Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Primacy of Peter
V for Victory ^ | August 3, 2012

Posted on 08/04/2012 1:55:40 PM PDT by NYer

Just a few days ago, I acquired my own copy of a book I remember from childhood (not, alas, from Catholic school): the silver jubilee edition of My Catholic Faith, by Bishop Louis Laravoire Morrow, S.T.D. (My Mission House, Kenosha, Wisconsin, 1961).  Bishop Morrow served as the Bishop of the Diocese of Krishnagar, India, from 1939 to 1969; his book originally came out in 1936.  My Catholic Faith is a concise summary of the Faith and is divided into three parts: What to Believe; What to Do; and Means of Grace.  This worthy book unfortunately appears no longer to be in print, and was one of the many treasures swept out into the sea of oblivion by the flood of modernism that followed Vatican II.  Sadly, many of the devotions, ceremonies and liturgical accoutrements that it describes were also swept away and are now foreign to most Latin Rite Catholics; but, thanks to our current Holy Father, they are beginning to come back.  If you can find a copy on Amazon or from a used book seller, My Catholic Faith is a good place to learn about and rekindle a love for these once-common features of Catholic life.


One striking lesson in My Catholic Faith is Lesson No. 50: The Primacy of Peter.  One of the defining characteristics of Protestantism is the rejection of this doctrine; and unfortunately, it is now all but rejected by many Catholics.  Many in the pews have been raised to view the Pope as a semi-comical figure in a white dress and fancy headgear who leads a sheltered life, ignorant of the concerns of everyday people, and just wants to ruin everybody's fun.  Even many priests and bishops do not seem to see the need of obeying the Pope in the exercise of his rightful authority, as the response in some quarters to Summorum Pontificum clearly demonstrates.  But here Bishop Morrow brings us up short.  "The true test of loyalty to Christ," he says, "is not only to believe in Him and worship Him, but to honor and obey the representatives He has chosen.  Our Lord chose St. Peter as His Vicar.  It is rebellion against Christ to say to Him: 'I will worship You, but I will not recognize Your representative.'  This is what Christians do, who deny the authority of the successor of Peter."

How do we know that Christ has a Vicar on earth, and that the Vicar is Peter?  The good bishop gives us his point-by-point analysis:

-- Jesus changed the name of Simon to Peter after his confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi.  "Peter" means "Rock," signifying Peter's role as the foundation of the Church.

-- Jesus gave to Peter, and to no other Apostle, the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  Keys are a sign of authority.

-- After the Resurrection, on the Lake of Gennesareth, Jesus asked Peter three times  if Peter loved Him, and three times told Peter to feed His lambs and His sheep.  The "lambs" are the laity; the "sheep" are the clergy who nourish the lambs.  By this Jesus signified the entire flock.  He gave to no other Apostle the responsibility of feeding His entire flock.

-- Jesus gave Peter a new name; chose him as a companion on the most solemn occasions; appeared to him first among all the Apostles after the Resurrection.  These marks of distinction were conferred on no other Apostle.

-- Jesus is the Invisible Head of His Church, but, like any other society, the Church needs a visible head; St. Peter was chosen to be the visible head of the Church to take Christ's place among men.

-- Peter actually exercised his primacy.

1. Peter's name always comes first in the list of Apostles, just as the name of the Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus, always comes last.  St. Matthew calls him the first of the Apostles (Matthew 10:2).  He was not the first in age (his brother Andrew was older) nor in election (here again, Andrew preceded him), so he must have been first in authority.

2. It was on Peter's advice that the Apostles chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:21-26).

3. Peter preached the first sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36).

4. Peter admitted the first converts from both Judaism and Paganism, shattering the taboo against Jews and pagans consorting with one another (Acts 2:38-41; 10:5 et seq.).

5. Peter worked the first miracle by curing a man lame from birth (Acts 3:6-8).

6. Peter meted out the first punishment, against the cheaters Ananias and Sapphira, who fell down dead at his rebuke (Acts 5:1-6).

7. Peter cast out the heretic, Simon Magus, who wanted to buy the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:19-20).

8. Peter made the first visitation of the churches (Acts 9:31-32).

9. At the first ecclesiastical council in Jerusalem, after much debate, all submitted to the judgment of Peter (Acts 15:7-12).

10. St. Paul presented himself to Peter after his conversion (Gal.1:18).

11. As the See of Peter, the Church of Rome ranked highest among the early churches established by the Apostles.

And, of course, the successors of Peter down to this day succeed to his primacy and his authority.  

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.  
Matthew 16:18-19 


UPDATE: A commenter has just drawn my attention to the fact that My Catholic Faith is indeed back in print, under the auspices of Angelus Press.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: papacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-122 next last

1 posted on 08/04/2012 1:55:50 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
Expounding on the subject, the following is from Catholic Answers.

Peter and the Papacy

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Peter the Rock

Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Look at the scene

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.

Promises to Peter

When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

Who is the rock?

Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.

Another alternative

The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.

Look at the Aramaic

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

2 posted on 08/04/2012 1:57:50 PM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
From Scripture Catholic

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.


3 posted on 08/04/2012 2:15:33 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The Catholics never did bother to ask Peter what he thought of Christ calling him a stone:

1Pe 2:3-10 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. (4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, (5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (7) Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, (8) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (9) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: (10) Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Act 4:10-12 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. (11) This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Christ is the chief cornerstone, and Christians are “lively” stones who share in that structure (the body of Christ) of which Christ is chief. Christ’s message to Peter was a faith message, in response to his affirmation that Jesus is the Christ, not a claim that Peter was now the Rock of the church with power and authority equal to Jesus Christ. Even Paul opposed Peter “to his face” over the controversy involving the segregation of gentiles from Jews, and there is no reason to think that the Apostles each operated, though in cooperation, often interdependently, and each operated with the same authority in the casting out of devils (which all Christians possess), or even the occasional punishment. As Paul, by the direction of the Holy Spirit, declared that darkness would come on to the eyes of the magician.


4 posted on 08/04/2012 2:18:41 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

Typo:

“and there is no reason to think that the Apostles *did not* each operate, though in cooperation, often *independently*”


5 posted on 08/04/2012 2:25:55 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
Christ’s message to Peter was a faith message, in response to his affirmation that Jesus is the Christ, not a claim that Peter was now the Rock of the church with power and authority equal to Jesus Christ.

In anticipation of your comment, I posted the more in depth explanation (see #2) for a reason. Please go back and re read it before refuting it.

6 posted on 08/04/2012 2:30:51 PM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“In anticipation of your comment, I posted the more in depth explanation (see #2) for a reason. Please go back and re read it before refuting it.”


I read it, and that is my response. The scripture is clear upon whom the “Church” is built, which is Christ Himself. Peter was certainly an eminent man of Faith and a worthy believer who passed on the lesson that Christ taught him through his name to the other “lively stones” (Christians) who, as sons and daughters of God, make up a Holy Priesthood and body of Christ.


7 posted on 08/04/2012 2:34:16 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

Did you read the Scripture quotes?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2914655/posts?page=3#3

Would you be saying what you are if you believed in the Bible and what it says about St. Peter?


8 posted on 08/04/2012 2:45:08 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.

9 posted on 08/04/2012 2:45:08 PM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“From the grammatical point of view, the phrase “this rock” must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (”You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause”


First of all, this is English, not Greek. Second of all, Peter identifies Christians as “lively stones,” and each make the same confession as himself that Christ is the Chief Cornerstone. If Christ is building the Church on Peter, and not on Christian faith (by which all become “lively stones” in God’s house) wouldn’t Peter be the Chief cornerstone? Why would Christ be the Chief Cornerstone, the Head of the Church, and yet have a second “Chief” stone on top of Him? The Catholic interpretation also suggests a hierarchy of powers, and yet the Apostles all performed the same miracles, even punishments, and administered the entire Church from one end of the world to the other. Even Paul did not hesitate to correct Peter when he was in error. And guess what? So do all Christians, since we are all a “Holy Priesthood” and “Kings and Priests” to God our Father. Each of us has full access to God to have our prayers answered, our bodies healed, our sins forgiven, and even the Devils have need to fear us. Not for us ourselves, but the Holy Spirit who dwells in each of us, a “Holy Priesthood” and new living temples for God.


10 posted on 08/04/2012 2:58:07 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“Would you be saying what you are if you believed in the Bible and what it says about St. Peter?”


The Bible does not say that Peter is the Chief Cornerstone. You make it sound as if Peter was the most worthy Apostle. And yet, Peter, at least during the Gospels, was one of the ones most interested in Earthly expectations of glory and even denied Christ three times, though he answered for the Apostles that none of them would deny him. In Acts, Peter is an empowered Peter with the Holy Spirit. He is a warrior then, and a spiritual man, not materialistic. But one thing is clear. Peter was not chosen because he was the greatest. He was chosen by God due to no merit of his own, so that Christ would be glorified; not Peter being glorified. Each of us are similarly chosen, each being made “lively stones,” as Peter was and is, who once were dead in materialism and a false sense of spirituality, but now are alive and are a member of a Kingdom not made with hands and not of this world.


11 posted on 08/04/2012 3:05:24 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

One interesting thing to me is that Acts 1-15 has Peter in a prominent role, then it is all Paul, Paul, Paul. When discussing “the Church” we rarely consider the work of Mark and the ancient churches which he founded in Africa - the Coptic and his influence on the Orthodox Eithopean church (which has been around for a long time.). They, perhaps, are equally as old as the Roman Catholic church with perhaps equal authority. And then there was Thomas and India .....


12 posted on 08/04/2012 3:06:32 PM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
First of all, this is English, not Greek.

Again, from the above post:

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.


13 posted on 08/04/2012 3:20:47 PM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

In the old testament...a name change meant a change in mission and role...see Abraham...so simons name changed to Peter signifies a change in role and importance...pretty clear to me


14 posted on 08/04/2012 3:23:44 PM PDT by bike800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Our Roman Catholic brothers go to great lengths to buttress the Bishop of Rome, as The Pope. I do not begrudge them at all wrt this. However, it is a more recent tradition. The ancient one was that bishops were head of Churches in a geographical or ethnically contiguous area. The Roman Church sent emissaries and did not follow the custom of autocephaly. Kind of like how Orthodoxy in the USA has not followed the ancient tradition either, but from the other end of the spectrum (i.e. ethnic enclaves of newcomers to America).
15 posted on 08/04/2012 3:24:30 PM PDT by firebasecody (Orthodoxy, proclaiming the Truth since AD 33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Interesting how even God Himself declares there is no other Rock.

1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"

Catholics say it’s upon Peter that the church is built ey?

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

Ephesians 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

No “vicar” or replacement for me. Christ is the only Rock. Only one “stand in” for Christ is mentioned in scripture and the end for those who follow him isn’t a good one.

16 posted on 08/04/2012 3:35:18 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

It is always interesting to me to...for the first 350 years of the church...hell ...the first 1400 years...there is no challenge to the belief that Peter was the first head of the church...as well as his successors...only after a pissing match did people start arguing semantics...


17 posted on 08/04/2012 3:44:30 PM PDT by bike800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

One can grant your interpretation of the verse—and initial post too, of Peter being the leading disciple, without having to logically grant any sort of primacy to the Bishop of Rome.

Peter’s link to Rome is tenuous at best, as Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, NOT Peter, and Paul probably spent more time in Rome than Peter anyway—having first addressed his most ambitious epistle to Rome—and later being there for trial under Ceasar under house arrest.

The whole schema of trying to prove the permanent primacy of Rome via Peter came hundreds of years after Peter was martyred anyway. It’s clear it was a post-facto argument, by supporters of the early medieval world’s most powerful city’s Bishop.

Classic Roman Catholic “proofs” here, of out of context verses, and revisionist history. Oh well!


18 posted on 08/04/2012 4:01:34 PM PDT by AnalogReigns (reality is analog, not digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

One might want to look at what happens shortly after:

“18 It was at this time that the disciples came to Jesus with the question, “Who is really greatest in the kingdom of Heaven?”

2-4 Jesus called a little child to his side and set him on his feet in the middle of them all. “Believe me,” he said, “unless you change your whole outlook and become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven. It is the man who can be as humble as this little child who is greatest in the kingdom of Heaven.”

It seems the disciples also were discussing who had primacy. Jesus could have looked at them sadly and replied, “I told you that just a little while ago”. But Jesus did not. Here is the chance, for all eternity, to reveal who his “Vicar on Earth” is, and Jesus...punts?

Jesus told us who his Vicar would be - the Holy Spirit:

“None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ That is because you are so distressed at what I have told you. Yet I am telling you the simple truth when I assure you that it is a good thing for you that I should go away. For if I did not go away, the divine helper would not come to you. But if I go, then I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convince the world of the meaning of sin, of true goodness and of judgment. He will expose their sin because they do not believe in me; he will reveal true goodness for I am going away to the Father and you will see me no longer; and he will show them the meaning of judgment, for the spirit which rules this world will have been judged.

12-15 “I have much more to tell you but you cannot bear it now. Yet when that one I have spoken to you about comes—the Spirit of truth—he will guide you into everything that is true. For he will not be speaking of his own accord but exactly as he hears, and he will inform you about what is to come. He will bring glory to me for he will draw on my truth and reveal it to you. Whatever the Father possesses is also mine; that is why I tell you that he will draw on my truth and will show it to you.”
- John 16

The first use of the term in reference to the Pope was in the 5th century, and it wasn’t commonly used until the 1200s.


19 posted on 08/04/2012 4:08:53 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

In essence, what I’m saying is that I RESPECT AND VENERATE Peter and his authority SO MUCH, that I reject the idea that that respect, veneration, and authority....are somehow passed on to Bishops of a particular ancient city.

NO Bishops of Rome have pretended to add to the Bible (though later, many claimed to have equal-authority to the Bible) and especially early on, in the Patristic period, the INCREDIBLE respect the Fathers had for the original Apostles, indicates they wouldn’t dream of thinking of the Bishop of Rome as as an equal to Peter.

NO ONE since the 1st Century has the authority of the Apostles—the New Testament being their full written testimony—a product of the Holy Spirit through the APOSTLES (NOT the later Church councils that recognized those writings). The Apostles themselves gave the qualification for the office of “Apostle” which was to be “a witness of His resurrection.” (Acts 1:22)

Arguments to the contrary—came MUCH later.


20 posted on 08/04/2012 4:23:22 PM PDT by AnalogReigns (reality is analog, not digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-122 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson