Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Peter was indeed NOT the Bishop of Rome; James was. BUT Peter like Paul DIED {was crucified} in Rome, and was seen as the HEAD apostle:
50 NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS FOR PETRINE PRIMACY AND THE PAPACY
1. Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."
The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ.
God Bless you,
Patrick
I amACatholic
Then by that standard if Matthew 16:18 is as you say, then are you willing to use the same standard just five verses later and admit then that Peter \ the Papacy is what Jesus said:
Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me;
you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
and if "this rock" wasn't Jesus referencing himself, then can you explain this scripture ?
1 Corinthians 10:2-4
They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
Last edited by twin.spin; 09-10-2014 at 08:25 AM..
It shows that Peter is *one of* the 'living stones being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood' . . . not a single one in charge of the rest of them.
ALL 30 of the Bibles --(even the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible)-- identifyChrist the Messiah as the chief cornerstone of the Christian congregation . . . not any of the apostles.
To learn more about this issue, I highly recommend reading this article:
Is the Pope “Saint Peter’s Successor”?
▪ Was Peter the First Pope?
▪ What Does History Teach About the Origin of the Papacy?
▪ Do the Conduct and Teachings of the Popes Support Their Claim? http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011571
Last edited by 2Q&Lrn&Hlp; 09-12-2014 at 05:55 AM..
=twin.spin;36438359]Then by that standard if Matthew 16:18 is as you say, then are you willing to use the same standard just five verses later and admit then that Peter \ the Papacy is what Jesus said:
Matthew 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me;
you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
and if "this rock" wasn't Jesus referencing himself, then can you explain this scripture ?
1 Corinthians 10:2-4
They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink;
for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
Both good questions. THANKS!
The verse about Satan and must be viewed in its complete context.
Christ was not accusing Peter of "being Satan"; rather of acting VERY human. Christ had JUST chosen Peter to head His Church {singular}. They were Great and dear friends. What Christ IS saying here is the message of Isaiah 55: 6-9
"Seek ye the Lord, while he may be found: call upon him, while he is near. [7] Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God: for he is bountiful to forgive. For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts."
This is proven by: John 21:17 "He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep."
As to your second passage; it is explained as follows:
Eph. 2:18-22
" [18] For by him we have access both in one Spirit to the Father. [19] Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, [20] Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:[21] In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. [22] In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit."
Both of these are tied together and explained by a careful reading and a God Graced understanding of this teaching.
Eph. 4:1-7
[1] I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, [2] With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. [3] Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism. [6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. [7] But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ. [8] Wherefore he saith: Ascending on high, he led captivity captive; he gave gifts to men"
The KEY to right understanding is the TERM "ONE"... WHY?
Because there is but One true God
Who can and Does have just One true set of Faith beliefs
and Founded, guides and protects on His One Catholic Church
That my friend is the consistent message of the entire Bible {which BTW} is a Catholic birthed book.
It shows that Peter is *one of* the 'living stones being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood' . . . not a single one in charge of the rest of them.
ALL 30 of the Bibles --(even the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible)-- identifyChrist the Messiah as the chief cornerstone of the Christian congregation . . . not any of the apostles.
To learn more about this issue, I highly recommend reading this article:
Is the Pope “Saint Peter’s Successor”?
▪ Was Peter the First Pope?
▪ What Does History Teach About the Origin of the Papacy?
▪ Do the Conduct and Teachings of the Popes Support Their Claim? Is the Pope
I can understand the absolute need nor non-Catholic Christians to be able to disprove Peters Role' but it is historically and biblically a futile effort.
God; both Yahweh and Christ constantly and consistently freely choose to PICK ONE MAN to lead His Chosen people:
Noah, Abraham,. the Judges, Kings like David and the Prophets were are MEN and all singularly chosen by God to be his Vicar, His mouth piece; His Leader. So why then is it so difficult to accept that Peter is given the same Role?
John 21:12-18
[12] Jesus saith to them: Come, and dine. And none of them who were at meat, durst ask him: Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. [13] And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish in like manner. [14] This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, {APOSTLWS} after he was risen from the dead. [15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: {YOU!} Feed my lambs.[16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: {YOU!} Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him:{YOU!} Feed my sheep."
It is inconceivable that Christ would have established His New One God; with One Faith through One Church and NOT have provided leadership
The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: "You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . ." Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]
One of my favorite Role models, the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen shares the Wisdom inspired by God:
"The truth REMAINS thee truth {singular} even if no one chooses to accept it &
and a LIE remains a lie even if everyone chooses to believe it. To which i ask for an "AMEN!"
I personally use to believe he was the first pope, because everyone said so and I thought nothing different. but until having a conversation with a Christian friend of mine... It dosent say at all in the bible that he was or was going to be.
Peter could not be the 1st "Pope". That title belonged to the pagan Roman emperors for centuries and was not use of any Bishop until the 4th century. Gratian was the last "Pope" and then the Bishops of Rome started using it.
I see somebody dug up this old thread again. Fun times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamACatholic
I can understand the absolute need nor non-Catholic Christians to be able to disprove Peters Role' but it is historically and biblically a futile effort.
Catholics always, always, always miss the point completely. Sure we can go back and forth on whether Peter had the broad sweeping overriding powers that the Roman Catholic Church insists that he had.
Truth is, Peter had a great deal of authority and every Christian out there acknowledges that fact. That isn't the real issue.
The bigger issue is that Peter cannot have been "the first Pope" because "Pope" is a title attached to the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome hundreds of years after Peter was dead. Peter cannot be the first Pope because Christianity did not have a Pope during the lifetime of Peter.
The other issue: Peter cannot have been the first Bishop of Rome because he was never in Rome. There is an outside possibility that he was there briefly once or twice, but there is no corroborating evidence to back even this assertion up. On the other hand, Paul's arrival in Rome is well documented and corroborated by non-Christian sources. Every time Paul was in Rome writing to some other city, he sent greetings from all of his fellow Christians in Rome. Peter is never mentioned once. The Roman Catholic faithful need Peter to have been in Rome so that he could start their line of supreme authority. They will insist that he was there being Rome's Bishop for decades. They just have no evidence of it and a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.
And when we come right down to it, Peter never exercised the absolutist authoritarian rule that the Bishops of Rome would later lay claim to. Peter may have been the de facto leader of the apostles, but that is in no way similar to the virtual emperor ship the Popes in Rome gradually took upon themselves centuries later. There was no "Pope" in the New Testament any which way you want to look at it. So Peter cannot have been the first Pope. And even if it can be demonstated that he was a "Pope" of some sort, it is making an insane logical leap to assume that he handed that authority off to the Bishop of Rome.
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
so to be consistent the Pope then is:
Satan!
You are a stumbling block to me;
you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns
------------ or the correct way of understanding Matt 16: 18-19 is ----------------
Jesus was pointing to himself when he said "on this rock" which scriptures teaches elsewhere
1 Corinthians 10:1-4
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink;
for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ
1 Peter 2
As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—
you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy
priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall."
And Satan is the one who walks among the stones of fire.
I can understand the absolute need nor non-Catholic Christians to be able to disprove Peters Role' but it is historically and biblically a futile effort.
God; both Yahweh and Christ constantly and consistently freely choose to PICK ONE MAN to lead His Chosen people:
Noah, Abraham,. the Judges, Kings like David and the Prophets were are MEN and all singularly chosen by God to be his Vicar, His mouth piece; His Leader. So why then is it so difficult to accept that Peter is given the same Role?
John 21:12-18
[12] Jesus saith to them: Come, and dine. And none of them who were at meat, durst ask him: Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. [13] And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish in like manner. [14] This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, {APOSTLWS} after he was risen from the dead. [15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: {YOU!} Feed my lambs.[16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: {YOU!} Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him:{YOU!} Feed my sheep."
It is inconceivable that Christ would have established His New One God; with One Faith through One Church and NOT have provided leadership
The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: "You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . ." Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]
One of my favorite Role models, the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen shares the Wisdom inspired by God:
"The truth REMAINS thee truth {singular} even if no one chooses to accept it &
and a LIE remains a lie even if everyone chooses to believe it. To which i ask for an "AMEN!"
Peter could not be the 1st "Pope". That title belonged to the pagan Roman emperors for centuries and was not use of any Bishop until the 4th century. Gratian was the last "Pope" and then the Bishops of Rome started using it.
Peter was never the or a Pope.
No pagan Roman emperor was EVER a Pope. You think Christians took the lead of a pagan emperor? That's just back a$$ed. Christians were not pagans at all. They were the opposite of pagans and were trying to convert them to Christianity.
Many Christians lived in places where emperor worship was demanded for loyalty but most Christians would not do it and were killed or they had to run away for their lives.
No pagan Roman emperor was EVER a Pope. You think Christians took the lead of a pagan emperor? That's just back a$$ed. Christians were not pagans at all. They were the opposite of pagans and were trying to convert them to Christianity.
Many Christians lived in places where emperor worship was demanded for loyalty but most Christians would not do it and were killed or they had to run away for their lives.
I'm guessing he meant Pontiff, but I could be wrong. Pontiff most certainly does have pagan origins, but I think you're aware of that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
