious confession of; and who was prefigured by the rock the Israelites drank water out of in the wilderness; and is comparable to any rock for height, shelter, strength, firmness, and duration; and is the one and only foundation of his church and people, and on whom their security, salvation, and happiness entirely depend. Christ is a rock that is higher than they, where they find safety in times of distress, and the shadow of which is refreshing to them; and therefore betake themselves to him for shelter, and where they are secure from the wrath of God, and rage of men: he is the rock of ages, in whom is everlasting strength; and is the sure, firm, and everlasting foundation on which the church, and all true believers, are laid: he is the foundation of their faith, and hope, and everlasting happiness, and will ever continue.”

The RCC uses two interpretations of v18? Literal and allegorical. Appears to be an improper use of talking out of both sides of their theological mouth.

Paul wasn’t the only person to correct Peter. Jesus did so a short time later:

Matthew 16:21-23 ASV
(21) From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.
(22) And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee.
(23) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

Not only was Peter a rock… he was a “stumbling-rock.”

If there is no need of celibacy, why then institute the “custom?”“1Pe 5:13 - The church that is at Babylon,.... The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, supply the word "church", as we do. Some, by "Babylon", understand Rome, which is so called, in a figurative sense, in the book of the Revelations: this is an ancient opinion; so Papias understood it, as (e) Eusebius relates; but THAT PETER WAS AT ROME, WHEN HE WROTE THIS EPISTLE, CANNOT BE PROVED, NOR ANY REASON BE GIVEN WHY THE PROPER NAME OF THE PLACE SHOULD BE CONCEALED, AND A FIGURATIVE ONE EXPRESSED. IT IS BEST THEREFORE TO UNDERSTAND IT LITERALLY, OF BABYLON IN ASSYRIA, the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews, and the centre of it, to whom the apostle wrote; and where, as the minister of the circumcision, he may be thought to reside, here being a number of persons converted and formed into a Gospel church state, whereby was fulfilled the prophecy in Psa 87:4 perhaps this church might consist chiefly of Jews, which might be the reason of the apostle's being here, since there were great numbers which continued here, from the time of the captivity, who returned not with Ezra; and these are said by the Jews (f) to be of the purest blood: many of the Jewish doctors lived here; they had three famous universities in this country, and here their Talmud was written, called from hence (g) Babylonian.” (John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible)

“After considering all that has been said by learned men and critics on this place, I am quite of opinion that the apostle does not mean Babylon in Egypt, nor Jerusalem, nor Rome as figurative Babylon, but the ancient celebrated Babylon in Assyria, which was, as Dr. Benson observes, the metropolis of the eastern dispersion of the Jews; but as I have said so much on this subject in the preface, I beg leave to refer the reader to that place.

Instead of Babylon, some MSS. mentioned by Syncellus in his Chronicon have Ιοππη, Joppa; and one has Ρωμη, Rome, in the margin, probably as the meaning, according to the writer, of the word Babylon.” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible)

The use of Babylon does not necessarily refer to the city of Babylon; why not to the region?
While I personally do not believe Jesus designated an “earthly successor,” many scholars refer to James, the brother of Christ, as Jesus’ successor.

rocketman

March 8th 2004, 05:20 PM

The pope has not always been the weakest link (sometimes he was...we have never claimed all the popes were good, strong people)...but the fact that the papacy was was given to Peter is important to understanding the foundation of the Church.

The Gospel of Matthew was not written in Greek...it was written in Aramaic. Later Greek writers translated the Aramaic into Greek.

Except for a few specific passages of the Bible, the RCC does not dogmatically define interpretation of the Bible. One can look at passages in several different senses and all be correct and worthy of examination, so long as the conclusions reached are orthodox. The fruits of the interp point to the validity of the interp. If the conclusion from a certain interp leads to an unorthodox doctrine or stance, then that interp is not valid.

In the case of Matt 16:18, both the literal and allegorical views support orthodox doctrines and allow for illumination of the faith...therefore, both are valid.

Albert Barnes is reading too much into the Galatians section. Go back and read it for yourself...Paul was rebuking Peter's personal actions, not the doctrine. He also seems to think that the whole basis for Peter's primacy is Matt 16:18. Catholics also point to other sections (such as Jesus' 3 questions to Peter following the Resurrection) as demonstration his position being appointed by Christ.

So what if Christ also rebuked Peter...Christ rebukes all of us. We all screw up. Even popes. But again, Peter was not acting as Pope and clarifying doctrine for the whole Church there. No infallibility problem. And we also never claimed that popes would sometimes be stumbling blocks. Peter's actions were a stumbling block in Galatians. The actions of the Renaissance popes were stumbling blocks for millions of people. But there were no doctrinal issues there. The correct DOCTRINES were still taught and were not changed, even if the ACTIONS were sinful.

I still maintain that we need clarity as to who the James in Acts 15 is before we address it.

VFarris01

March 8th 2004, 10:26 PM

spl_cadet

March 8th 2004, 11:40 PM

Might want to fix that link.

And it's spelled infallible.

rocketman

March 9th 2004, 01:34 AM

Quote from Rocketman: The Gospel of Matthew was not written in Greek...it was written in Aramaic. Later Greek writers translated the Aramaic into Greek.

Nice claim… substantiation please. Perhaps you have a copy?

Quote from Rocketman: I still maintain that we need clarity as to who the James in Acts 15 is before we address it.

Asked and answered counselor, James the brother of Jesus.

Take a look at this also:
http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepage.../cath/cath2.htm (http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepage.../cath/cath2.htm)

Oh, yes, please, once infallable always infallable. I would maintain the change in this doctrine is to cover the buts of the "bad" popes and the church.

I thought the fact that Matthew was written in Aramaic was public knowledge...it's what I was taught in parochial grade school anyways.

Now on to James...tradition has that this "James Brother of Jesus" is the same as the Apostle James the Less...first Bishop of Jerusalem. And now you will need to show some evidence as to why James the Less should be considered as more authoritative or greater than Peter.

Infallibility is another subject separate from the Primacy of Peter. I can and will defend it, and you obviously have misconceptions about it, but there is no need to enter into it in this thread; it will only detract from the main premise...we can start a new one dedicated to it, though, if you like.

VFarris01

March 9th 2004, 03:32 AM

Let’s see if this link works, if not type it into the command line.

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepage.../cath/cath2.htm (http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/cath/cath2.htm)

I not a great speller; must be why I’m an engineer instead of an English teacher.

Rocketguy: I thought the fact that Matthew was written in Aramaic was public knowledge...it's what I was taught in parochial grade school anyways.

Must only be public knowledge in RC schools.

To repeat:

Since the NT was written in Greek, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise (emphasis mine, VF), you are saying Matthew mistranslated Jesus’ name for Peter and the word Jesus used for rock? Wouldn’t Matthew have used the proper Greek to express Jesus’ use of the Aramaic? How something is said is at least as important as what is said, don’t you think? Do we know Jesus spoke in Aramaic when he made the statement of v18? Might he have spoken in Greek to make the meaning clear? If Matthew was such a poor translator and historian why should we accept his account at all? Should we trust a tax collector?

Additionally, Greek was a “universal” language in that it was used throughout most of the R. Empire. Greek just seems a better language to “spread the Good News” with than Aramaic.

If I may “Appeal to Popularity,” more than half the Christians in the world understand Matthew 16:18 the way I understand v18 and do not believe Peter was the first Pope.

An analogy on this if I may.

When Richard Petty came to the Talladega, he asked his pit crew, “Who do men say I am?” And they said, “Some say you are Ricky Rudd: some, Dale Earnhart, Jr.; and others, Dale Jarrett, or one of the men of Thunder Road.” He said to them, “But who do you say I am?” And Rocketman answered and said; “You are the Man in Shades, the King of NASCAR.” And Richard Petty said to him, “Bless you, Rocketman: for oil and rubber did not revealed it to you but the many trophies in my home. And I also say to you, you are Rocketman, and around this Engine I will build my racecar; and none in NASCAR shall prevail against it. And I will give unto my pit crew the keys to the tool box: and whatever you tighten will be tightened on the car: and whatever you loosen will be loosened on the car.”

In this example, are you the engine of the racecar or a member of the pit crew? RP is going to win not because he has the best engine but because he is the best driver, the “Man in Shades, the King of NASCAR.”

Rocketman: Now on to James...tradition has that this "James Brother of Jesus" is the same as the Apostle James the Less...first Bishop of Jerusalem. And now you will need to show some evidence as to why James the Less should be considered as more authoritative or greater than Peter.

Sorry, I don’t have to prove this contention. My quote earlier, “While I personally do not believe Jesus designated an “earthly successor,” many scholars (emphasis mine, VF) refer to James, the brother of Christ, as Jesus’ successor.”

Rocketman: Infallibility is another subject separate from the Primacy of Peter...

I agree. If you really, really want to, we can discuss this subject as well (and in another thread, though I perfer to discuss it quickly here).

I believe you too have misconceptions about the history of infallibility. The pope was considered infallible before the doctrine of ex cathedra (When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is defining doctrine concerning faith and morals of the Church). I would argue the recent (Vatican I, I believe) doctrine of ex cathedra to be a cover for every time in the past the pope and the church were found to be in error. An example would be Galileo and the sun centered solar system/universe (for which the church has yet to apologize I understand). At the time of this snafu the pope was considered infallible in everything he spoke. Since the pope at the time could accurately be considered to not be speaking ex cathedra he then could not have stated an infallible truth.

How about this one?

From: Pope Boniface VIII - Unum Sanctum

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins… she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God…

… Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter…

… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Is this an infallible truth? Yes or no. (I have heard Unum Sanctum is obsolete. Yes, no, maybe?)

rocketman

March 9th 2004, 03:59 PM

Farris, I have college work to do so this won't be a complete post, but I would like to quickly address the original language of Matthew and your "Appeal to Popularity".

1. Eusebius, quoting Papias (c. AD 130) said that Matthew was written in the native language of the Hebrews as a gospel to them. Scott Hahn, in his intro to the Gospel, takes this to mean either Hebrew or Aramaic, but certainly not Greek.

2. Irenaeus, in the late second century, about 50 years after Papias, notes, "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church."

3. Jesus was a Jew. The Jews in Israel spoke Aramaic. It is rational to assume that he said the words in Aramaic, not Greek, the "best way to spread the Good News" notwithstanding. He had to be understood by the people listening to him. And those people, as Jews, all spoke Aramaic.

As for the appeal to popularity...if you went back to the time of Athanasius, more than half of all "Christians" at the time were Arian. If we followed the appeal to popularity, we would all be Arian right now, if not something else that came along after it. I'm interested in truth, not the popularity of a system of thought.

I will adress your thing on Unam Sanctam when I have time tonight or tomorrow.

spl_cadet

March 9th 2004, 05:47 PM

Farris, would you do us a favor? Stop changing the stupid font.

D.R.R.

March 9th 2004, 08:07 PM

Peter started the church? The peter who deserted Christ?

upon this rock I will build my church

And the Peter who repented.

RAHster

March 9th 2004, 09:02 PM

(13) Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is?

Jesus and the disciples are at Caesarea Philippi when this dialoge takes place. At Caesarea Philippi (base of Mt. Hermon), a large spring feeds the Jordan River and emerges from a large cave which became the center of pagan worship. It was called Panias after the Greek god Pan who was worshiped there, but I believe it was also called the Gates of Hell by non-pagans.

It seems that Jesus' comments make reference to their surroundings to clarify his message? If so, shouldn’t we also be aware of their surroundings to better understand the message?

RICK

VFarris01

March 9th 2004, 10:52 PM

Greetings Friend Rocketdude,

Though your “evidence” is heresay it is compelling concerning the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek languages. Smith’s Bible Dictionary contends there are no less than 17 “witnesses” of GMatthew written in the “language” of the Hebrews.

Several scholarly text state undoubtedly Matthew probably and in all likelyhood did write in Hebrew the “native” language though there is a possibility he wrote in Aramaic. Seeing how Matthew was a man of some importance (a tax collector) he probably wrote in Hebrew and Greek the more common written languages of the area.

See also for another perspective:

http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/articles/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=1463 (http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/articles/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=1463)

Consider also:

Matthew 18:18 ASV
(18) Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus is speaking to all of the Apostles. Peter was not the only Apostle given the power of “binding” and “loosening.”

1 Corinthians 3:10-11 ASV
(10) According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder I (Paul) laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon.
(11) For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The foundation that is laid is Jesus Christ, not Peter.

Ephesians 2:13-22 ASV
(13) But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.
(14) For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
(15) having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;
(16) and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
(17) and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh:
(18) for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father.
(19) So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,
(20) being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;
(21) in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord;
(22) in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.

Now read Matthew 16:16-18 again.

Matthew 16:16-18 ASV
(16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
(17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven (“it” being Christ is the Son of the living God, VF).
(18) And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (the “rock” being Jesus, the Son of God, VF); and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Let me make a couple of “mathematical” changes.

“I am the Christ, the Son of the living God” = “it” in v17.

“fact I am the Christ, the Son of the living God” = “rock” in v18.

Matthew 16:16-18 ASV
(16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
(17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed I am the Christ, the Son of the living God unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
(18) And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this fact I am the Christ, the Son of the living God I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Look again at 1 Corinthians 3:11.

1 Corinthians 3:10-11 ASV
(11) For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matthew 7:24-27 ASV
(24) Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:
(25) and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and if fell not: for it was founded upon the rock.
(26) And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand:
(27) and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof.

Why would Jesus want to build His church on the “sand” of Peter?

If you don’t believe Peter is “sand” consider:

Matthew 14:27-31 ASV
(27) But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
(28) And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto the upon the waters.
(29) And he said, Come. And Peter went down from the boat, and walked upon the waters to come to Jesus.
(30) But when he saw the wind, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, Lord, save me.
(31) And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and saith unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

Matthew 15:15-16 ASV
(15) And Peter answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable.
(16) And he said, Are ye also even yet without understanding?

Matthew 16:21-23 ASV
(21) From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.
(22) And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee.
(23) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

Matthew 17:1-8 ASV
(1) And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart:
(2) and he was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his garments became white as the light.
(3) And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him.
(4) And Peter answered, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, I will make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
(5) While he was yet speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
(6) And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
(7) And Jesus came and touched them and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
(8) And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, save Jesus only.

Matthew 17:24-27 ASV
(24) And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came to Peter, and said, Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel?
(25) He saith, Yea. And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers?
(26) And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said unto him, Therefore the sons are free.
(27) But, lest we cause them to stumble, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Matthew 26:33-35 ASV
(33) But Peter answered and said unto him, If all shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended.
(34) Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
(35) Peter saith unto him, Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

Matthew 26:40-43 ASV
(40) And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
(41) Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
(42) Again a second time he went away, and prayed, saying, My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done.
(43) And he came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy.

Matthew 26:69-75 ASV
(69) Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean.
(70) But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
(71) And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and saith unto them that were there, This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.
(72) And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man.
(73) And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them; for thy speech maketh thee known.
(74) Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And straightway the cock crew.
(75) And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

The rest of the Gospels have similar disparaging remarks about Peter.

I want Peter on my side, don’t you?

Jesus did not/could not found His church on Peter, He founded it on Himself; the only person He could found His church on.

And finally, if the “rock” of Peter is so important, why did the rest of the Gospels leave it out?

Mark 8:27-30 ASV (Did Mark leave out the rock quote on purpose?)
(27) And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am?
(28) And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets.
(29) And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
(30) And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

Luke 9:18-21 ASV (Did Luke leave out the rock quote on purpose too?)
(18) And it came to pass, as he was praying apart, the disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Who do the multitudes say that I am?
(19) And they answering said, John the Baptist; but others say, Elijah; and others, that one of the old prophets is risen again.
(20) And he said unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Peter answering said, The Christ of God.
(21) But he charged them, and commanded them to tell this to no man;

Not in Mark at all, perhaps he found Peter wordplay without merit.

How can you still not understand the “truth?”

I'm an engineer, I like to change things.

spl_cadet

March 10th 2004, 10:22 AM

Several scholarly text state undoubtedly Matthew probably and in all likelyhood did write in Hebrew the “native” language though there is a possibility he wrote in Aramaic.

Considering that it was Aramaic that was the native language (Hebrew being a temple tongue by that time), it'd be the other way around.

Not in Mark at all, perhaps he found Peter wordplay without merit.

Or perhaps because it was dictated by Peter and he wished to be a bit more humble.

themuzicman

March 10th 2004, 10:23 AM

Well, if Peter didn't want it known that Jesus said he was the head of the church, then he certainly wasn't.

spl_cadet

March 10th 2004, 05:54 PM

Well, if Peter didn't want it known that Jesus said he was the head of the church, then he certainly wasn't.

Because of course no man could ever be humble and so not mention something that's already well-known :ahem:

rocketman

March 10th 2004, 10:56 PM

First, I'll tackle your latest post, then I'll cover the Unam Sanctam bit...

Catholics do not and never have denied that Christ is the "cornerstone" of the church as a whole. This is the whole church, meaning that which includes all members of the body of Christ, being those in Heaven, those in Purgatory, and those on Earth. It is upon Christ that the whole thing is anchored, for without Christ's coming, death, and resurrection, there would be no Church. But this does not preclude the idea that Jesus may also establish a vicar to guide the visible Church on Earth until the Second Coming, to maintain its unity. You have not successfully attacked that idea.

The second part of your post amounts to an ad hominem attack on Peter. Catholics never said the popes were impeccable. They've all screwed up in their own personal actions and deeds, they have all failed to lead the Church in the best possible way, and they have all done things that perhaps hinder the publicizing of the fullness of truth to all people. The only thing the Catholic Church maintains as to a pope's infallibility is that as long as the Pope is publicly clarifying or developing a doctrine regarding faith and morals concerning the whole church and speaks ex cathedra, then God will protect him from error. This maintains that no erroneous teaching enters into the Church, such that the forces of evil will not prevail over it.

Third...in your second to last post, you stated...

Rocketman: Now on to James...tradition has that this "James Brother of Jesus" is the same as the Apostle James the Less...first Bishop of Jerusalem. And now you will need to show some evidence as to why James the Less should be considered as more authoritative or greater than Peter.

Sorry, I don’t have to prove this contention. My quote earlier, “While I personally do not believe Jesus designated an “earthly successor,” many scholars (emphasis mine, VF) refer to James, the brother of Christ, as Jesus’ successor.”

If you are not going to defend this position, why bring it up? I assumed that since you posited it, you were prepared to defend it. If not, don't use it to support your claim.

Now, onto Unum Sanctum. Unum Sanctum was never revoked, it is not obsolete, and is the basis of the statement "Extra Ecclesiam Nullam Sullam", which is still Catholic doctrine.

We maintain that there is the invisible Church, which is the communion of all believers, and the visible Church on Earth. The Pope is the guide of the visible church, Christ's appointed vicar until He returns. People are only saved by being part of the Church, the body of Christ. Thus, on Earth, unless there is an extenuating circumstance (such as "invincible ignorance"), you should be part of the visible Church, which thus necessarily puts you under the Supreme Pontiff. For those who have not heard the Good News, salvation is not automatically denied to them so long as they follow their conscience, formed in good faith. But if you are Catholic, and then fall off into heresy, the only way you will be saved is if you return to the Catholic Church, which of course puts you under the direction of the Pope.

Now, let us also consider who Boniface is writing to and when he writes it. This was circulated among Europeans in the Middle Ages, who were Christians, not Hindus in India who have never heard of any of this. Thus, it is directed at those heretics who were part of the Church, but then denied the Pope his rightful authority. If they wanted any part of salvation, the pope was telling them in no uncertain terms that they had better get their rears back in the Church.

How does all this work for a Protestant today? If you grew up in a Protestant household and were taught Protestant doctrines, there is a possibility that invincible ignorance applies. I do not know, nor does anyone really know, how one is invincibly ignorant. I mean, if you grow up in a severely anti-Catholic environment, there is a chance that this barrier constitutes invincible ignorance. I don't know. If you grow up in Bhutan and have never heard of Jesus or the Good News, then obviously that falls under invincible ignorance. But, from my point of view, I would counsel any and all to get into the Catholic Church. It seems to be rather prudent from where I'm standing.

Now, if OTOH, you are a Catholic who learns it, commits it to heart, and then rejects it later, you have no chance (or at least extremely little) for salvation unless you get back into the Church. "To whom much is given, much is expected."

VFarris01

March 11th 2004, 03:17 PM

Friend Rocketman, thank you for your reply,

You also must have trouble with parables.

Matthew 7:24-27 ASV (Jesus speaking)
(24) Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:
(25) and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and if fell not: for it was founded upon the rock.
(26) And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand:
(27) and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof.

“The rock” in Matthew 7:24-27 means a sound, solid foundation.

“The sand” in Matthew 7:24-27 means an unsound foundation.

Substituting “a solid foundation” for the rock and “an unsound foundation” for the sand yields:

Matthew 7:24-27 ASV
(24) Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon a sound, solid foundation:
(25) and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and if fell not: for it was founded upon a sound, solid foundation.
(26) And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon an unsound foundation:
(27) and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof.

Then:

1 Corinthians 3:10-11 ASV
(10) According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder I (Paul) laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon.
(11) For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ergo and without question the “rock” of the church is Jesus Christ the Son of the living God, not Peter.

Rocketman: The second part of your post amounts to an ad hominem attack on Peter.

Hardly! I didn’t write the things said of Peter; the authors of the Gospels did. I used the verses quoted to substantiate my claim concerning Peter.

Peter’s name is mentioned 23 times in Matthew. Of these 23 times there are about 15 separate “scenes.” Of the 15 “scenes,” five are one-liners without appreciable context. Of the remaining ten, eight show Peter to be less than a foundation on which Jesus would build His church. Don’t “make me” quote from the other 127 times Peter’s name is used in the NT (Not counting the use of “Cephas” and “Simon.”); it won’t be a pretty picture. Jesus would be a foolish man to build His house on Peter.

Rocketman: …this does not preclude the idea that Jesus may also establish a vicar to guide the visible Church on Earth until the Second Coming, to maintain its unity. You have not successfully attacked that idea.

Name the person in your Bible who did more to “guide” the church and “maintain its unity.” Was it Peter? The answer appears at the end of this post.

Rocketman: (Concerning James) If you are not going to defend this position, why bring it up? I assumed that since you posited it, you were prepared to defend it. If not, don't use it to support your claim.

Actually, I didn’t “bring it up,” the author of my source did (http://www.thirdmill.org/files/engl...rnold.CH.7.html (http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.h.Arnold.CH.7.html)). You asked me to clarify who the source (Mr. Arnold) contended James to be, which I did. I also noted I did not support this claim. English is not a difficult language to understand.

Besides this it seems to me the “Bishop of Jerusalem” not the “Bishop of Rome” would be the “leader” of the church in Christ’s absence.

See also: http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/pourri.htm (http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/pourri.htm)

Rocketman: Now, onto Unum Sanctum. Unum Sanctum was never revoked, it is not obsolete, and is the basis of the statement "Extra Ecclesiam Nullam Sullam", which is still Catholic doctrine.

A RC told me Unum Sanctum was obsolete or at least she thought so. “We” stand corrected.

Rocketman: Now, let us also consider who Boniface is writing to and when he writes it. This was circulated among Europeans in the Middle Ages, who were Christians, not Hindus in India who have never heard of any of this. Thus, it is directed at those heretics who were part of the Church, but then denied the Pope his rightful authority.

Really?

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Doth the pope also now save us? Did Jesus say we are subject to the pope?

It appears in this quote the pope is speaking ex cathedra for he is defining doctrine of the church. There is nowhere in the Bible where you will find we are subject to God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, AND (god) the pope for salvation.

I am only subject to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit for salvation.

Since we are off of the subject of this thread your response will be the last on the topic of infallibility.

Name the person in your Bible who did more to “guide” the church and “maintain its unity.” The answer is Paul.

Please do not press an "argument from silence" concerning Peter on this point. Without Biblical support your argument fails.

rocketman

March 13th 2004, 02:04 PM

Hello Farris. My apologies for the wait. I had college work and fun for the past couple days.

Of course I understand the import of the parable. As I said, there is no argument as to Christ being the foundation of the Church.

Rocketman: The second part of your post amounts to an ad hominem attack on Peter.

Hardly! I didn’t write the things said of Peter; the authors of the Gospels did. I used the verses quoted to substantiate my claim concerning Peter.

Well then, my apologies. But it seemed that you threw you all those up with no interp of each. But then I also disagree with your interp of some of them as being derogatory to Peter, such as Matthew 17:24-27.

If you want to play the Bible verse game, though, as you asked me to "prove it from the Bible" and not argument from silence, I am a willing participant. I am simply going to quote the verse...the post will be much too long otherwise. All cites come from the NAB.

First, there are the numerous instances in the Bible when it is Peter who speaks for the Apostles when answering Jesus, or asks questions for explanations to parables. Peter is consistently represented as the person who speaks for the Apostles and the "head" of them, for lack of a better word.

Matthew 17:24-27...note that the temple tax collectors (i.e., "they that receive the half-shekel") speak to Peter concerning Jesus' temple tax. Peter is considered Christ's spokesman. Jesus in return pays a full shekel (obtained miraculously) for both he and Peter. But, why do the collectors speak to Peter concerning Christ's payment, not Christ Himself? Because Peter can speak for the Lord.

Mark 14:37...when Jesus returns from His agony in the garden and finds Peter, James, and John asleep, he asks Peter specifically why he could not stay awake. Why? Because Peter is held specially accountable for his actions, as we will also see later. This is because Peter plays a special role amongst the Apostles; he is their leader.

Mark 16:7...following Jesus' Resurrection, the angel tells the women to tell "the disciples and Peter" to go to Galilee. Why would the angel specifically mention Peter by name, and none of the rest? Because Peter has a recognized position amongst the disciples.

Luke 7:36-50...a Pharisee invites Jesus to dinner. A woman comes and begins to wash His feet with her hair and tears and anoints them. The Pharisee is indignant at this. Jesus responds by asking Peter a question about forgiveness to make His point. Again, why Peter?

Luke 22:31-34...here's another instance of Peter's denial being foretold. But I am going to quote this one, because there is something very important in it.

"'Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.' He said to Him, 'Lord, I am prepared to go to prison with you.' But He replied, 'I tell you Peter, before the cock crows this day, you will deny three times that you know me.'"

I have bolded the important part. Jesus has prayed specifically for Peter's faith, that it may hold. And once Peter has come back to his senses, it is going to be his job to strengthen the peopele and the faith, i.e., the church.

Luke 24:12 and John 20:6...In both of these Gospel accounts of the Resurrection, we can see the position Peter has among the Apostles. In Luke's account, only Peter goes to the tomb. In John's account, John and Peter both run to the tomb. John arrives first, but he waits for Peter to arrive and enter first before entering himself. John recognizes Peter's position as the leader of the Apostles and thus allows him the distinction of entering the tomb first.

Luke 24:33-34...upon returning to Jerusalem, the two disciples from Emmaus run to the Eleven but only say that Jesus has appeared alive to Peter. Again, others outside the Apostles recognize Peter as the leader and head of the group.

John 6:69...Another instance of Peter being the man to first confess that Jesus is Lord.

John 13:6-9...It is Peter who questions the Lord about the washing of the feet, although doubtless the rest of the Apostles are just as confused as he is.

John 21:15-19...This is the section in which Jesus questions Peter three times. The replies Jesus gives following Peters answers are very important. The first is, "Feed my lambs." The second is "Tend my sheep." The third is "Feed my sheep". Now, whatever you want to say about the keys belonging to all Apostles or the power of binding and loosing, there is no wiggle-room here. Jesus is telling Peter and only Peter to be the tender, the shepherd, to His flock. And of course, we all know that the flock refers to all the disciples and other Apsotles, all the people who make up the Church.

Acts 1:15-22...Following the Ascension, in the upper room, Peter stands and speaks first about the fulfillment of Scripture. Then it is he who calls for the addition of a twelth apostle to replace Judas. Thus, directly after the Ascension, we see Peter stepping into his role as leader of the Church on Earth, Vicar of Christ in His absence.

Acts 2:14-36...After the commotion of Pentacost, it is Peter who addresses the crowd, not the others. Peter again makes a pronouncement concerning Scripture. Upon further questioning, Peter makes more clarifications and tells all to "Repent and be baptized."

Acts 3:4-10...it is Peter who works the first miracle.

Acts 3:12-26...Again, Peter speaks definitively regarding the fulfillment of Scripture. It should also be noted that he speaks from "Solomon's Portico". Remember wise King Solomon from the OT? Peter is the new Solomon, taking his place as leader of the chosen people on Earth.

Acts 5:1-10...It is Peter who condemns Ananias and Sapphira, and thus issues the first anathema (that which no Christian must do or believe).

Acts 9:32-40...It is Peter who hrals Aeneas and raises Tabitha from the dead. If I remember correctly, not even Paul had the power of raising people from the dead.

Acts 10:34-38 and 11:1-18...It is Peter who makes the announcement that all people, both Jews and Gentiles, are to be saved, thus clarifying definitively one of the early issues of the Church.

I will not go back to the Council of Jerusalem, as we have already been around that one, although I still say that it supports my position in light of the previous evidence. I also have found some new info that I want to research first before getting back to that subject.

1 Cor 15:4-8...Paul makes mention of the fact that Jesus appeared specially to Peter (Cephas) before appearing to the Twelve, which again denotes Peter's position.

Gal 1:18...Paul notes that following his conversion, before going on any public ministry, he went to Jerusalem where Peter was at the time and stays 15 days with him. Why? Because Paul recognized Peter as the authority.

2 Pet 3:16...Peter makes reference to Paul's letters and tells people specifically that they are "hard to understand". I don't recall anything about Paul saying things about Peter's teachings (although he did speak in regards to his actions), yet here is Peter telling others to be wary of what other people try to read into Paul things that aren't there and distorting it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So ends my references to the Bible.

Now, as for Unum Sanctum. If you will look back to my last post, I already answered your objection. To be saved, you must be part of the Church. The visible Church on Earth is led by the Pope. Thus, if you are in the Church, you will be under the temporal direction of the Pope. Thus, Boniface writes, "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Very simply logic. To be A, you must be B. C is the current temporal leader of B, thus, to be A, you must be under C's direction.

I'm done...I have places to go today. Balls' back in your court.

PS...I am certainly enjoying this discussion with you. If I write things that may come off as a bit short-tempered, as I tend to do sometimes when writing, my apologies. I hope this discussion is useful to both of us. Peace.

VFarris01

March 14th 2004, 02:25 AM

Friend Rocketman:

May I please return this complement: “I am certainly enjoying this discussion with you.”

And this caveat: “If I write things that may come off as a bit short-tempered, as I tend to do sometimes when writing, my apologies. I hope this discussion is useful to both of us. Peace.”

May I ask your college field of study?

I understand these to be among the claims of the Roman Catholic Church concerning Peter:

1. Peter was the first Pope.

2. The Church was founded upon Peter.

3. Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
As I said, there is no argument as to Christ being the foundation of the Church.

Are you now dening #2?

I perfer the ASV, ISV, and NIV versions. All of my quotes here are from the ISV.
There are the numerous instances in the Bible (Gospels, VF) when it is Peter who speaks for the Apostles when answering Jesus, or asks questions for explanations to parables. Peter is consistently represented as the person who speaks for the Apostles and the "head" of them, for lack of a better word.
Even so, Peter as a spokesperson does not make him the “head” of the Apostles. Perhaps the verses I quote are of Peter speaking for himself. The Apostles are quite capable of speaking for themselves, though not specifically named. Examples from Matthew: 13:10,26, 14:15,26, 15:12,23,33, 17:10,19, 18:1, 19:10,13,25, 21:20, 24:3, 26:8,17,35. You would have me/us believe Peter was the spokesman for the Apostles in these instances as well?
I also disagree with your interp of some of them as being derogatory to Peter, such as Matthew 17:24-27.
Matthew 17:24-27...note that the temple tax collectors (i.e., "they that receive the half-shekel") speak to Peter concerning Jesus' temple tax. Peter is considered Christ's spokesman. Jesus in return pays a full shekel (obtained miraculously) for both he and Peter. But, why do the collectors speak to Peter concerning Christ's payment, not Christ Himself? Because Peter can speak for the Lord.
Concerning Matthew 17:24-27:

Your point here is well taken. Upon consulting another translation, ISV, Peter is merely questioned by Jesus about taxes. However, in v24 Jesus wasn’t present to speak for himself and the question asked was not one requiring explanation, only an observation. Peter, James, and John were the only Apostles present and I doubt the collectors of the tax could know if Peter was Jesus’ spokesperson in His absence. Your explanation lacks substance for this reason.
Mark 14:37...when Jesus returns from His agony in the garden and finds Peter, James, and John asleep, he asks Peter specifically why he could not stay awake. Why? Because Peter is held specially accountable for his actions, as we will also see later. This is because Peter plays a special role amongst the Apostles; he is their leader.
Concerning Mark 14:27-41:

In v38, Jesus spoke to all of them, Peter, James, & John, v33; they were all there were they not?

Perhaps Peter is singled out because of something occurring a bit earlier, v29-30.
Mark 16:7...following Jesus' Resurrection, the angel tells the women to tell "the disciples and Peter" to go to Galilee. Why would the angel specifically mention Peter by name, and none of the rest? Because Peter has a recognized position amongst the disciples.
Mark 16:7 ISV
(7) But go and tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."

Perhaps Peter was singled out for this reason instead:

Mark 14:72 ISV
(72) Just then a rooster crowed a second time. Peter remembered that Jesus said to him, "Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times." Then he broke down and cried.
Luke 7:36-50...a Pharisee invites Jesus to dinner. A woman comes and begins to wash His feet with her hair and tears and anoints them. The Pharisee is indignant at this. Jesus responds by asking Peter a question about forgiveness to make His point. Again, why Peter?
Concerning Luke 7:36-50:

As I missed the mark earlier, you have missed it here. It can be determined from v37, 39, & 40 the Pharisee’s name is Simon and not Simon Peter the Apostle.
Luke 22:31-34...here's another instance of Peter's denial being foretold. But I am going to quote this one, because there is something very important in it.

"'Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.' He said to Him, 'Lord, I am prepared to go to prison with you.' But He replied, 'I tell you Peter, before the cock crows this day, you will deny three times that you know me.'"

I have bolded the important part. Jesus has prayed specifically for Peter's faith, that it may hold. And once Peter has come back to his senses, it is going to be his job to strengthen the peopele and the faith, i.e., the church.
Concerning Luke 22:31-34:

Jesus says in v32, “I have prayed for you (Peter) that your own faith may not fail.” But Jesus knows better, doesn’t he? Jesus tells Peter in v34 He knows Peter’s faith will fail, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you deny three times that you know me.” Jesus admonished Peter, “When you have turned back (instead of denying Me, VF), you must strengthen your brothers.” Peter shows himself to be less than a leader.
Luke 24:12 and John 20:6...In both of these Gospel accounts of the Resurrection, we can see the position Peter has among the Apostles. In Luke's account, only Peter goes to the tomb. In John's account, John and Peter both run to the tomb. John arrives first, but he waits for Peter to arrive and enter first before entering himself. John recognizes Peter's position as the leader of the Apostles and thus allows him the distinction of entering the tomb first.
Concerning Luke 23:55 – 24:12:

Peter certainly went to the tomb but he wasn’t the first one to go was he? Consider the faith of the Apostles, 24:11, “But these words seemed nonsense to them, and they wouldn't believe them.”

The part most disturbing to me is 24:12, “Then he (Peter) went home wondering about what had happened;” he had no idea.

Concerning John 20:1-18:

It wasn’t necessary for the first Apostle to go into the tomb. However, wouldn’t it be nice to know who it was? Perhaps Thomas?

None of the Apostles understood what had happened, v9, so they went home, v10. The women did understand, 24:7-8; were the Apostles so stupid, especially Peter, their “leader.” It might have been a good idea to stick around as Mary Magdalene did, see v14-17.
Luke 24:33-34...upon returning to Jerusalem, the two disciples from Emmaus run to the Eleven but only say that Jesus has appeared alive to Peter. Again, others outside the Apostles recognize Peter as the leader and head of the group.
Again, concerning Luke 24:

I believe you are mistaken. First, it is not clear from v12 the identity of the two men because in v33 the men went “and found the eleven and their companions all together.” Second, Peter had not yet seen Jesus. Simon was a common name, perhaps another Simon? It seems clear these men are not talking about Simon Peter.
John 6:69...Another instance of Peter being the man to first confess that Jesus is Lord.
Quoting the context is important here and to whom Jesus speaks:

John 6:68-70 ASV
(68) Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
(69) And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God.
(70)Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Peter is speaking for the group yet is not alone in his confession, nor is it to Peter Jesus speaks.
John 13:6-9...It is Peter who questions the Lord about the washing of the feet, although doubtless the rest of the Apostles are just as confused as he is.
Concerning John 13:

Wouldn’t Jesus naturally start (or finish) with Peter, the leader? But Peter wasn’t the first or the last was he, v5? Why didn’t Peter say something before Jesus got to him, v6?
John 21:15-19...This is the section in which Jesus questions Peter three times. The replies Jesus gives following Peters answers are very important. The first is, "Feed my lambs." The second is "Tend my sheep." The third is "Feed my sheep". Now, whatever you want to say about the keys belonging to all Apostles or the power of binding and loosing, there is no wiggle-room here. Jesus is telling Peter and only Peter to be the tender, the shepherd, to His flock. And of course, we all know that the flock refers to all the disciples and other Apsotles, all the people who make up the Church.
There’s plenty of “wiggle-room.” Another interpretation is easy to understand as well. Jesus gives Peter three times forgiveness of his three denials.

All of the Apostles are charged with “feeding lambs,” “tending sheep,” and “feeding sheep.”

Consider Matthew 10:5-6.

I believe John 21:20-23 is telling on this point:

John 21:20-23 ISV
(20) Peter turned around and noticed the disciple whom Jesus kept loving following them. He was the one who had put his head on Jesus' chest at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is the one who is going to betray you?"
(21) When Peter saw him, he said, "Lord, what about him?"
(22) Jesus said to him, "If it is my will for him to remain until I come, how does that concern you? You must keep following me!"
(23) So the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple wasn't going to die. Yet Jesus didn't say to him that he wasn't going to die, but, "If it is my will for him to remain until I come, how does that concern you?"

Just like the disciple who wasn’t going to die; Peter was not the leader of the Apostles after Jesus went to heaven; that’s just a rumor.

Consider also Mark 9:33, Jesus questions Peter, James, and John about an argument on the road to Capernaum. “But they kept silent, for on the road they had argued with one another about who was the greatest,” v34. Consider also Luke 9:46-49 and Luke 22:24-30ff. Finally, I give you, 1 Corinthians 15:9.
Acts 1:15-22...Following the Ascension, in the upper room, Peter stands and speaks first about the fulfillment of Scripture. Then it is he who calls for the addition of a twelth apostle to replace Judas. Thus, directly after the Ascension, we see Peter stepping into his role as leader of the Church on Earth, Vicar of Christ in His absence.
They were already of “one mind,” v14. I would be reasonably sure the election of a “new” 12th Apostle was going to occur with or without Peter’s insistence.
Acts 2:14-36...After the commotion of Pentacost, it is Peter who addresses the crowd, not the others. Peter again makes a pronouncement concerning Scripture. Upon further questioning, Peter makes more clarifications and tells all to "Repent and be baptized."
Hardly a clarification of doctrine.
Acts 3:4-10...it is Peter who works the first miracle.
It is Peter who performs the first miracle in Acts.

Consider Matthew 10:1-8.

Although an “argument from silence” the Apostles had the ability to perform miracles long before Acts 3.
Acts 3:12-26...Again, Peter speaks definitively regarding the fulfillment of Scripture. It should also be noted that he speaks from "Solomon's Portico". Remember wise King Solomon from the OT? Peter is the new Solomon, taking his place as leader of the chosen people on Earth.
So, Peter is now a king? I thought Jesus was king of the Jews. You’re reading way too much into this one.
Acts 5:1-10...It is Peter who condemns Ananias and Sapphira, and thus issues the first anathema (that which no Christian must do or believe).
I disagree. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was to lie and to steal from God v3. They took that which belonged to God for themselves, Exodus 20:15.
Acts 9:32-40...It is Peter who hrals Aeneas and raises Tabitha from the dead. If I remember correctly, not even Paul had the power of raising people from the dead.
See Matthew 10:8.
Acts 10:34-38 and 11:1-18...It is Peter who makes the announcement that all people, both Jews and Gentiles, are to be saved, thus clarifying definitively one of the early issues of the Church.
Oddly, I thought Jesus clarified this problem, see Mark 16:14-16.
1 Cor 15:4-8...Paul makes mention of the fact that Jesus appeared specially to Peter (Cephas) before appearing to the Twelve, which again denotes Peter's position.
Was not Peter one of “the Twelve (Eleven)?” If so, who is this other Cephas? See also Luke 24:33.
Gal 1:18...Paul notes that following his conversion, before going on any public ministry, he went to Jerusalem where Peter was at the time and stays 15 days with him. Why? Because Paul recognized Peter as the authority.
This is not what Paul says now is it? Be truthful, Paul stayed with Cephas to “become acquainted.” Why? Who knows. Interesting how Peter is still in Jerusalem; shouldn’t he be somewhere else by now?
2 Pet 3:16...Peter makes reference to Paul's letters and tells people specifically that they are "hard to understand". I don't recall anything about Paul saying things about Peter's teachings (although he did speak in regards to his actions), yet here is Peter telling others to be wary of what other people try to read into Paul things that aren't there and distorting it.
Yet Peter made no attempt to clarify Paul’s writings through a Bull, or other such popely writ. Paul couldn’t very well say much about Peter’s teachings since there are only two very short letters from Peter (one of which barely made the canon).

I reinterate my previous statement:

Besides this it seems to me the “Bishop of Jerusalem” not the “Bishop of Rome” would be the “leader” of the church in Christ’s absence. Why Rome?

See also: http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/pourri.htm (http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/pourri.htm)

rocketman

March 16th 2004, 11:21 PM

Farris, I'm going to have to postone my answer a little bit...this week is Willy Week here at Rice, and as such all sorts of shenanigans get pulled, and there' s a huge campus wide water balloon fight (like, on the order of 100,000 water balloons) on Saturday, followed by the hallowed Rice tradition Beer Bike (which does not "officially" use beer...and the bikers are sober anyways)...essentially it is Rice Spirit Week. All of this is in addition to regular school work. If I find time to answer during the week, I will, but otherwise don't expect an answer here until at least Saturday afternoon.

As to what I am studying...I am a freshman doing Mechanical Engineering with a specialization in Fluid Dynamics...my hope is to work in the aerospace/rocket industry or NASA.

VFarris01

March 17th 2004, 12:34 AM

rocketman

March 28th 2004, 03:10 PM

Hello Farris. Sorry I took so long to get back to you. I got caught up with other things late this week, but now I have time to reply.

I understand these to be among the claims of the Roman Catholic Church concerning Peter:
1. Peter was the first Pope.

2. The Church was founded upon Peter.

3. Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

Are you now dening #2?

What am stating is that without Jesus and His ability to sustain the Church, the Church it would not only fall apart, it would cease to exist. So of course, Jesus is the foundation of the Church. The Church Militant (as opposed to the Church Triumphant in Heaven and the Church Suffering in Purgatory) is guided by the Pope. The original Pope (or more precisely, the line of men in authority in Rome who would come to be called Pope) was Peter. The Church was not founded upon Peter, for that would say that it is based substantially on Peter's teachings, which it isn't...it's based on Christ's. However, the guidance of the Church Militant did pass from Jesus to Peter. So, perhaps, it is a misunderstanding of #2 that makes my answers seem problematical.

Even so, Peter as a spokesperson does not make him the “head” of the Apostles. Perhaps the verses I quote are of Peter speaking for himself. The Apostles are quite capable of speaking for themselves, though not specifically named. Examples from Matthew: 13:10,26, 14:15,26, 15:12,23,33, 17:10,19, 18:1, 19:10,13,25, 21:20, 24:3, 26:8,17,35. You would have me/us believe Peter was the spokesman for the Apostles in these instances as well?
Perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't. But I do find it interesting that their names aren't mentioned as to who it is speaking. The Gospel writers hardly ever mention who someone is when he is speaking unless it is Peter, James or John, altohugh there are few instances, mostly in John, in which the disciple of incidence is named. And Peter occurs much, much more frequently than James and John. It is also his ministry upon whom the most of first half of Acts of the Apostles centers. The Gospel writers clearly showed a preponderance towards writing about Peter over the other Apostles, pointing out both where he failed and where he was strong.

Concerning Luke 7:36-50:

As I missed the mark earlier, you have missed it here. It can be determined from v37, 39, & 40 the Pharisee’s name is Simon and not Simon Peter the Apostle.

Point conceded.

Concerning Luke 22:31-34:

Jesus says in v32, “I have prayed for you (Peter) that your own faith may not fail.” But Jesus knows better, doesn’t he? Jesus tells Peter in v34 He knows Peter’s faith will fail, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you deny three times that you know me.” Jesus admonished Peter, “When you have turned back (instead of denying Me, VF), you must strengthen your brothers.” Peter shows himself to be less than a leader.

Peter fails for the simple reason that he is human. Please don't tell me your faith hasn't failed at times. We have all denied Jesus much more than three times during great duress. And after the Resurrection, Peter's faith does not fail. He eventually dies on a cross himself. Also, Jesus knows before v34 that Peter is going to fail that night. He says in v32, "Once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." So, it is already evindent that Jesus kows what will happen, and yet he still gives him the mission of strengthening the others.

Concerning Luke 23:55 – 24:12:

Peter certainly went to the tomb but he wasn’t the first one to go was he? Consider the faith of the Apostles, 24:11, “But these words seemed nonsense to them, and they wouldn't believe them.”

The part most disturbing to me is 24:12, “Then he (Peter) went home wondering about what had happened;” he had no idea.

My Bible says Peter was amazed, not wondering. But, let's not forget that wonder and amazement are the normal human responses when something out of the ordinary occurs. Jesus' Resurrection is certainly something out of the ordinary. If something weird occurs, it usually takes me a bit to assemble in my mind what had happened, and then run through it. That's human nature.

Concerning John 20:1-18:

It wasn’t necessary for the first Apostle to go into the tomb. However, wouldn’t it be nice to know who it was? Perhaps Thomas?

None of the Apostles understood what had happened, v9, so they went home, v10. The women did understand, 24:7-8; were the Apostles so stupid, especially Peter, their “leader.” It might have been a good idea to stick around as Mary Magdalene did, see v14-17.

The first disciple there was John, as evidenced by the term "the disciple whom Jesus loved", which is how John referred tom himself throughout his own Gospel.

BTW...the women weren't sure what had happened either until the angels told them in Luke, or Jesus appeared to Mary Magdelene in John. And she didn't even recognize him in John! C'mon, if you're going to claim that Peter was ignorant of the truth, which it seems he was, then they all were. Jesus himself foretold his death and arising 3 times, yet nobody ever understood. It took some explanation for the women as well as the men to remember what he had said. Peter's amazement/wonder belies no fault of his own...nobody was sure what was going on initially. But I maintain that the deference shown in John's Gospel by the beloved disciple and the fact that Peter is the only one in Luke's Gospel highlight his place among the Apostles.

Concerning John 13:

Wouldn’t Jesus naturally start (or finish) with Peter, the leader? But Peter wasn’t the first or the last was he, v5? Why didn’t Peter say something before Jesus got to him, v6?

I dont see how v5 indicates that Peter was neither first nor last, nor why that would be important.

Concerning the end of John...

Please, show me how it could possibly be interpreted that the three commands “feeding lambs,” “tending sheep,” and “feeding sheep" are to all the Apostles. Jesus is specifically talking to Peter. Furthermore, the reference to John also does nothing to deny the import of Peter's discussion with Jesus n the section before. If John took such pains to indicate that Jesus did not actually mean he would never die, why wouldn't he take pains to say, "But Jesus never really intended these things to make Peter guider of the Church."? This seems to be much more important than whether or not John would die.

Consider also Mark 9:33, Jesus questions Peter, James, and John about an argument on the road to Capernaum. “But they kept silent, for on the road they had argued with one another about who was the greatest,” v34. Consider also Luke 9:46-49 and Luke 22:24-30ff. Finally, I give you, 1 Corinthians 15:9.

I will grant you that many times in the past the Popes were not humble. They did not lead the Church in the best possible way. But I maintain as I did before that such does not mean that his authority is abrogated, nor does it mean that he introduced false doctrines into the Church. It simply means he was not always a good guy. For example, Nero's corruption in Rome does not mean that he thus forfeit the legitimacy of his rule. It simply means he did not lead the Roman Empire in the best possible way.

But there have been several good Popes who were indeed humble in their authority. JP II seems to me to be a good example. The man has apologized for the past wrongs of the Church, and he has led the Church with humility and grace.

It is Peter who performs the first miracle in Acts.

Consider Matthew 10:1-8.

Although an “argument from silence” the Apostles had the ability to perform miracles long before Acts 3.

If you do not wish me to make an argument from silence, neither then should you.

So, Peter is now a king? I thought Jesus was king of the Jews. You’re reading way too much into this one.

Perhaps I am...it was only a thought that occurred to me while I was writing, and I sometimes bounce ideas off other people to test whether they are legit. But, for the sake of discussion, let's look at it this way. In the same way that it was ultimately God who sustained the people of Israel, even though a man (Solomon) was placed in charge, so happens here with Peter. Christ still leads the Church, he just does it through the Pope, who guides the Church.

They were already of “one mind,” v14. I would be reasonably sure the election of a “new” 12th Apostle was going to occur with or without Peter’s insistence.
The verse says they were "of one accord in prayer". It was not until Peter declared that they should find a replacement for Judas that they did so. If they were of one mind, should then have been of one mind as to who to choose right then also? No, rather, they went back and prayed some more, and then through the lots, which gave the position to Matthias.

Acts 10:34-38 and 11:1-18...It is Peter who makes the announcement that all people, both Jews and Gentiles, are to be saved, thus clarifying definitively one of the early issues of the Church.

Oddly, I thought Jesus clarified this problem, see Mark 16:14-16

If it was clarified, why was there such a fuss over it later?

This is not what Paul says now is it? Be truthful, Paul stayed with Cephas to “become acquainted.” Why? Who knows. Interesting how Peter is still in Jerusalem; shouldn’t he be somewhere else by now?

Why would he seek out Peter though, and not the other Apsotles? He specifically says that he saw only Peter.

Also, Galatians is the earliest written work of the New Testament...scholars date it to around 46 or 47 AD. Peter did not go to Rome until after 60 AD, as denoted in some of the histories written by the ECFs. For Paul to have written about meeting Peter in Galatians would mean that he did it sometime before that.

Concerning the two instances written in Luke and 1 Corinthians in which the men on the road to Emmaus and Paul each speak of Simon or Cephas as having seen Jesus beofe the other 12...I would agree with you if Peter were not known as both Simon and Cephas throughout the NT. But he is. And these two sources use both names in reference to the same incident. Now perhaps ther were many Simons, and perhaps there were many Cephases, but you're trying to tell me that these two writers both refer to the same incident using both the names by which Peter goes in the NT, and yet it refers to another person? That's stretching it.
I reinterate my previous statement:

Besides this it seems to me the “Bishop of Jerusalem” not the “Bishop of Rome” would be the “leader” of the church in Christ’s absence. Why Rome?
I would give two reasons. One is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans following the revolt in 67 AD. Second is the fact that Jerusalem was not a world city the way Rome was. If you want to make the point that your Church is universal, you base it in the Universal City, not in some regional city with strong ethnic ties to the religious group living in the surrounding area.

As for your link, I have seen it before. It would be nice if the author had provided documentation so that I could read these independent sources she speaks of. But as it is, it is her word against mine. That won't win anything.

VFarris01

March 29th 2004, 12:47 PM

Greetings good friend Rocketdude:
What am stating is that without Jesus and His ability to sustain the Church, the Church it would not only fall apart, it would cease to exist. So of course, Jesus is the foundation of the Church. The Church Militant (as opposed to the Church Triumphant in Heaven and the Church Suffering in Purgatory) is guided by the Pope. The original Pope (or more precisely, the line of men in authority in Rome who would come to be called Pope) was Peter. The Church was not founded upon Peter, for that would say that it is based substantially on Peter's teachings, which it isn't...it's based on Christ's. However, the guidance of the Church Militant did pass from Jesus to Peter. So, perhaps, it is a misunderstanding of #2 that makes my answers seem problematical.
We seem to be getting somewhere. As I understand you, you do not believe the Church was founded on Peter as RC doctrine teaches. This is good.
Concerning John 20:1-18The first disciple there was John, as evidenced by the term "the disciple whom Jesus loved", which is how John referred tom himself throughout his own Gospel.

BTW...the women weren't sure what had happened either until the angels told them in Luke, or Jesus appeared to Mary Magdelene in John. And she didn't even recognize him in John! C'mon, if you're going to claim that Peter was ignorant of the truth, which it seems he was, then they all were. Jesus himself foretold his death and arising 3 times, yet nobody ever understood. It took some explanation for the women as well as the men to remember what he had said. Peter's amazement/wonder belies no fault of his own...nobody was sure what was going on initially. But I maintain that the deference shown in John's Gospel by the beloved disciple and the fact that Peter is the only one in Luke's Gospel highlight his place among the Apostles.
The true authors of the Gospels are unknown; we can only assume the Apostle in question is John. If your contention Peter was the leader of the Apostles, he above all others should not have been ignorant of the truth.
Concerning the end of John...

Please, show me how it could possibly be interpreted that the three commands “feeding lambs,” “tending sheep,” and “feeding sheep" are to all the Apostles. Jesus is specifically talking to Peter. Furthermore, the reference to John also does nothing to deny the import of Peter's discussion with Jesus n the section before. If John took such pains to indicate that Jesus did not actually mean he would never die, why wouldn't he take pains to say, "But Jesus never really intended these things to make Peter guider of the Church."? This seems to be much more important than whether or not John would die.

(16) Finally he appeared to the eleven disciples while they were eating. He rebuked them for their unbelief and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who had seen him after he had risen. (15) Then he said to them, "As you go into all the world, proclaim the gospel to the whole creation (feed My sheep, VF). (16) The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who doesn't believe will be condemned.
Peter was the one who denied Jesus three times. Jesus allowed Peter to repent three times. Finally, in verses 19 and 22 Jesus admonishes Peter to “Keep following me,” and “You must keep following me!”
I will grant you that many times in the past the Popes were not humble. They did not lead the Church in the best possible way. But I maintain as I did before that such does not mean that his authority is abrogated, nor does it mean that he introduced false doctrines into the Church. It simply means he was not always a good guy. For example, Nero's corruption in Rome does not mean that he thus forfeit the legitimacy of his rule. It simply means he did not lead the Roman Empire in the best possible way. But there have been several good Popes who were indeed humble in their authority. JP II seems to me to be a good example. The man has apologized for the past wrongs of the Church, and he has led the Church with humility and grace.
I would suggest the Popes who “did not lead the Church in the best possible way” made erroneous proclomations of faith the Chruch continues to perpetuate in order to not lose face. Do you really need me to innumerate them?
It is Peter who performs the first miracle in Acts.

Consider Matthew 10:1-8.

Although an “argument from silence” the Apostles had the ability to perform miracles long before Acts 3.If you do not wish me to make an argument from silence, neither then should you.
Because miracles performed by the Apostles are not documented until Acts does not mean they did not perform miracles until Peter did so.
They were already of “one mind,” v14. I would be reasonably sure the election of a “new” 12th Apostle was going to occur with or without Peter’s insistence.
The verse says they were "of one accord in prayer". It was not until Peter declared that they should find a replacement for Judas that they did so. If they were of one mind, should then have been of one mind as to who to choose right then also? No, rather, they went back and prayed some more, and then through the lots, which gave the position to Matthias.
Prayer is a common formality performed before any undertaking. They knew they needed a replacement for Judas but did not know who it should be. However, apparantly they were of one accord for they elected Matthias over Barsabbas.
Acts 10:34-38 and 11:1-18...It is Peter who makes the announcement that all people, both Jews and Gentiles, are to be saved, thus clarifying definitively one of the early issues of the Church.
Oddly, I thought Jesus clarified this problem, see Mark 16:14-16
If it was clarified, why was there such a fuss over it later?
One should wonder shouldn’t one?
Concerning Paul’s visit to Peter.
Why would he seek out Peter though, and not the other Apsotles? He specifically says that he saw only Peter.

Also, Galatians is the earliest written work of the New Testament...scholars date it to around 46 or 47 AD. Peter did not go to Rome until after 60 AD, as denoted in some of the histories written by the ECFs. For Paul to have written about meeting Peter in Galatians would mean that he did it sometime before that.

Concerning the two instances written in Luke and 1 Corinthians in which the men on the road to Emmaus and Paul each speak of Simon or Cephas as having seen Jesus beofe the other 12...I would agree with you if Peter were not known as both Simon and Cephas throughout the NT. But he is. And these two sources use both names in reference to the same incident. Now perhaps ther were many Simons, and perhaps there were many Cephases, but you're trying to tell me that these two writers both refer to the same incident using both the names by which Peter goes in the NT, and yet it refers to another person? That's stretching it.
Paul also saw James (Gal 1:19) but none of the other Apostles. If Paul’s meeting with Peter was so important, why didn’t he expand on or document their meeting in greater detail? I would wonder further, if Rome was to be the “Universal City” for the Church, why Peter didn’t go straight away to Rome after Pentecost. Why not Athens, Alexandria, or some other "universal city?"
Concerning the place of the Church “headquarters.”
I would give two reasons. One is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans following the revolt in 67 AD. Second is the fact that Jerusalem was not a world city the way Rome was. If you want to make the point that your Church is universal, you base it in the Universal City, not in some regional city with strong ethnic ties to the religious group living in the surrounding area.
The RCC cannot be the church Christ founded. His church started in and had its headquarters in Jerusalem, not Rome.

(46)And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (48) And ye are witnesses of these things. (49) And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
As for your link, I have seen it before. It would be nice if the author had provided documentation so that I could read these independent sources she speaks of. But as it is, it is her word against mine. That won't win anything.I can provide many others with source documentation; perhaps, the Bible isn’t good enough for you and the RCC.

VFarris01

March 29th 2004, 06:56 PM

Something else for you to think about Rocketguy:
Consider also Mark 9:33, Jesus questions Peter, James, and John about an argument on the road to Capernaum. “But they kept silent, for on the road they had argued with one another about who was the greatest,” v34. Consider also Luke 9:46-49 and Luke 22:24-30ff. Finally, I give you, 1 Corinthians 15:9.You “answered” this by avoiding it. My question here is if Peter, James, and John argued over “who was the greatest” I would assume none of them had any “leadership” authority nor would have after Jesus went back to Heaven considering Jesus’ retort.

(46) Now an argument started among them as to which of them might be the greatest. (47) But Jesus, knowing their inner thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. (48) Then he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For the one who is least among all of you is the one who is greatest." (see 1 Corinthians 15:9, VF)
This happens not once but TWICE in GLuke’s account.

(24) Now an argument sprang up among them as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. (25) But he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called benefactors. (26) But you are not to do so. On the contrary, the greatest among you should become like the youngest, and the one who leads should become like the one who serves. (All of them are “leaders” and none of them are, VF) (27) For who is greater, the one who sits at the table, or the one who serves? It is the one at the table, isn't it? But I am among you as one who serves. (Are they, the Apostles, greater than Jesus? VF)
Refer back to Luke 9:49 “the one who is least among all of you is the one who is greatest.”

Paul gives us the answer doesn’t he?

(9) For I am the least of the apostles and not even fit to be called an apostle because I persecuted God's church.
This would lead me to believe Paul, a person known with absolute certainty to have been in Rome (This fact is agreed on by both Catholics and non-Catholics is it not?), was the “leader” of the Church after Jesus returned to the Father. Don’t confuse my belief; Jesus Christ is the only leader of the Church. It is, after all, HIS Church.

(28) Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to be shepherds of God's church, which he acquired with his own blood.
(2) Be shepherds of God's flock that is among you, watching over it, not because you must but because you want to, and not greedily but eagerly, as God desires. (3) Do not lord it over the people entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock. (4) Then, when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the victor's crown of glory that will never fade away.[verse=John 10:11 ISV (Jesus speaking)](11) "I am the good shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
(16) I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must lead these also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock and one shepherd.
(20) Now may the God of peace, who by the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the Great Shepherd of the sheep, (21) equip you with everything good to do his will, accomplishing in us what pleases him through Jesus Christ. To him be glory forever and ever!
Peter is not the “Chief Shepherd,” the “Good Shepherd,” or the “Great Shepherd.” There can be only one shepherd; Jesus Christ is the shepherd of His flock. I have often wondered why the author of GLuke, who is also the author of Acts, chronicled so much of Paul’s ministry and so little of Peter’s. Explain, IF Peter was the “great lawgiver” after Jesus, why does he seem to have so little influence on the Church?

Bib Lit Major

March 29th 2004, 07:23 PM

I don't know if someone's already said it but I find it interesting that right after this passage, Peter is called Satan (v. 23). Not saying the RCC is of Satan, or that Peter never repented or what not. But it does seem to point to the fact that there is nothing intrinsic about Peter or his revelation that qualifies him for this position, since he can apparently hear God and Satan and can't distinguish the two. That's just my two cents. I don't think its good hermeneutics, however, to interpret the papal system from this vague passage, nor do I think the Petros/petra argument of Protestants to be convincing either.

D.R.R.

March 29th 2004, 07:53 PM

Farris, a quick question. Was Christ infallible in His teaching when He was on earth? (It's a pretty stupid question, I know, but hopefully it'll lead into one that isn't.)

VFarris01

March 30th 2004, 08:35 AM

Farris, a quick question. Was Christ infallible in His teaching when He was on earth? (It's a pretty stupid question, I know, but hopefully it'll lead into one that isn't.)Do YOU believe JC was infallible?

D.R.R.

March 30th 2004, 10:57 AM

Absolutely.

VFarris01

March 30th 2004, 11:35 AM

(1) In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He existed in the beginning with God. (3) Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made. (4) In him was life, and that life brought light to humanity. (5) And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out.
(5) Through faith you are being protected by God's power for a salvation that is ready to be revealed at the end of time. (6) In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you have to suffer various kinds of trials, (7) so that the genuineness of your faith, which is more valuable than gold that perishes when it is tested by fire, may result in praise, glory, and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. (8) Though you have not seen him, you love him. And even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy, (9) because you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (10) Even the prophets, who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours, carefully researched and investigated this salvation. (11) They tried to find out what era or specific time the Spirit of Christ in them kept referring to when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. (12) It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you in regard to the things that have now been announced to you by those who brought you the good news through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. These are things that even the angels desire to look into. (13) Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep a clear head, and set your hope completely on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. (14) As obedient children, do not be shaped by the desires that you once had in your ignorance. (15) Instead, just as the one who called you is holy, be holy in every aspect of your life. (16) For it is written, "You must be holy, because I am holy." (17) If you call "Father" the one who judges everyone impartially according to what he has done, you must live in the fear of the Lord as long as you are strangers here. (18) For you know that it was not with perishable things like silver or gold that you have been ransomed from the worthless way of life handed down to you by your ancestors, (19) but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or defect. (20) On the one hand, he was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but on the other hand, he was revealed at the end of time for your sake. (21) Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope might be in God. (22) Now that you have obeyed the truth and have purified your souls to love your brothers sincerely, you must love one another intensely and with a pure heart. (23) For you have been born again, not by a seed that perishes but by one that cannot perish-by the living and everlasting word of God. (24) For "All human life is like grass, and all its glory is like a flower in the grass. The grass dries up and the flower drops off, (25) but the word of the Lord lasts forever." Now this word is the good news that was announced to you.Jesus was perfect! By definition infallible.

The "rules" for being an elder (bishop, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome). The Popes do not have a good track record in this regard. Telling also about the persons who "elected" them. And, how about that "rule" of celebacy? Lastly, PAUL the "leader of the Church," not Peter the "Pope," set forth these "rules."

(6) An elder (bishop, VF) must be blameless. He must be the husband of (not more than, VF) one wife and have children who are believers and who are not accused of having wild lifestyles or of being rebellious. (7) Because an overseer is God's administrator, he must be blameless. He must not be arrogant or irritable. He must not drink too much, be a violent person, or use shameful ways to make money. (8) Instead, he must be a lover of strangers, a lover of goodness, sensible, honest, moral, and self-controlled. (9) He must be devoted to the trustworthy message that is in agreement with our teaching, so that he may be able to encourage others with healthy doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

D.R.R.

March 30th 2004, 02:05 PM

VFarris01

March 31st 2004, 12:06 AM

Right, Jesus is infallible.

So that means that when He walked the earth and preached, you were supposed to listen to Him and believe Him. There was no room for private judgement, for saying, "I don't think God would agree with what He's saying," or "I don't think He's interpreting the Scriptures correctly." You weren't supposed to question what Jesus said; you SUBMITTED TO A LIVING AUTHORITY. Is that right? (I don't need a big long Scripture quote in reply; a simple yes or no will suffice.)
Nice try my RC friend. I suspected you were trying to set a trap.

You have indeed been indoctrinated into the RC way of thinking; in other words, you do not/cannot think for yourself.

Unfortunately, "a simple yes or no” will NOT suffice; for this I apologize.

It helps if you don’t take Jesus out of context.

I’m sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe these are most of the verses in which Jesus deals with “authority.”

In every case Jesus refers specifically to civil authority not Christian or Church authority.

(5) “Come to terms quickly with your opponent while you are on the way to court, or your opponent may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.”
(25) But Jesus called the disciples and said, ”You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them and their superiors act like tyrants over them. (26) That's not the way it should be among you. Instead, whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, (27) and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.”
(16) They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. They said, "Teacher, we know that you are sincere and that you teach the way of God truthfully. You don't favor any individual, for you pay no attention to external appearance. (17) So tell us what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" (18) But Jesus recognized their wickedness and said, "Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? (19) Show me the coin used for the tax." They brought him a denarius. (20) Then he asked them, "Whose face and name is this?" (21) They said to him, "Caesar's." So he said to them, "Then give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
(42) Jesus called the disciples and said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers among the gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors act like tyrants over them. (43) That's not the way it should be among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, (44) and whoever wants to be first among you must be a slave to everyone.
(14) They came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are sincere. You don't favor any individual, for you pay no attention to external appearance. Rather, you teach the way of God truthfully. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or should we not?" (15) But Jesus recognized their hypocrisy and said to them, "Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius and let me see it." (16) So they brought one. Then he asked them, "Whose face and name is this?" They said to him, "Caesar's." (17) So Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were utterly amazed at him.
(13) Then someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me." (14) But Jesus said to him, "Mister, who appointed me to be a judge or arbitrator over you people?"
(57) "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right? (58) For example, when you go with your opponent in front of a ruler, do your best to settle with him on the way there. Otherwise, you will be dragged in front of the judge, and the judge will hand you over to an officer, and the officer will throw you into prison.”
Here is another reason the “headquarters” of Jesus’ Church is not based in Rome.

The “throne of David” is located in Jerusalem.

(32) He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his forefather David. (33) He will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will never end."

Within the Church we submit to one person, Jesus Christ.

(21) He is far above every ruler, authority, power, dominion, and every name that can be named, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. (22) God has put everything under his feet and has made him the head of everything for the good of the church, (23) which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills everything in every way.
(23) For the husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. It is he who is the Savior of the body.
(16) For by him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether they are kings, lords, rulers, or powers. All things have been created through him and for him. (17) He himself existed before all things, and by him all things hold together. (18) He is also the head of the body, which is the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he himself might have first place in everything.

D.R.R.

March 31st 2004, 12:13 AM

[size=3][b][color=black][font=Courier New]Nice try my RC friend.

I appreciate your compliment. :smile: So what I posted in my previous message was false?

D.R.R.

March 31st 2004, 12:36 AM

Bib Lit Major

March 31st 2004, 02:04 AM

Just because Peter was a sinner doesn't mean Christ didn't make Him Pope. Infallible doesn't mean impeccable.

Nor does it mean he did make him Pope. I wasn't really referring to him as a sinner since I know that no Catholic I've ever talked with believed him to be sinless. My point, though, was that he, at least at the point just after the announcement of his future papacy, still doesn't have discernment of what is the voice of Satan and what is the voice of God. This could possibly shed some doubt on his infallibility after his papacy is granted, since we have a track record of him acting under satanic inspiration and no clear statement that he will become infallible after Christ leaves.

I want to add that I respect many Catholics, having been taught by a couple and having been very good friends with many. I don't agree with papal infallibility however, but I don't see it as big of an issue as I see the need for everyone, Protestant, Orthodox, Charismatic, or Catholic, to have a living, vital relationship with the Lord. Thus, I probably won't continue on in this thread since I don't see it as something worth fighting much over.

VFarris01

March 31st 2004, 11:16 AM

So what I posted in my previous message was false?
I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

Was JC infallible? Yes. (Biblical evidence supports this assertion.)

Are we to submit to civil authority? Yes. (Biblical evidence supports this assertion.)

Within the Church, are we to submit to any authority other than Jesus Christ (God, the Holy Spirit)? No. (Biblical evidence supports this assertion.)

Did JC appoint Peter His successor? No. (As has been shown repeatedly, Biblical evidence DOES NOT support this assertion.)
Just because Peter was a sinner doesn't mean Christ didn't make Him Pope. Infallible doesn't mean impeccable.
JC DID NOT appoint Peter His successor. Biblical evidence DOES NOT support Peter as anything except an Apostle.
…I respect many Catholics, …and have been (am, VF) very good friends with many. …I see the need for everyone, Protestant, Orthodox, Charismatic, or Catholic, to have a living, vital relationship with the Lord.
Ditto.

Unless RCs can come up with more than tradition and conjecture and works “published” apart from the Bible (BTW, there is evidence to suggest and support the “Holy See” faked Papal documentation) there is absolutely no Biblical evidence to support Peter as Jesus’ sucessor or the Papacy.

D.R.R.

March 31st 2004, 12:20 PM

First, what I'm saying has nothing to do with CIVIL authority, but with the ultimate authority of Christ.

Since Christ is infallible, a person hearing Him preach 2,000 years ago was supposed to have faith in His teachings no matter what they were. There was no room for the so-called "primacy of the individual conscience" for someone who heard Christ speak; you submitted to Him without resignation, just as Catholics say you should submit without resignation to the Catholic Church. Right?

(BTW, Farris and Rocketman, I hope I'm not intruding on your discussion; please continue it by all means.)

rocketman

March 31st 2004, 01:19 PM

Go right ahead, DRR...college work is building up for me, and I'm getting more involved with the Catholic Student Association here on campus, which is leaving me less time for internet discussion. I'm also trying to do some outside reading and research on a couple things. So, right now I am having to cut down on Internet time, and you are more than welcome to step into this discussion.

I would however like to challenge Farris' assertion about the Biblical role of Peter. The very fact that you and I keep piling on the evidence and going back and forth proves that there is at least some merit to both sides, and our discussion is not going to come to a definitive conclusion. You and I are looking at the Bible from two different viewpoints, both emphasizing particular passages while downplaying the roles of others.

Also, I would like to see where you get the idea that references from the ECFs that we use are faked. Are you referring to the Clementine letters? Ignatius of Antioch? The histories of Irenaeus or Eusebius? I will grant you that all but the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians are not authentic from the Clementine set, but there are at least 7 authentic Ignatian letters, and I am not aware of any debate conerning Eusebius and Irenaeus. And this is verified by Catholic, Protestant, and secular scholars. So, what exactly are you referring to about faked documentation?

VFarris01

March 31st 2004, 06:15 PM

This is a long post (some of it plagiarized without credit) so there will be few quotes from scripture.
First, what I'm saying has nothing to do with CIVIL authority, but with the ultimate authority of Christ.

Since Christ is infallible, a person hearing Him preach 2,000 years ago was supposed to have faith in His teachings no matter what they were. There was no room for the so-called "primacy of the individual conscience" for someone who heard Christ speak; you submitted to Him without resignation, just as Catholics say you should submit without resignation to the Catholic Church. Right?

(BTW, Farris and Rocketman, I hope I'm not intruding on your discussion; please continue it by all means.)
Welcome to the party D.D.R.

I feel another attempt at a trap coming on here but, hey, I’ll bite.

There is NOT ONE VERSE in the NT which “orders” us to submit to the Church, only to Jesus Christ (God, the Father and the Holy Spirit).

What about the organization of the church? Is it after the biblical pattern? The apostle reminded us that "Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." (Hebrews 8:5), and he said that served as an example and shadow of heavenly things. Can you believe that God had a pattern, which Moses had to follow when he was building the tabernacle, but that he had no pattern, no blueprint for the church?

How was the early church organized? We read about the organization of the church in the New Testament. The churches were spoken of as independent, self-governing units, Galatians 1:2. Each church had a plurality of elders, when completely organized, Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17. In Philippians 1:1, Paul writes to the church at Philippi and says: "to all the holy ones in Philippi who are united with Christ Jesus, with their overseers and deacons.” The local organization was the only medium through which early Christians worked.

When I was in school, I was taught that, as a boy, George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and confessed his transgression to his father saying, "I cannot tell a lie". Parson Weems' biography of George Washington is the source of that story. According to modern historians, the cherry tree event never happened. I was quite surprised to hear that because I had never questioned the story. Articles on the Internet say that Parson Weems deliberately created the cherry tree legend some time between 1800 and 1809. But perhaps Parson Weems wasn't deliberately deceiving people. Perhaps he was simply passing on a story that he believed to be true. Either way, modern biographers of George Washington say that the cherry tree episode never really happened.

If we hear a story repeated often enough, then we tend to believe it. The idea of questioning it becomes almost unthinkable because the story is so familiar and so widely accepted. I believe that something similar has happened with the Catholic Church's stories about Peter. These traditions have been repeated so often that many people never question them.
So that means that when He walked the earth and preached, you were supposed to listen to Him and believe Him. There was no room for private judgement, for saying, "I don't think God would agree with what He's saying," or "I don't think He's interpreting the Scriptures correctly." You weren't supposed to question what Jesus said; you SUBMITTED TO A LIVING AUTHORITY. Is that right? (I don't need a big long Scripture quote in reply; a simple yes or no will suffice.)
There was a time when The Roman Church forbade its members from possessing, let alone reading, the Bible. As I understand it, the Roman Church says only the Church hierarchy can interpret Scriptures, yet Paul admonishes us to study the Scriptures:

(15) Do your best to present yourself to God as an approved worker who has nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of truth with precision.

Boniface VIII – from Unum Sanctum

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins… she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God…

… Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter…

… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
D.D.R., is this an infallible truth? Yes or no, explain. Can you provide Biblical evidence we are subject to anyone other than Jesus Christ (God, the Holy Spirit) in the Church heiarchy?
I would like to challenge Farris' assertion about the Biblical role of Peter. The very fact that you and I keep piling on the evidence and going back and forth proves that there is at least some merit to both sides, and our discussion is not going to come to a definitive conclusion. You and I are looking at the Bible from two different viewpoints, both emphasizing particular passages while downplaying the roles of others.

Also, I would like to see where you get the idea that references from the ECFs that we use are faked. Are you referring to the Clementine letters? Ignatius of Antioch? The histories of Irenaeus or Eusebius? I will grant you that all but the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians are not authentic from the Clementine set, but there are at least 7 authentic Ignatian letters, and I am not aware of any debate conerning Eusebius and Irenaeus. And this is verified by Catholic, Protestant, and secular scholars. So, what exactly are you referring to about faked documentation?I said “the “Holy See” faked Papal documentation.” There is no doubt; even the Roman Church (now) admits this is the truth (but they won’t admit which documents are fakes).

Catholics often quote the "Early Fathers" in support of Catholic doctrines, the Papacy, and other Catholic claims. Who were these people? There were many early Christian leaders, including priests, bishops, and scholars. There were a lot of these men, and they had a wide variety of opinions on religious matters. Their theological differences were as widely varied as those of theologians from different denominations are today. (Malachi Martin in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, pages 11-28 describes these different beliefs and practices. Martin was a Catholic priest, an eminent theologian, and a professor at the Vatican's Pontifical Institute.)

So one person finds some "Early Fathers" to support one position, and another person finds other "Early Fathers" to support the opposite position. But it's not a level playing field. Among all of those early Christian leaders, who decided which ones qualified to be called "Early Fathers"? The Catholic Church. Who decided which works should be copied and passed on to posterity? Who decided which writings were important enough to copy? The Catholic Church.

Apart from political intrigue, the Roman bishops have been known to stoop to forge documents to support their claims of supremacy and to widely increase their power and influence. I will look at two of the more famous and important ones: The Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.

The Donation of Constantine was a known forgery that was used by Pope Stephen III (752-757) against the Franks, which successfully increase the powers and influence of the Roman Church. In the year 753 the Lombards threatened Rome, a barbarian tribe from the Baltic. Stephen approached Pepin, the king of the Franks. The Roman bishop showed the Frankish king a document that purports to be dated 30th March 315; a document that came to be called “The Donation of Constantine”. The document tells the story of how Emperor Constantine, after being miraculously healed of leprosy, gave Pope Sylvester I (314-335), the regions of Italy surrounding Rome and pronounced Rome supreme over the other main centers of the church, namely, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

The document all purports to give the reason why Constantine moved the capital of his empire from Rome to Constantinople: he wished that the Pope should have no rival on earth! In a stroke, the document showed that the Roman Church was, from the days of Constantine, pronounced as the supreme church, had a right to the regions around Rome and was superior to the emperor. The document made the right impression on Pepin. Upon defeating the Lombards, he duly handed to Stephen the regions mentioned in the Donation. Thus was how the Papal States came into being.

The Donation of Constantine, however, is a fraudulent document and one that was most probably concocted just before Stephen met Pepin. The document was finally shown to be a fraud in the fifteenth century by the Italian humanist, Lorenzo Valla. Lorenzo showed that, among other things, the time of the donation as stipulated by the document was before the reign of Pope Sylvester I; thus the Pope that should have received the donation was Pope Miltiades. He also showed that the name Constantinople was not conferred on the new capital, which was called Byzantium until 330; so it would not have been possible for a document that was supposed to have been written in 315 to know that the name of the new capital was going to be changed to Constantinople fifteen years later. Valla also showed that the language of the document was a later form of Latin than that used in the fourth century. With the help of these and other arguments he conclusively proved that the Donation of Constantine was a papal fraud. While Valla’s argument convinced the impartial scholars, Rome continued to deny for many centuries that the Donation was a fraud. Thus one of the most significant triumphs in the history of the Roman Church was achieved by fraud. (de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: p54-57, Kelly, Dictionary of Popes: p90-91, Livingstone, Dictionary of the Church: p127,158, Strauss, The Catholic Church: p58-59)

The Pseudo Isidorian Decretals was perhaps the most important forgery in the steps towards papal supremacy. St. Isidore of Seville supposedly collected the documents. Part of the collection contained letters purportedly written by the anti-Nicene Popes beginning with Clement (88-97). These letters collection was supposed to prove that from the earliest days the Church of Rome had the right to issue laws, validate council decisions and depose bishops. These documents are known today to be forgeries.

The documents first surfaced when Pope Nicholas I (858-867), who was an ardent campaigner for papal supremacy, clashed with Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, on the issue of the right of the Roman church to depose and install bishops. Nicholas I, in his arguments with Hincmar, cited the Decretals, claiming to have ancient copies of them. It was obvious that Nicholas lied, for the forgery was only less than two decades old then!

Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) used the Decretals as the source of his claim, in the Dictatus papae, of the right to depose princes, emperors and kings. He deposed the Polish King and the Greek emperor, sowing trouble and unrest everywhere. More than any other Pope before him, Gregory virtually invented the Roman Catholic ideal: with the Pope having control over all things, temporal and spiritual. The Popes following Gregory became emboldened by his claims. The Roman bishops, in the few centuries following Gregory, excommunicated no less than eight emperors (and some deposed). It was also Gregory who changed the title of the Roman see from Vicar of St. Peter to Vicar of Christ. The title the Pope today claims came, not from Peter, but from Gregory VII and based ultimately on fraudulent documents. (de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: p79-91, Kelly, Dictionary of Popes: p107-108, Livingstone, Dictionary of the Church: p189, Strauss, The Catholic Church: p62-63)

It is important to add that Gregory not only used fake documents, he had a whole school set up to manufacture still more fraudulent documents:
The leaders of the school were Anselm of Lucca, nephew of the previous pontiff, cardinal Deusdedit and after them Cardinal Gregory of Pavia...Many earlier documents were touched up to make them say the opposite of what they were saying originally. Some of these earlier documents were themselves forgeries...This instant method of inventing history was marvelously successful, especially as the forgeries were at once inserted into canon law. By innumerable subtle changes they made Catholicism seem changeless. They turned "today" into "always was and always will be", which even now, contrary to the findings of history, is the peculiar stamp of Catholicism.- de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, p81
The Roman Church made this user (and maker!) of fraudulent documents a saint in the sixteenth century.

D.R.R.

March 31st 2004, 08:10 PM

This is a long post (some of it plagiarized without credit) so there will be few quotes from scripture.

Welcome to the party D.D.R.

I feel another attempt at a trap coming on here but, hey, I’ll bite.

I thought of a maxim: He who speaks the truth need not fear falling into a trap. So if you think you're speaking the truth, why worry? After all, heretical Romanists like me don't have the Word of God on our side but are diametrically opposed to it (to paraphrase from Jude3b).

You didn't bite, however, because you didn't answer my question. Forget about how the Catholic Church is governed for the moment and focus on the question in my last post regarding Christ, His infallibility, and the so-called "primacy of the individual conscience."

[/font][/b][/size]
There was a time when The Roman Church forbade its members from possessing, let alone reading, the Bible.

Source, era, and location, please.

As I understand it, the Roman Church says only the Church hierarchy can interpret Scriptures, yet Paul admonishes us to study the Scriptures:

(15) Do your best to present yourself to God as an approved worker who has nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of truth with precision.

Here's what a priest of the order of the Legion of Christ told me:

"...as you know we can all discover the truth about something even if we are Protestant, Catholic or a pagan. The Holy Spirit inspired him to see that he was wrong in some interpretation of Scripture. One of the greatest gifts God gave man is the capacity to know when we have discovered truth. Animals cannot do that. They do not know that they know something…. Only man has that capacity because he is spiritual and capable of reflecting on himself. Of course, our intellect has also been wounded by original sin and therefore we many times can make mistakes. That is why we Catholics have the Magisterium which guides us always in the true interpretation of Scripture and not to deviate."

[QUOTE=VFarris01]
D.D.R., is this an infallible truth? Yes or no, explain. Can you provide Biblical evidence we are subject to anyone other than Jesus Christ (God, the Holy Spirit) in the Church heiarchy?

No, I can't provide Biblical evidence that we are subject to anyone other than Jesus Christ in the Church hierarchy. But the Catholic Church and Christ are not mutually exclusive. Christ founded the Catholic Church; that's a historical fact. The apostles and their followers taught distinctively Catholic doctrines, and I can provide you with some of their writings to prove it. The Catholic Church represents Christ; it is His Body and His Bride. The Pope is merely Christ's representative; he is not equal with Christ or superior to Him, but subordinate to Him. It is not through any human power, but only through the power of God, that the Catholic Church is infallible. Hence, when we submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, we submit to Christ.

VFarris01

April 1st 2004, 01:36 AM

I thought of a maxim: He who speaks the truth need not fear falling into a trap. So if you think you're speaking the truth, why worry? After all, heretical Romanists like me don't have the Word of God on our side but are diametrically opposed to it (to paraphrase from Jude3b).

You didn't bite, however, because you didn't answer my question. Forget about how the Catholic Church is governed for the moment and focus on the question in my last post regarding Christ, His infallibility, and the so-called "primacy of the individual conscience."
I would propose a counter maxim: “He who knows the truth recognizes a trap.” I never feared “falling into a trap.” Truth is on my side.

I’ve read Jude3b’s posts, he’s a hoot but he knows the truth as I do.

You’ll have to excuse me because I still don’t understand your question. Perhaps you can rephrase it.

Or, perhaps this will answer your question.

(10) When the governor motioned for Paul to speak, he replied: "Since I know that you have been a judge over this nation for many years, I am pleased to present my defense. (11) You can verify for yourself that I went up to worship in Jerusalem no more than twelve days ago. (12) They never found me debating with anyone in the temple or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or throughout the city, (13) and they cannot prove to you the charges they are now bringing against me. (14) However, I admit to you that in accordance with the Way, which they call a heresy, I worship the God of our ancestors and believe in everything written in the Law and the Prophets. (15) I have the same hope in God that they themselves cherish-that there is to be a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. (16) Therefore, I always do my best to have a clear conscience in the sight of God and people.(8) Therefore, never be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me, his prisoner. Instead, by God's power, join me in suffering for the sake of the gospel. (9) He saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our own works but according to his own purpose and the grace that was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. (10) Now, however, it has been revealed through the coming of our Savior Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and through the gospel has brought life and release from death into full view. (11) For the sake of this gospel I was appointed to be a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the gentiles. (12) That is why I suffer as I do. However, I am not ashamed, for I know the one in whom I have put my trust, and I'm convinced that he is able to protect what he has entrusted to me until that day. (13) Hold on to the pattern of healthy teachings that you have heard from me, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (14) With the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us, protect the good treasure that has been entrusted to you.
(4) Who are you to criticize someone else's servant? His own Lord will determine whether he stands or falls. And stand he will, because God is able to make him stand. (5) One person decides that one day is better than another, while another person decides that all days are the same. Each one must be fully convinced in his own mind. (6) The one who observes a special day, observes it to honor the Lord. The one who eats, eats to honor the Lord, since he gives thanks to God. And the one who does not eat, refrains from eating to honor the Lord; yet he, too, gives thanks to God. (7) For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. (8) If we live, we live to honor the Lord; and if we die, we die to honor the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. (9) For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that he might become the Lord of both the dead and the living. (10) Why, then, do you criticize your brother? Or why do you despise your brother? For all of us will stand before the judgment seat of God. (11) For it is written, "As certainly as I live, declares the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will praise God." (12) Consequently, each of us will give an account of himself to God. (13) Therefore, let us no longer criticize each other. Instead, make up your mind not to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
God’s word is ours to decide because:

(12) For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul and spirit, joints and marrow, as it judges the thoughts and purposes of the heart.
There was a time when The Roman Church forbade its members from possessing, let alone reading, the Bible.Source, era, and location, please.
Rome will tell the world she treasures the Bible and accepts it as God's Holy Word, but history and facts speak quite the contrary.

In 1179 pope Alexander III forbade the Waldensians to preach, which preaching they were doing with a common-language translation of parts of the Bible.

In 1184, at the Synod of Verona, Italy, pope Lucius III decreed the ex- communication of all Bible-believing "heretics."

In 1199, pope Innocent III condemned the translation into French of the Psalms, the Gospels and Paul's letters. Any copies found were burned by Cistercian monks.

In 1211, by order of pope Innocent III, Bishop Bertram of Metz organized a crusade against all people reading the Bible in the vernacular, and all such Bibles found were duly burned.

In 1215 the first three canons of the Fourth Lateran Council were directed against heretics who dared to preach. The Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique recognizes that this measure was aimed mainly at the Waldenses, who were preaching with common-language Bibles.

In 1229, Canon 14 of the Council of (Valencia) states, "We forbid the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament, except the Psalter, and such portions of them as are contained in the Breviary; and we most strictly forbid even these works in the vernacular."

In 1559, pope Paul IV said that no Bible in the vernacular may be printed nor kept without permission of the Holy Office.

In 1564, pope Pius IV stated, "Experience has shown that if reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue is permitted indiscriminately, due to the rashness of men, more harm than good arises."

In 1590, Pope Sixtus V stipulated that no one could read the Bible in a common language without special permission from the Apostolic See.

In 1836, pope Gregory XVI issued a warning to all Catholics that the fourth rule of the Index published in 1564 by Pius IV was still valid.

In 1897, in his Apostolic Constitution Officiorum, pope Leo XIII said, "All native language versions, even those published by Catholics, are absolutely prohibited unless they have been approved by the Apostolic See or edited under the supervision of bishops, with explanatory notes taken from the Church Fathers and learned Catholic writers."

Today Catholics enjoy more freedom in reading the Bible, but lest they forget, it can still only be interpreted and understood in the light of official church teachings and forms only a part of a divine revelation, the other being held in unwritten oral church Tradition.
As I understand it, the Roman Church says only the Church hierarchy can interpret Scriptures, yet Paul admonishes us to study the Scriptures:

2 Timothy 2:15 ISV[/color]](15) Do your best to present yourself to God as an approved worker who has nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of truth with precision.Here's what a priest of the order of the Legion of Christ told me:

"...as you know we can all discover the truth about something even if we are Protestant, Catholic or a pagan. The Holy Spirit inspired him to see that he was wrong in some interpretation of Scripture. One of the greatest gifts God gave man is the capacity to know when we have discovered truth. Animals cannot do that. They do not know that they know something…. Only man has that capacity because he is spiritual and capable of reflecting on himself. Of course, our intellect has also been wounded by original sin and therefore we many times can make mistakes. That is why we Catholics have the Magisterium which guides us always in the true interpretation of Scripture and not to deviate."
THE SEVEN VERSES OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITATIVELY INTERPRETED BY ROME (from DENVER CATHOLIC REGISTER, 3/29/90, page 10.) "Father (Francis X.) Cleary (S.J.), scripture scholar and professor in the Department of Theological Studies of St. Louis University, specializes in biblical theology of the Old Testament, writes, `Many people think that the Church has an official "party line" about every sentence in the Bible. In fact, only seven passages have been definitely interpreted. Even in these few cases, the Church is only defending traditional doctrine and morals. "For example, Jesus' teaching in John 3:5 that we must be born of water and of the Spirit" means that real ("natural") water must be used for a valid baptism. When Jesus, after instituting the Eucharist, commanded His disciples to "Do this in memory of me" (Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24), he meant to confer priestly ordination. Again, the power conferred on the apostles to bind and loose sins (see John 20:23) authorized them and their successors in the priestly office to forgive sins in God's name. These authoritative interpretations emphasize the biblical origins of sacramental life. (The three other defined texts are John 20:22; Romans 5:12 and James 5:14).'"
D.R.R., is this an infallible truth? (concerning Unum Sanctum) Yes or no, explain. Can you provide Biblical evidence we are subject to anyone other than Jesus Christ (God, the Holy Spirit) in the Church heiarchy?No, I can't provide Biblical evidence that we are subject to anyone other than Jesus Christ in the Church hierarchy. But the Catholic Church and Christ are not mutually exclusive. Christ founded the Catholic Church; that's a historical fact. The apostles and their followers taught distinctively Catholic doctrines, and I can provide you with some of their writings to prove it. The Catholic Church represents Christ; it is His Body and His Bride. The Pope is merely Christ's representative; he is not equal with Christ or superior to Him, but subordinate to Him. It is not through any human power, but only through the power of God, that the Catholic Church is infallible. Hence, when we submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, we submit to Christ.
Then please help me understand why “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

D.R.R.

April 1st 2004, 01:39 PM

Then please help me understand why “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[/QUOTE]

What this means is that through an assistance of the Holy Spirit the Pope is infallible when he speaks, not as a private theologian, but as the Shepherd of all the Faithful, on a matter of faith or morals. He represents Christ, though he is subordinate to Him. Hence, when we are subject to the Roman Pontiff, we are subject to Christ.

VFarris01

April 1st 2004, 01:56 PM

What this means is that through an assistance of the Holy Spirit the Pope is infallible when he speaks, not as a private theologian, but as the Shepherd of all the Faithful, on a matter of faith or morals. He represents Christ, though he is subordinate to Him. Hence, when we are subject to the Roman Pontiff, we are subject to Christ.You're going to have to help me find the verses in the Bible where it says, "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff;" no one I know seems to know were it is.

These are the closest I can find.

(16)The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who doesn't believe will be condemned.

(25) Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The person who believes in me, even though he dies, will live. (26) Indeed, everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."

VFarris01

April 1st 2004, 02:56 PM

Dearest friend D.R.R.,

Here is some additional verses concerning "salvation through the Pope."

(10) Brothers, I urge all of you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to be in agreement and not to have divisions among you, so that you may be perfectly united in your understanding and opinions. (11) My brothers, some members of Chloe's family have made it clear to me that there are quarrels among you. (12) This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas (Peter? VF)," or "I belong to Christ," (or I belong to the Pope? VF) (13) Has Christ been divided? Paul wasn't crucified for you, was he (nor was the Pope, VF)? You weren't baptized in Paul's name, were you (nor in the Pope’s name, VF)? (14) I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Chrispus and Gaius, (15) lest anyone can say that you were baptized in my name. (16) (Yes, I also baptized the family of Stephanus. Beyond that, I'm not sure whether I baptized anyone else.) (17) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (18) For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed, but it is God's power to us who are being saved.
(1) Brothers, I couldn't talk to you as spiritual people but as worldly people, as mere infants in Christ. (2) I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, because you weren't ready for it. Why, you're still not ready for it! (3) That's because you are still worldly. As long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, you are worldly and living by human standards, aren't you? (4) For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," you are merely human, aren't you? (5) What is Apollos anyhow? Or what is Paul? (Or what is the Pope? VF) Mere servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord gave to each of us his task. (6) I did the planting, Apollos did the watering, but God kept everything growing. (7) So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is significant, but God, who keeps everything growing, is the one who matters. (8) The one who plants and the one who waters have the same goal, and each will receive a reward for his own work.
These verses should make it abundantly clear the Pope is not necessary for salvation.

D.R.R.

April 2nd 2004, 01:26 AM

VFarris01

April 2nd 2004, 08:31 AM

If "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff," this makes the Pope necessary to salvation. Jesus is quite clear, "The one who believes (in Me, Jesus, VF) and is baptized will be saved, but the one who doesn't believe (in Me, Jesus, VF) will be condemned" (Mark 16:16 ISV).

(12) There is no salvation by anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.

(29) The jailer asked for torches and rushed inside. He was trembling as he knelt in front of Paul and Silas. (30) Then he took them outside and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (31) They answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you and your family will be saved."

You're going to have to help me find the verses in the Bible where it says, "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff;" no one I know seems to know were it is.

VFarris01

April 2nd 2004, 09:45 AM

Reasons Peter was never “Pope.”

A common, though I believe interesting, point, Peter was married. (Matthew 8:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5, John 1:42) Why does Catholicism forbid present-day Popes to be married as Peter was?

(9) So when James, Cephas, and John (who were reputed to be leaders) recognized the grace that had been given me, they gave Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (10) The only thing they asked us to do was to remember the destitute, the very thing I was eager to do. (11) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly wrong. (12) For until some men came from James, he was in the habit of eating with the Gentiles, but after they came he drew back and would not associate himself with them, being afraid of the circumcision party. (13) The other Jews also joined him in this hypocrisy, to the extent that even Barnabas was caught up in their hypocrisy. (14) But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, "Though you are a Jew, you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. So how can you insist that the Gentiles must live like Jews?"

Paul openly opposed Peter because Peter “was clearly wrong." Paul would never have openly opposed Peter if he were the "visible head of the Church." Can you imagine a Catholic bishop publicly opposing the Pope today? This single incident alone shows it is impossible for Peter to be "the head" of the Church. Read the verse from Galatians again.

If Peter were "the head" of the Church, why did James preside over the first and only Church council cited in the New Testament (Acts 15:6-30)? Peter was present, yet he did not preside over this important council dealing with circumcision and its non-role in salvation. This is one of the most powerful and clear proofs that Peter was not "the head" of the Church.

Peter did not consider himself to be "the head" of the church. In Peter’s own words:

(1) Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings, and one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I appeal to the elders among you: (2) Be shepherds of God's flock that is among you, watching over it, not because you must but because you want to, and not greedily but eagerly, as God desires. (3) Do not lord it over the people entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock.

Peter wrote to other elders but never mentioned any primacy that he uniquely had, which was supposed to have begun at the point of Matthew 16:18. Peter merely referred to himself as "a fellow elder." (John also referred to himself as an "elder," 2 John 1.)

(8) Now when the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.

If Peter were "the head" of the Apostles, he would have ordered other Apostles to go to various places; The Apostles sent Peter (and John)! Obviously, Peter was not the designated "head" of the Apostles.

If Peter were the head of the Church, why did both John and Paul write more of the New Testament than he did? Peter wrote 2 books of the New Testament (8 chapters), while John wrote 5 books (50 chapters) and Paul at least 13 books (at least 87 chapters). Both John and Paul wrote much more of the eternal Word of God than Peter did.

If Peter were the "head" of the Apostles, why did Paul work harder for the Lord than the rest of the Apostles, including Peter?

(10) But by God's grace I am what I am, and his grace shown to me was not wasted. Instead, I worked harder than all the others-not I, of course, but God's grace that was with me.

If Peter were the head of the Aposles, certainly the other Apostles would have known it. However, they didn't. This is apparent since they argued about which of them was the "greatest," even while Jesus was still living among them. (Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24)

Clearly, the last passage occurred after Jesus spoke Matthew 16:18 and in Jesus' presence. Note Jesus never corrected them by saying, “Hey, wait a dog-gone minute I made Peter the leader. Didn’t you understand what I said back in Matthew 16:18.” The other Apostles (and Peter himself) never thought that verse uniquely exalted Peter above themselves, so why should we?

As with the other Apostles, Peter never mentioned the sacraments, church membership, attending mass, praying the Rosary, or any other Catholic distinctive as having any role in salvation at all. What then should we believe about Peter's Primacy and the proper interpretation of Matthew 16:18 when we consider the sum total of Scripture?

The misuse of Matthew 16:18 has led people to wrongly believe that the church was built on Peter, who was supposed to have been "the visible head of the Church" and the first Pope. Most importantly, such a belief about Peter from Matthew 16:18 has led to a wrong idea of how one finds salvation.

It is impossible to embrace the correct interpretation of Matthew 16:18 without considering the facts of Peter's life and doctrines. When one considers the sum total of the evidence, it must be stated that a distortion of Matthew 16:18 has led to the spiritual decline of many over the centuries.