Posted on 07/10/2005 5:27:58 AM PDT by NYer
Among Catholic doctrines, those pertaining to the papacy tend to be the most misunderstood and contested by non-catholics. The following verses show the biblical basis for Catholic teaching on the primacy of Peter, the office of the papacy being established by Christ and allusions to the doctrine of infallibility. These doctrines reached their full development in the life of the Church only after centuries of contemplation and study, in councils and through the actions of the popes. And we should never forget that since the Church is likened by Christ to a “mustart seed” that grows and develops organically from a speck into a large treelike plant, therefore we should not expect to see the Church’s doctrines fully developed and visible in its present form in the pages of the New Testament. What we do find in the New Testament though, is the scriptural record of Peter’s primacy among the Apostles and the seminal outlines of the doctrines pertaining to the papacy.
The Primacy of Peter
One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly.
When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first. Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s traitor, is always listed last (cf. Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometimes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf. Mat. 18:21; Mark 8:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).
Other Citations
It is from Simon Peter’s fishing boat (cf. Luke 5:3) that Christ preaches to the crowds (this is significant in light of the fact that, since very early times, the Catholic Church has been widely referred to in patristic writings and religious art as the “barque” [archaic English for “boat”] of Peter. In these episodes, Peter plays a central role in the drama as usual).
In Mark 16:7 we see that the angels single Peter out among the Apostles when they tell the Holy Women to “go, tell his disciples and Peter” about the Lord’s Resurrection.
In Luke 24:33-35 we see that the risen Christ appears to Simon Peter first, before appearing to the other Apostles.
In Acts 1:15-26 it is Peter who leads the Apostles in selecting a replacement for Judas.
In Acts 3:1-9, we see St. Peter leading the infant Christian Church forward through difficult moments after the Resurrection. He is clearly the chief of the Apostles as he preaches in Acts 2 the first post-Pentecost sermon to the crowds, performs in Acts 3 the first post-Pentecost miracle and in Acts 4, with John,m turns the tables on the Jewish Sanhedrin by putting them on trial in the very setting where they intended to intimidate the Apostles.
In Acts 10, Simon Peter receives a special revelation from God that Gentiles are to be welcomed into the Church without having to follow Jewish Kosher food restrictiions or undergo circumcision. In Acts 11, he acts in the name of the Church in welcoming the first Gentile converts to be received according to this new revelation.
In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter delivers the revelation pertaining to Gentile believers that causes the disputes to cease and the room to fall silent (cf. Acts 6-12). St. James, the bishop of Jerusalem, appears in a position of leadership alongside Peter. While James delivers the pastoral, disciplinary teaching (cf. Acts 13-21), it was Peter who delivered the binding doctrinal teaching. His primacy was recognized by St. Paul (who in Antioch “withstood Peter to his face” over the vexing issue of his refraining to eat with Gentiles) when he describes in Galatians 1:18 how he went to see Peter to make sure his teaching was in line with Peter’s.
I can read Greek (Classical and Koine) and Latin, but oh my I wish I could read Hebrew and Aramaic!
The problem here is that Greek is an inflected language (like Latin - I dunno about Aramaic, NYer?) with gender, neither of which occur in English. Sentence structure in English fills the function that inflection performs in Greek. So word order doesn't matter in Greek, and you're wasting your time diagramming sentences. Everybody (at least everybody who can read Greek) knows the position and function of each word without bothering to diagram anything.
Thanks for the ping (I think.)
So, you admit that Jesus spoke Aramaic but then you ignore John 1:42, You shall be called Cephas, in relation to how Peter got his name and what it means. You are being less than clever.
Anymore I'm not amazed at the convolutions Protestants will go through to get the meaning they want out of Scripture. You talk about the plain reading of Scripture all the time, by which I've come to learn you really mean your interpretation.
I am just now reading this conversation (very late as usual) but I note that nobody mentioned (that I saw) that Race is quoting the KJV: I was under the impression (imparted by you, I think) that the KJV is not good authority for meaning because it is a translation of a translation of a translation ... great for beauty of language but not a good authority. Am I right about this? Interesting posts by all. FR educates me, and I love it when the Catholics come out swinging!
No, you are clutching at straws
you refuse to address the points I make, so you try to change the argument to one where you think you can play gotcha
you didn't
and Peter is not the ROCK, I already proved it.
If sentence diagramming doesnt work just because of a translation, then the translation is in error
subjects and predictes and verbs and nouns are all arranged after translations, and the verse can then be diagrammed
and that means Peter is not the Rock, what Peter spoke told us what the ROCK is, not Peter.
Oh. Is that all? :O)
The Greek has gender, so petra simply becomes Petros as more appropriate for a male.
When you can actually read the original, get back with us. You're arguing on shifting sand with a paucity of real world linguistic experience. C.S. Lewis said something about people who study the Bible under a microscope but neglect everything else (like Greek, Aramaic, and basic grammar).
You proved it in your mind only.
There are many scholars, including Protestants, who disagree with your interpretation of this particular verse, and who come to the opposite conclusion that Peter is the rock referred to by Jesus.
No, a Protestant would not say such a thing.
Were you serious?
Go back and read what I posted,
ROCK was NEVER used ANYWHERE in scripture to assign attributes to a man, only to God
Else the word rock meant rock
or, like someone showed in Isaiah, rock was a symbolic place of where Israel was stuck, hewn to a rock
Just go back ad read the details
this is really getting tiresome with peole just repeating mantras, either address the postings or drop it.
You cannot defeat what the Bible says no matter how many times you guys try, Peter is not the ROCK, GOD, JESUS BEING THE MESSIAH is the ROCK
You are woefully undereducated and unqualified to continue pursuing your baseless contentions. Your lack of education in the area of linguistics is exceeded only by your persistence in arguing your case with zero supporting facts. The only mantras being posted here are yours.
When you can read even Greek, let alone Aramaic, you will be qualified to put your Own Personal Interpretation of Scripture up against that of scholars who are familiar with one or both languages.
The Committee that put together the KJV was the greatest collection of English biblical scholars assembled up to that time. They were splendid in Greek and Hebrew, less so in Aramaic. There was a lot of disagreement about the translation (one disgruntled biblical scholar was so angry at the translation that he claimed the head of the committee would burn in hell!) But the real problem is the limited source material available to them in that time and place.
The smart thing to do is to compare all the available translations, and have one of the "literal translations" with copious footnotes available, and make up your own mind.
Are you serious? If so, you need to get out more.
Spare me the condescencion, and just read the Bible you have, then, believe what you read.
Peter is not the ROCK.
The English is good enough for me.
Besides, just because you know two or three words in a foreign language that you copied and pasted from another website most likely doesn't mean you understand foreign languages.
Tsai Jian.
I'm not being condescending - I'm telling you the unvarnished truth. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. You would be well advised, however, to read something other than your favorite translation of the Bible if you want to indulge in textual criticism. Otherwise, you just expose your ignorance for all to view.
As for "cutting and pasting", anybody can say anything on the internet, but I have an undergraduate honors history degree with a minor in Classics. I am fluent in German, read Scottish Gaelic, Latin and Greek (Classical) competently, and can get along in Koine Greek with a crib. Cutting and pasting does no good -- unless you actually can read the language, you are simply relying on somebody else's interpretation. They could tell you anything and you wouldn't know any better.
Which is, sort of, the position you are in.
"Oh. Is that all? :O)"
LOL!!! I hope you are all having as lovely a summer as I am; great fishing, great boating, warm water, cooling breezes at the pond and last night, a new Old Town Dirigo kayak to play with...and no damnable computer to disturb quiet evenings listening to the loons (the feathered kind!) and catching the "big ones"!
The meaning is, "You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church." Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, "And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church." Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.
New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
"The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate"
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, "Thou are kipho, and on this kipho". The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, "Thou are kepha, and on this kepha".... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: "Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre"; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, "Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier."
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
"Matthew"
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
"The Gospel of Matthew"
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
Proving none of them actually read the Bible, for I explained it clearly.
But thanks for the list of apostates, I'll keep it for later use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.