Catholics: what does Peter represent for you?

[Kaitlin08]

What character traits, what kind of personality do you associate with Peter? What qualities did Peter have that Paul, James and John the sons of Zebedee, James the brother of Jesus and John the disciple, didn't have, qualities that might make it clear the Catholic Church draws from Peter more than from the others?

 

[Dark_Lite]

The only reason Peter is elevated higher is because he was given a special duty that the other apostles did not receive (see the (in)famous verse of Matthew 16:18). Other than that, he was a horrible sinner that denied God three times, and was shot down several times by the other apostles in the first Council.

 

[Kaitlin08]

It is helpful to ask questions about a person's parents in order to understand more about him or her, to understand the person's point of view of his or her own parents. I would just like to ask the same sort of questions to Catholics; whether Peter was good or bad, his influence on the RCC helps other churches understand it.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It is helpful to ask questions about a person's parents in order to understand more about him or her, to understand the person's point of view of his or her own parents. I would just like to ask the same sort of questions to Catholics; whether Peter was good or bad, his influence on the RCC helps other churches understand it.

Err, ok?

Peter was in general "good." He was an important leader in the early Church. He started the Church at Antioch and then went to Rome where he was eventually martyred with Paul. But as I said, he, like everyone else, was a terrible sinner. Peter was not magically changed by his role as the first Pope. He was changed through the power of Christ.

 

[Sphinx777]

According to Catholic belief, Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and chief pastor of the whole Roman Catholic Church—the Vicar of Christ upon Earth. Although Peter never bore the title of "Pope", or "Vicar of Christ", the Catholic Church believes him to be the first Pope. Therefore, they consider every pope to be Peter's successor and the rightful superior of all other bishops.

The Catholic Church's recognition of Peter as head of its church on Earth (with Christ being its heavenly head) is based on its interpretation of two passages from the Canonical Gospels of the New Testament. The first passage is John 21:15-17, which concludes with “feed my sheep”—seen by Catholics as Christ promising the spiritual supremacy to Peter. The Catholic Encyclopedia sees in this passage Jesus "charging [Peter] with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church”. The second passage is Matthew 16:17-20:

I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven".
​

In reference to Peter's occupation before becoming an Apostle, the popes wear the Fisherman's Ring, which bears an image of the saint casting his nets from a fishing boat. The keys used as a symbol of the pope's authority refer to the "keys of the kingdom of Heaven" promised to Peter. [Matt. 16:18–19] The terminology of this "commission" of Peter is unmistakably parallel to the commissioning of Eliakim ben Hilkiah in Isaiah 22:15–23. Peter is often depicted in both Western and Eastern Christian art holding a key or a set of keys.

Though the authenticity of this account has been challenged, the general consensus is that these are Jesus' words.

​

 

[Basil the Great]

Even if the words are indeed the words of Jesus, this does not necessarily mean that the keys to the kingdom that were given to Peter were automatically passed on down to each succeeding Bishop of Rome, since Jesus did not go on to say that Peter's successors and his alone would inherit the same keys to the kingdom. We are still left with the problem of interpretation of the passage.

 

[laconicstudent]

Even if the words are indeed the words of Jesus, this does not necessarily mean that the keys to the kingdom that were given to Peter were automatically passed on down to each succeeding Bishop of Rome, since Jesus did not go on to say that Peter's successors and his alone would inherit the same keys to the kingdom. We are still left with the problem of interpretation of the passage.

Strange. The Apostles sure thought St. Matthias could inherit the bishophric of Judas Iscariot....

And of course,

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry"


--St. Pope Clement I of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 (A.D. 80)

 

[Zeek]

I believe there were Messianic/Christian leaders appointed throughout the known kingdoms of the world...they didn't qualify by being part of an insular succession, but through the work of the Holy Spirit being evident in their lives, and various leaders would then recognise their potential and elevate them to a position of authority as they saw fit, by laying hands on them (after careful consideration) to become, Elders, Bishops, Evangelists, Pastor-teachers etc.

Just as Paul raised up strong leaders such as Timothy, Titus and Apollos, and they in turn would have taught and raised up others....but all paths for true authority do not lead to Rome, they lead to G-d and the unction of the Holy Spirit.

That is not to say that the leadership in Rome cannot be traced back to Apostolic authority...it is possible that this is the case....but where we would diverge, would be on the insistance that Rome, and only Rome has the overall authority to preach and teach the Gospel.

The way I look at it demonstrates that Catholics (those that actually have a saving faith, and not a nominal religion) are part of the Body of Messiah...they are Christians, but in some instances I believe they have absorbed certain traditions and teachings that are far removed from the teachings of the Apostles, and these things are an unnecessary encumberance to their walk with Jesus....what makes it difficult to break through about these things, is they they are part of the system of teachings that actually set them apart, and give them their unique identity, therefore there is an understandable reluctance to even contemplate they might be erroneous, yet alone give them up.

On top of this, over hundreds of years there has been the emergence of Catholic doctrine, that specifically justifies and comments about the specific teachings of their creed...much of it done by very capable learned men (and women?)...and much of it based on extra-biblical life-stories, teachings and accounts of Catholic Fathers of the Faith. I have so far found that often when challenged by Scripture, all sorts of outside sources then come into play....and the teachings of revered men of G-d, carry as much weight as Scripture.

Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself....but the point is, there are more points on the compass than just Rome....and before anyone tries to take the analogy too far...N is not Rome either. In Messiah. Zazal

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Strange. The Apostles sure thought St. Matthias could inherit the bishophric of Judas Iscariot....

At the Council of Trent, the Roman Creed, (which by the way was illegal, but) was made obligatory on all Roman ecclesiastics and their members, in it, it is professed , concerning Holy Scripture,"nor will i ever understand or interpret it, except according to the unanimous consent of the holy Fathers." This Creed, by the way, is commonly used in the hill country of Northern England by Roman clergy even now!

If we were to apply the Matthean quote XV1, to the fathers we should find the whole scheme of things in the air. Launoy, a Jesuit author found that there are 17 fathers in favour of the rock meaning S.Peter,
44 for it meaning the faith Peter confessed
16, for it being Christ Himself and
eight for the Rock being Christ himself![/I][/B]
[/I][/B]
As one of our colleagues has already pointed out, even if Peter had been chosen for the position there's nothing to lead us to support the papal claims! The apostate bishops have gone from liberal errors. in their own communion to conservative faults within another! Are we to believe that two wrongs make a right? The two wrongs being Liberalism and an abandonment of Holy Tradition by the Canterbury Communion on the one side and Papal Jurisdiction with Papal Infallibility in the Papal Communion.!

 

[Deleteriousnonsense]

I know that Peter had a mother-in-law. That right there is burden of incalculable weight.

 

[NoBama2012]

What character traits, what kind of personality do you associate with Peter? What qualities did Peter have that Paul, James and John the sons of Zebedee, James the brother of Jesus and John the disciple, didn't have, qualities that might make it clear the Catholic Church draws from Peter more than from the others?

I don't associate charahcter traits or personalities to Peter any more than I would to the Presidency.

The Pope is "Peter among us", which is to say his job is that of Peter's: To strengthen his fellow Bishops (Luke 22:32), to feed Christ's flock (John 21:17) and to lead the Church (Matt 16:17-19). He is a "rock" that we can look to when others go astray.

 

[Zeek]

I don't associate charahcter traits or personalities to Peter any more than I would to the Presidency.

The Pope is "Peter among us", which is to say his job is that of Peter's: To strengthen his fellow Bishops (Luke 22:32), to feed Christ's flock (John 21:17) and to lead the Church (Matt 16:17-19). He is a "rock" that we can look to when others go astray.

The Pope may well be a good man and an example to other leaders, but he is not unique amongst men, there are plenty of faithful godly leaders out in the world that are also great examples, fine preachers, strong motivators, full of the Holy Ghost and who faithfully shepherd the sheep as commissioned to do...but they too are men, and face the same struggles that we all do, and should disdain being lifted to some exalted position as if they were someone special.

 

[Hairy Tic]

## The Pope may well be a good man and an example to other leaders, but he is not unique amongst men, there are plenty of faithful godly leaders out in the world that are also great examples, fine preachers, strong motivators, full of the Holy Ghost and who faithfully shepherd the sheep as commissioned to do...but they too are men, and face the same struggles that we all do, and should disdain being lifted to some exalted position as if they were someone special.

## Paul may well have been a good man and an example to other leaders, but he is not unique amongst men, there are plenty of faithful godly leaders out in the world that are also great examples, fine preachers, strong motivators, full of the Holy Ghost and who faithfully shepherd the sheep as commissioned to do...but they too are men, and face the same struggles that we all do, and should disdain being lifted to some exalted position as if they were someone special. Yet Protestants go on about St. Paul & his letters all the time. Physician, heal thyself. Set your Protestant co-religionists, or whatever they are, in order - then you can start complaining about us.

Your point is...? Saying the obvious, and totally ignoring the minor detail that what St. Peter was, he was by the choice of Christ, & not because of his own qualities, is no objection to the place held by St. Peter. Nor is putting up Aunt Sallies to be shot down. Only someone who thinks grace is unimportant, could ignore something as obvious as that detail.

 

[Hairy Tic]

I don't associate charahcter traits or personalities to Peter any more than I would to the Presidency.

The Pope is "Peter among us", which is to say his job is that of Peter's: To strengthen his fellow Bishops (Luke 22:32), to feed Christ's flock (John 21:17) and to lead the Church (Matt 16:17-19). He is a "rock" that we can look to when others go astray.

## STM that the question comes from imagining that Catholics must be as obsessed with every little detail in Catholicism as those who ask it are LOL

 

[NoBama2012]

I don't associate charahcter traits or personalities to Peter any more than I would to the Presidency.

The Pope is "Peter among us", which is to say his job is that of Peter's: To strengthen his fellow Bishops (Luke 22:32), to feed Christ's flock (John 21:17) and to lead the Church (Matt 16:17-19). He is a "rock" that we can look to when others go astray.

The Pope may well be a good man and an example to other leaders, but he is not unique amongst men......

But his office is. That's my point.
Presidents of the United States sit down to go #2 just like the rest of us. The only reason they wield power is because of the office, not because of the man. The day after they leave office, they lose that authority.

Same goes for the Pope. It is the office of "Peter" which can "bind & loose". If the Pope felt like resigning tomorrow, he could not binmd And loose anything. Its the office, not the man.

 

[Zeek]

## Paul may well have been a good man and an example to other leaders,

There is no 'may' about it....Paul was an outstanding example of a man devoted to G-d and led by the Holy Ghost.

but he is not unique amongst men, there are plenty of faithful godly leaders out in the world that are also great examples, fine preachers, strong motivators, full of the Holy Ghost and who faithfully shepherd the sheep as commissioned to do...but they too are men, and face the same struggles that we all do, and should disdain being lifted to some exalted position as if they were someone special.

I believe first and foremost Paul considered himself a servant, and never sought any exalted position...and would have defied any attempts to make him more than he was.

Yet Protestants go on about St. Paul & his letters all the time. Physician, heal thyself. Set your Protestant co-religionists, or whatever they are, in order - then you can start complaining about us.

I never mentioned Paul....you did, and then shot the argument you had created down in flames....old old technique.

Also I am not complaining about you or others in anyway whatsoever, I am merely defending what I believe to be doctrinally important points. If the best you can do is take 'pot shots', it is poor attempt at parry and riposte....(to mix metaphors).

Your point is...?

Simply that there are other godly leaders in the world and you do not have to come under the authority of the Pope.

Saying the obvious, and totally ignoring the minor detail that what St. Peter was, he was by the choice of Christ, & not because of his own qualities, is no objection to the place held by St. Peter.

Peter was a man, like you or me, who knew the L-rd, and was a friend and disciple of Jesus, and obeyed the commission given to him...like Paul, he too was a lovely godly man full of the Holy Ghost....a leader yes, but also as such a servant to the Body of Messiah and a bond-slave to the L-rd.

Nor is putting up Aunt Sallies to be shot down. Only someone who thinks grace is unimportant, could ignore something as obvious as that detail.

Well friend, you seem adept at putting up things to be shot down....I love the grace of G-d...in fact I would go so far as to say that I revel in the grace of G-d, but I expect you mean something more along the lines of some special grace given to Peter.

 

[NoBama2012]

That font is blowing my mind

 

[Kaitlin08]

Please keep the discussion on topic. This thread is about Peter, not Paul.

 

[NoBama2012]

Please keep the discussion on topic. This thread is about Peter, not Paul.

Plenty o' links:

The Authority of the Pope Part 1 (Fathers*)
The Authority of the Pope Part 2 (Fathers*)
Origins of Peter as Pope (Fathers*)
Papal Infallibility
Peter and the Papacy
Peter the Rock
Peter's Primacy (Fathers*)
Peter's Roman Residency (Fathers*)
Peter's Successors (Fathers*)
Was Peter in Rome?


* Includes commentary by the Early Church Fathers

 

[Zeek]

What character traits, what kind of personality do you associate with Peter? What qualities did Peter have that Paul, James and John the sons of Zebedee, James the brother of Jesus and John the disciple, didn't have, qualities that might make it clear the Catholic Church draws from Peter more than from the others?

I don't believe the Catholic Church is fussed about character traits or personality...they are concerned about 'authority' and they believe that Jesus gave Peter special authority to build this Church...whereas others like myself contest that it was the example of the 'faith' that Peter demonstrated upon which the Church would be built.

Faith is revelation knowledge that originates with G-d by His grace and is poured into the heart of the individual enabling him to believe...and that is why the L-rd said to Peter... "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven..."

If we look at what the Church is....we find that it is us...we are referred to as 'living stones' by no less than Peter himself...he grasped what Jesus meant when He had said those words years previously and teaches "...you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

The Church is not an organization, it is not the mighty edifice at Rome...it is us...all that have the revelation that Peter had, and have been born again into the Kingdom of G-d.