Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much

[SwissGuard]

Why didn't you just email us all an electronic Bible

 

[Uphill Battle]

Why didn't you just email us all an electronic Bible

scroll back, and check who actually posted that first.

Mine was rebuttal.

 

[chestertonrules]

Yes, but in the apocalypse this woman is Israel. By the way did Mary not fly to heaven (in your religion) instead of this woman being swallowed by the earth??

says who?

 

[Uphill Battle]

says who?

I think he's referring to the assumption, as opposed to the Woman being escorted to the desert, in the vison.

 

[chestertonrules]

whoo boy. Alright, let's parse through the cut and paste. To save time of putting multiple quote marks, I'll just bracket.

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. (irrelevant to whether or not Peter was to rule over the church.)
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.(uh, he started to sink. The faith failed him then. He was rebuked for it. But irregardless, irrelveant to papal supremecy.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ. (cool. Irrelevant to papal supremacy.)
Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father. (uh huh. which makes me wonder why Christ had other followers. Again, irrelevant.)
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head. (the most contested scripture of all time, I think.)
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority. (and in Revelation, the keys are not in his hands, nor in the hands of any mortal man. Did Jesus go to the keycentre and make copies? Jesus possesses the keys.)

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ. (irreleveant.)
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. (irrelevant.)
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. (irrelevant.)
Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him. (irrelevant)
Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him. (irrelevant.)
Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree. (irrelevant)
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. (no such extrapolation can be made. He was rebuked by Jesus. The adding of him being accountable for the rest of them is an apologetic add on.)
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ. (no such mention of leadership in the passage.)
Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth. (it is not a metaphor. Jesus was actually in a boat.
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." (of course, this ignores the passages where Jesus calls other Apostles the same.)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. (irrelevant)
Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples. (irrelevant. and the answer was kind of flippant.)
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. (irrelevant.)
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration. (irrelevant. I would think if it was peter peter only peter, he would be the only one there.)
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. (apologetic add on. Irrelevant to papal supremacy.)
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. (ok... and again, irrelevant to Papal supremacy.)
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. (or, he was afraid to go in. Assigning motive to someone. Irrelevant.)
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33. (irrelevant yet again.)
John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse. (and others spoke too. Irrelevant.)
John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet. (another point where Peter just didn't get it. also irrelevant.
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. (and was Peter the only one martyred? irrelevant.)
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. (no, it really is a boat.)
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. (apologetic add on.)
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. (restoration of Peter after his denials.)
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles. (which, is to be the charge of all of 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. (so?)
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. (If he really were a pope, why wouldn't he appoint, instead of cast lots?)
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. (and others spoke. irrelevant.)
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. (so?)
Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray. (so?)
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles. (and he was nowhere near the only one. irrelevant.)
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. (and the others teach the same thing.)
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. (so, then, you are saying he killed them? I always attributed that to the HS.)
Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power. (irrelevant. The Apostles healed. not just Peter.)
Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation. (irrelevant.)
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. (irrelevant.)
Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas. (irrelevant.)
Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead. (irrelevant)
Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision. (and others were granted visions. Paul was caught up to the third heaven to learn from Christ. irrelevant.)
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles). (irrelevant.)
Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment. (as is well and good. what of it?)
Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church. (irrelevant. Many others had divine intervention on their side.)
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. (really? Looked like it was a council decision to me.)
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching. (baloney. That isn't even what it says.)
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..." (I notice you cut out the part where James states "It is my judgement therefore....)
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. (apologetic add on. Nothing about Peter here at all.)
1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord. (so?)
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.” (so? historical list of how Jesus appeared.)
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul. (irrelevant.)
1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church. (then we should call Paul a Pope. He spent far more time doing the same thing.)
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. (which is funny, because others use Rome by name.)
2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer. (so?)
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.


I am quite sure you will not bother to go through the list as I have.

however, I note, the VAST majority of the "proof" is that Peter got his name mentioned first.

it is an incredibly irrelevant point.

You feel it is irrelevant because you don't accept the primacy of Peter.

This is relevant because it shows what the writers of scripture, with the Holy Spirit, thought of Peter.

He is unique among the apostles.

Jesus gave him unique authority. You can't spin your way out of these facts.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You feel it is irrelevant because you don't accept the primacy of Peter.

This is relevant because it shows what the writers of scripture, with the Holy Spirit, thought of Peter.

He is unique among the apostles.

Jesus gave him unique authority. You can't spin your way out of these facts.

no, I feel it is irrelevant because name orders in writting cannot be used as evidence that one of the people in the list is supreme commander.

All of the Apostles are unique among the apostles. no two the same.

Jesus sent all the Apostles, and indeed, sends us, to preach his Gospel.

I certainly believe Peter was pivotal in the early church. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm just not attributing something that isn't there.

 

[chestertonrules]

no, I feel it is irrelevant because name orders in writting cannot be used as evidence that one of the people in the list is supreme commander.

All of the Apostles are unique among the apostles. no two the same.

Jesus sent all the Apostles, and indeed, sends us, to preach his Gospel.

I certainly believe Peter was pivotal in the early church. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm just not attributing something that isn't there.

Name orders do matter. Saying they don't is a rejection of reality.

Only Peter was given the keys. Only Peter is the foundation upon which Jesus built his Church. Only Peter was given a vision that communicated the acceptance of gentiles. Only Peter raised someone from the dead.(I think!)

 

[Uphill Battle]

Name orders do matter. Saying they don't is a rejection of reality.

I didn't say it "doesn't matter." It does NOT establish what you propose it establishes. It does NOT establish papal supremacy.

Only Peter was given the keys.

questionable.

Only Peter is the foundation upon which Jesus built his Church.

very questionable.

Only Peter was given a vision that communicated the acceptance of gentiles.

false. Paul spent his ministry preaching to the Gentiles. he was "caught up" and was taught. He then proceeded to persue the Gentiles for the rest of his life.

Only Peter raised someone from the dead (I think!)

False. Paul did it too.

 

[fated]

no, I feel it is irrelevant because name orders in writting cannot be used as evidence that one of the people in the list is supreme commander.

All of the Apostles are unique among the apostles. no two the same.

Jesus sent all the Apostles, and indeed, sends us, to preach his Gospel.

I certainly believe Peter was pivotal in the early church. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm just not attributing something that isn't there.

Your feel it is irrelevant because your definition of what "the Church" is does not include, actually "defines out" interpretations of these verses that would include Papal Primacy. Thus, I understand you "exclusion" of interpretations that would include Papal Primacy, but object, in that you cannot "prove" nor do I find reason to do so, that the "exclusion" is compulsory or additionally valid. I would say that because it inhibits the Scripture, I would say unjustly, that it is less valid.

 

[ScottBot]

The office of Peter's Chair is not explicit in Scripture, but is drawn from Scripture, through Tradition and practice. Historically, the see of Peter in Rome is considered to be the "Presidency" of all of the Apostolic See's, with the responsibility of being the center of evangelical coordination and becoming the arbiter of disputes between other sees. That is why a thorough study of Patristics reveals that nearly unanimously, the pre-Nicene writers consider the see of Peter in Rome to be the foundation of unity. Will you find it explicitly drawn out in Scripture, no. But since Holy Scripture is but a single leg of the three legged stool upon which Catholicism builds its doctrine, not being explicit isn't an issue.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Your feel it is irrelevant because your definition of what "the Church" is does not include, actually "defines out" interpretations of these verses that would include Papal Primacy. Thus, I understand you "exclusion" of interpretations that would include Papal Primacy, but object, in that you cannot "prove" nor do I find reason to do so, that the "exclusion" is compulsory or additionally valid. I would say that because it inhibits the Scripture, I would say unjustly, that it is less valid.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

The office of Peter's Chair is not explicit in Scripture, but is drawn from Scripture, through Tradition and practice. Historically, the see of Peter in Rome is considered to be the "Presidency" of all of the Apostolic See's, with the responsibility of being the center of evangelical coordination and becoming the arbiter of disputes between other sees. That is why a thorough study of Patristics reveals that nearly unanimously, the pre-Nicene writers consider the see of Peter in Rome to be the foundation of unity. Will you find it explicitly drawn out in Scripture, no. But since Holy Scripture is but a single leg of the three legged stool upon which Catholicism builds its doctrine, not being explicit isn't an issue.

I have no doubt that the teaching of Petrine supremacy is based from scripture. I understand the premise, and I don't think it was made up on a whim. What I do not accept (and not as a reason for antagonism, but for the fact that I must have been good reason to believe something that is forwarded) is that an office was created where one man was the sole overlord (for lack of a better term) of the early Church. I have absolutely NO doubt in my mind that Peter was a foremost leader. I might even be content with the Orthodox position of "first among equals." But I find at this time no reason to believe that Christ himself established an office.

 

[ScottBot]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean.



I have no doubt that the teaching of Petrine supremacy is based from scripture. I understand the premise, and I don't think it was made up on a whim. What I do not accept (and not as a reason for antagonism, but for the fact that I must have been good reason to believe something that is forwarded) is that an office was created where one man was the sole overlord (for lack of a better term) of the early Church. I have absolutely NO doubt in my mind that Peter was a foremost leader. I might even be content with the Orthodox position of "first among equals." But I find at this time no reason to believe that Christ himself established an office.

the term "office" derived from the Latin officium, which translates to duty. The duty as an Apostle is established by Christ, and the duty to strengthen the other Apostles is also laid out by Christ, quite explicitly in Scripture.

 

[namericanboy]

No body is arguing..It is a servant leadership position..They were accountable to each other .. No one lorded over another...Nor was one elevated over all...Look at the first councils before pride entered and cause men to want their own way..

 

[fated]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean.



I have no doubt that the teaching of Petrine supremacy is based from scripture. I understand the premise, and I don't think it was made up on a whim. What I do not accept (and not as a reason for antagonism, but for the fact that I must have been good reason to believe something that is forwarded) is that an office was created where one man was the sole overlord (for lack of a better term) of the early Church. I have absolutely NO doubt in my mind that Peter was a foremost leader. I might even be content with the Orthodox position of "first among equals." But I find at this time no reason to believe that Christ himself established an office.

I am saying that you exclude possible meanings from certain passages in the Bible BECAUSE of what you have been TAUGHT.

Why don't you read it again:
"Your feel it is irrelevant because your definition of what "the Church" is does not include, actually "defines out" interpretations of these verses that would include Papal Primacy. Thus, I understand you "exclusion" of interpretations that would include Papal Primacy, but object, in that you cannot "prove" nor do I find reason to do so, that the "exclusion" is compulsory or additionally valid. I would say that because it inhibits the Scripture, I would say unjustly, that it is less valid."

 

[Uphill Battle]

I am saying that you exclude possible meanings from certain passages in the Bible BECAUSE of what you have been TAUGHT.

Why don't you read it again:
"Your feel it is irrelevant because your definition of what "the Church" is does not include, actually "defines out" interpretations of these verses that would include Papal Primacy. Thus, I understand you "exclusion" of interpretations that would include Papal Primacy, but object, in that you cannot "prove" nor do I find reason to do so, that the "exclusion" is compulsory or additionally valid. I would say that because it inhibits the Scripture, I would say unjustly, that it is less valid."

It could then, be equally argued, that you are including possible meanings, because what YOU have been taught.

 

[Uphill Battle]

the term "office" derived from the Latin officium, which translates to duty. The duty as an Apostle is established by Christ, and the duty to strengthen the other Apostles is also laid out by Christ, quite explicitly in Scripture.

from my reading, It seems that the spirit of duty is not one to the many, but the many to the many.

 

[ScottBot]

from my reading, It seems that the spirit of duty is not one to the many, but the many to the many.

[bible]luke 22:31-32[/bible]

 

[fated]

It could then, be equally argued, that you are including possible meanings, because what YOU have been taught.

I understand that. So, I am encouraged to accept the historical readings of these passages, rather than ignoring meanings to justify the existence of my religious belief.

 

[fated]

from my reading, It seems that the spirit of duty is not one to the many, but the many to the many.

I can accept that many things are true and can be read from Bible verses, I just object to unnecessarily cutting off meanings to justify oneself. Sort of like... Jesus discussion of marriage and adultery.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Name orders do matter. Saying they don't is a rejection of reality.

Only Peter was given the keys. Only Peter is the foundation upon which Jesus built his Church. Only Peter was given a vision that communicated the acceptance of gentiles. Only Peter raised someone from the dead.(I think!)

This makes me wonder if RC's do read the Bible.

Just don't fall asleep on a window sill more than 3 stories high while listening to a sermon

Acts 20:6 But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days. 7 Now on the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together. 9 And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10 But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing [him] said, "Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him."

http://www.pbv.thunder-bay.on.ca/NetSermons/Acts20str.html

The Apostle Paul, older, and by now very tired finally made it down the stairs and through the crowd to where Luke was holding Eutychus' dead body in his arms. But Paul did not do the right thing. He did not stand back and cry with Sarah. And he did not remain silent. Instead, like Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:17ff, 2 Kings 4:34ff), he lay his body right on top of Eutychus' body and he cried out to God like Elijah