Replies

"when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said...But we believe...Then all the multitude kept silence"

What blatant wresting of Scripture to compel it to submit to Rome! What the passage actually says is that they kept silence at Barnabas and Paul, and that James provided the definitive sentence:

And all the multitude held their peace: and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. (Acts 15:12,13) [DRB]

Moreover, Mat. 16:18 did not even enjoy unanimous consent of the father's

it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. - Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 399.

And thus even the CCC provides an alternative interpretation:

“On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.

The R.C. exaltation of Peter is foundationally based upon Mt. 16:13-19, wherein there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

Moreover all the texts Staples provides simply attest to initial Peter being the street-level leader among brethren, and who exercised a general pastoral role, but which does not testify to the Roman papacy, that of Peter being the first of a succession of exalted Roman popes which the church looked as its supreme infallible head, with unlimited, incalculable (Dollinger), holding upon this earth the place of God Almighty, which power he can exercise unhindered.

Married Peter fades from view after Acts 15, and Paul himself called all the Ephesian pastors to conference, as well as doing many other things that RCs would invoke as testifying to the papacy if said of Peter.

Nowhere in any of the epistle are the churches even exhorted to pray specially for Peter (though they certainly did as for other leaders, and as needed) as the supreme head. And in Gal. 2:1ff Peter is mentioned as the second among 3 pillars of the church, “who seemed to be somewhat,” and who provided public affirmation of of Paul, but who publicly reproved Peter for his duplicity, consistent with Paul's statement that “God accepteth no man's person.”

In addition, the power of binding and loosing was also given to all the disciples, (Mt. 18:15-19) and exercised contrary to Rome's presumption.(1Cor. 5; James 5) And who was the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, the gospel, by faith in which souls are translated into it. (Col. 1:13)

Not once in the Lord's own letters to the 7 representative churches in Rv. 2 and 3 is the pope mentioned, not as a solution to their needs nor as fidelity to as a commendation, which at least is evidence that Rome did change the Bible to support here, but which lack of testimony is why Rome employed the use forgeries to support her pretensions.

Nowhere did Peter refer to himself as anything more than “a servant,” “an apostle,” “an elder,” (1Pt. 1:1; 5:1; 2Pt. 1) and was married, (Mt. 8:14; 1Cor. 9:4) and evidently poor, (Acts 3:6) living as a guest a tanner's house (Acts 10:6: a smelly profession, thus it was by the sea) who would not let even an unsaved men bow down to him. (Acts 10:25,26) And while not diminishing his non-assertive, informal leadership among brethren, and initial primary use in Acts, yet it was James who provided the definitive and detailed decree at the 1^st ecumenical council. (Acts 15:13-21)

Modern research, including by Catholics, testifies against the Roman version of history, in which Peter is set forth as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads to whom all the church looked to from the beginning.

Among Catholic and other scholars,

Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4 :

New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether

the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.

If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)

[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]

"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

Thus, while Peter was the initial street-level leader of the 11, and can be seen exercising a general pastoral role, yet he was not looked to by the churches as the the supreme infallible head, nor is there any evidence for a successor of any apostle after Judas (by a for or preparation for one), though James was martyred, (Acts 12:1,2) and which was to maintain the original number of the 12, (Rv. 21:14) which Rome has not, and was by the non-political OT Scriptural method of casting lots (Prov. 16:33) used by Peter and the 11, but instead her elections have often involved political machinations, resulting in, among other things, wicked men being elected, and conveying that God is a respecter of persons in favoring Italians. Moreover, a qualification for an apostle seem to require a literal personal discipleship by the Lord Himself. (Acts 1:21-22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12,17)

**"when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said...But we believe...Then all the multitude kept silence**

You really do leave a lot of Scripture out to present about half the truth.

Please note the underlined section with Peter speaking and the second underlines section with James affirming what Peter said and then moving on to speak about dietary laws.

Acts, chapter 15

View all books of the Bible

CHAPTER 15

Council of Jerusalem.

1^* Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers,^a “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice,^b you cannot be saved.”^* 2

Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.

3They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.

4When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them.

5But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.”

6^* The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.

7^* After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.^c 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.^d

9He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.^e

10Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?^f

11On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus,^g in the same way as they.”^*

12The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

James on Dietary Law.

13^* After they had fallen silent, James responded, “My brothers, listen to me.

14Symeon^* has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name. 15The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:

16‘After this I shall return^h

and rebuild the fallen hut of David;

from its ruins I shall rebuild it

and raise it up again,

17so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord,

even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked.

Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things,

18known from of old.’

19ⁱ It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.^j 21For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.”