Peter: Thirty-Five Years as Bishop of Rome?

Open Heart · Sep 28, 2017

prodromos said:
That is a conplete misreading of the circumstances. Corinth was a Roman colony with strong political, commercial, relgious and cultural ties to Rome.

Corinth is within the Bishopric of Antioch, not Rome. Bishops do not handle the problems of other bishops. The only reason the bishop of Rome would have written to Corinth is if his authority extended outside of his bishopric to the entire Church.

Jeepneytravel · Sep 28, 2017

The Roman "catholic" church was not started until AD 323....The Romans that were in Corinth in the first century were the army and oppressors....Paul went there to teach the true Biblical Christians, who would never ever follow such a 'church" that is named in Revelation 17 and 18 and Thess 2.

prodromos · Sep 28, 2017

Open Heart said:
Corinth is within the Bishopric of Antioch, not Rome.

Since when? Clement lived at the end of the 1st century while the Apostle John was still alive. The rest of the Apostles had not long been martyred so the structure of the Church was still in its infancy.

Bishops do not handle the problems of other bishops.

I presume you are referring to the canons of the 1st Council of Nicaea, which occured more than 200 years later? Did someone time travel and bring back a copy of the canons?

The only reason the bishop of Rome would have written to Corinth is if his authority extended outside of his bishopric to the entire Church.

LOL. Clement wrote to the Church in Corinth because they asked for his help. He says so in his letter. You see something similar happening when the Church in Rome wrote to Cyprian in Carthage asking for his help. Your claims really have no basis. You are simply reading your present beliefs regarding the papacy back into a time where the papacy did not exist.

Dale · Sep 29, 2017

kepha31 said:
AUTHORITY OF THE FIRST POPES
See also Luke 1:32-35. An angel is not speaking in terms of Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, the angel is speaking in terms of ROYALTY. Jesus is King of Kings, not president of kings. The keys Jesus gave to Peter is indicative of the keys in Isaiah 22, both monarchy's.

The main detail you should begin with is the early church was not Protestant.
Sheer anti-Catholic gibberish. He made no dogmatic proclamations. No single cardinal has that kind of authority. That's the job of the Magisterium that he was part of.

As an illustration of the whoppers, distortions, half-truths, and flat-out lies that typify the book, I would like to explore Salmon’s charge that Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman opposed papal infallibility before the First Vatican Council in 1870, and later lied about his earlier position when he stated that he accepted the view after 1870, whereas (according to Salmon’s jaded cynicism) he had not before. Of course, since Salmon characterizes Newman as a liar regarding his own opinions after 1870 (implying that he committed intellectual suicide simply because he was an observant Catholic), we can assume that he would reiterate the charge with regard to Newman’s opinions pre-1870, had he seen many manifestations of them brought together, as I will do shortly.

If a man can unjustly be called a liar once, then the charge can more easily be made on successive occasions. So Salmon would just as easily dispute Newman’s pre-1870 statements (having been made aware of them), if he is willing to disparage his character and disbelieve his own report of his opinions in the first place. But for fair-minded, non-prejudiced inquirers, a man’s self-report is quite sufficient to end the dispute.

Much of the confusion in Salmon and many others through the years, in relation to Cardinal Newman’s view of papal infallibility and the particular dogmatic definition that was arrived at, lies in failing to distinguish opposition to the dogma and opposition to de fide (highest level) definition of it at a given time (what is called in Catholic circles, inopportunism). The Church usually waits hundreds of years to define a dogma at the very highest levels. Thus, one can legitimately have an opinion whether the present is the “right” time to do so or not. Newman also opposed some of the tactics and methodologies of parties in the Vatican Council and before: the extreme Ultramontane party, who would have made the definition (Pastor aeternus) far more sweeping than it actually was.
John Henry Newman on Papal Infallibility Prior to 1870

What's wrong with that?

Kepha,

In response to my comment that Cardinal John Newman is a known critic of papal infallibility, you say "Sheer anti-Catholic gibberish." That's a rather intemperate response.

Here is another quote from the same source I used in Post #47:
"Newman had a jaundiced view of the papacy, especially an ageing one. “It is anomaly,” he wrote, “and bears no good fruit. He [the Pope] becomes a god, has no one to contradict him, does not know facts, and does cruel things without meaning it.” Newman described the papacy of his day, Pius IX’s, as a “climax of tyranny”. He even accused him of heresy, for “narrowing the lines of communion, trembling at freedom of thought, and using the language of dismay and despair at the prospect before us”."

Think about it.

Open Heart · Sep 30, 2017

prodromos said:
Since when?

Since always.

Open Heart · Sep 30, 2017

prodromos said:
I presume you are referring to the canons of the 1st Council of Nicaea, which occured more than 200 years later? Did someone time travel and bring back a copy of the canons?

No, this is just basic etiquette. It goes back all the way.

Open Heart · Sep 30, 2017

prodromos said:
Clement wrote to the Church in Corinth because they asked for his help. He says so in his letter.

And why do you think they appealed to the Bishop of Rome rather than their own Bishop? Obviously their own Bishop was unable to resolve the problem, so they appealed to a higher authority.

prodromos · Sep 30, 2017

Open Heart said:
Since always.

So you don't know. Thanks.

prodromos · Sep 30, 2017

Open Heart said:
No, this is just basic etiquette. It goes back all the way.

There were no Patriarchates or Metropolitans in the apostolic period. It took time for the structure to settle.

prodromos · Sep 30, 2017

Open Heart said:
And why do you think they appealed to the Bishop of Rome rather than their own Bishop? Obviously their own Bishop was unable to resolve the problem, so they appealed to a higher authority.

They appealed to someone respected by all parties involved.

Open Heart · Oct 1, 2017

prodromos said:
They appealed to someone respected by all parties involved.

They can't appeal to someone who has no authority over them. Right or wrong, the Bishop over them has the final say.

Dale · Oct 1, 2017

kepha31 said:
You are confusing a title that was granted decades later with the office established by Christ. Jesus didn't rename Simon bar Jona "pope", He renamed him ROCK. The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome.
Because you are hung up on titles. Peter was leader and spokesman for all the Apostles as evident throughout the NT. The Church was centralized in Jerusalem until the death of James, then the centrality shifted to Rome. Jesus promised to give to Peter, and only to Peter, the keys of the kingdom. That's a misunderstanding of Peter's role.

Jesus was not speaking literally in Matt. 23:9
Jesus says, “call no man father.” This is an example of “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father. Catholics don't elevate priests to the level of our heavenly Father!!!

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” Therefore, we should ask the question, “Why don’t Protestants call their pastors “father?”

1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”
Is Paul wrong???

Phil. 2:22 – Paul calls Timothy’s service to him as a son serves a “father.”
Is Paul wrong???

1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children. Is Paul wrong???

Matthew 23:8-12 KJV... “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). "call no man father" is an old canard.

Open Heart said:
Peter became the Pope when Christ gave him the keys to the Kingdom. That doesn't mean he was bishop of Rome. He went to Rome much later. Indeed he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome.

The Catholic Church says that Peter is the Chief Apostle or even Prince of the Apostles. The NACE article on Peter is St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles.

Peter doesn't call himself the Chief Apostle or Head of the Church in the Epistles of Peter. In I Peter, he introduces himself as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ." --I Peter 1:1 NIV
He doesn't claim any special distinction above the other apostles.

Peter doesn't claim to be the "rock" the church is built on. In Chapter 2, he says that Jesus is "the living stone" and "the capstone." See I Peter 2: 4-8 NIV Jesus is the rock, not Peter.

Later in I Peter he calls himself a "fellow elder" and a "witness" and tells elders to be "shepherds." Jesus is the Chief Shepherd, so he does not claim this title for himself. Instead of claiming the authority to lord it over others, and be taken care of, he warns against "lording it over" others and against being "greedy for money."

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away."

--I Peter 5: 1-4 NIV

If anything, the opening of II Peter is more humble than the opening of I Peter. "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ." --II Peter 1:1 NIV

Dale · Oct 1, 2017

kepha31 said:
You are confusing a title that was granted decades later with the office established by Christ. Jesus didn't rename Simon bar Jona "pope", He renamed him ROCK. The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome.
Because you are hung up on titles. Peter was leader and spokesman for all the Apostles as evident throughout the NT. The Church was centralized in Jerusalem until the death of James, then the centrality shifted to Rome. Jesus promised to give to Peter, and only to Peter, the keys of the kingdom. That's a misunderstanding of Peter's role.

Jesus was not speaking literally in Matt. 23:9
Jesus says, “call no man father.” This is an example of “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father. Catholics don't elevate priests to the level of our heavenly Father!!!

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” Therefore, we should ask the question, “Why don’t Protestants call their pastors “father?”

1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”
Is Paul wrong???

Phil. 2:22 – Paul calls Timothy’s service to him as a son serves a “father.”
Is Paul wrong???

1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children. Is Paul wrong???

Matthew 23:8-12 KJV... “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). "call no man father" is an old canard.

Open Heart said:
Peter became the Pope when Christ gave him the keys to the Kingdom. That doesn't mean he was bishop of Rome. He went to Rome much later. Indeed he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome.

kepha31 said:
You are confusing a title that was granted decades later with the office established by Christ. Jesus didn't rename Simon bar Jona "pope", He renamed him ROCK. The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome.
Because you are hung up on titles. Peter was leader and spokesman for all the Apostles as evident throughout the NT. The Church was centralized in Jerusalem until the death of James, then the centrality shifted to Rome. Jesus promised to give to Peter, and only to Peter, the keys of the kingdom. That's a misunderstanding of Peter's role.

Jesus was not speaking literally in Matt. 23:9
Jesus says, “call no man father.” This is an example of “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father. Catholics don't elevate priests to the level of our heavenly Father!!!

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” Therefore, we should ask the question, “Why don’t Protestants call their pastors “father?”

1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”
Is Paul wrong???

Phil. 2:22 – Paul calls Timothy’s service to him as a son serves a “father.”
Is Paul wrong???

1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children. Is Paul wrong???

Matthew 23:8-12 KJV... “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). "call no man father" is an old canard.

Open Heart said:
Peter became the Pope when Christ gave him the keys to the Kingdom. That doesn't mean he was bishop of Rome. He went to Rome much later. Indeed he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome.

Is Peter the Chief Apostle or the Ruler of the Church? There is a verse in the Gospel of John often cited by the Eastern Orthodox as evidence that Jesus gave authority to all of the apostles.

After the Resurrection in the upper room:

"And with that He [Jesus] breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
--John 20:23 NIV

Jesus is clearly speaking to all the apostles here.

If Jesus ever did give Peter any special status in Matthew 16, the same authority is very quickly widened to include all the apostles and even to all disciples, to the whole church.

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
--Matthew 18:18 NIV

This comes after Jesus tells the church how to deal with a brother who sins against the church. Jesus is addressing the whole church.

prodromos · Oct 1, 2017

Open Heart said:
They can't appeal to someone who has no authority over them.

Sure they can. The very act of appealing to someone gives them authority over them.

kepha31 · Oct 2, 2017

Dale said:
Kepha,

In response to my comment that Cardinal John Newman is a known critic of papal infallibility, you say "Sheer anti-Catholic gibberish." That's a rather intemperate response.

Here is another quote from the same source I used in Post #47:
"Newman had a jaundiced view of the papacy, especially an ageing one. “It is anomaly,” he wrote, “and bears no good fruit. He [the Pope] becomes a god, has no one to contradict him, does not know facts, and does cruel things without meaning it.” Newman described the papacy of his day, Pius IX’s, as a “climax of tyranny”. He even accused him of heresy, for “narrowing the lines of communion, trembling at freedom of thought, and using the language of dismay and despair at the prospect before us”."

Think about it.

Written by an anti-Catholic journalist, John Cornwell. Think about it.
John Henry Newman on Papal Infallibility Prior to 1870 stands.
Maybe you can find something written in the Watch Tower Society publications.

kepha31 · Oct 2, 2017

Dale said:
Is Peter the Chief Apostle or the Ruler of the Church? There is a verse in the Gospel of John often cited by the Eastern Orthodox as evidence that Jesus gave authority to all of the apostles.

After the Resurrection in the upper room:

"And with that He [Jesus] breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
--John 20:23 NIV

Jesus is clearly speaking to all the apostles here.

If Jesus ever did give Peter any special status in Matthew 16, the same authority is very quickly widened to include all the apostles and even to all disciples, to the whole church.

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
--Matthew 18:18 NIV

This comes after Jesus tells the church how to deal with a brother who sins against the church. Jesus is addressing the whole church.

Dale said:
The Catholic Church says that Peter is the Chief Apostle or even Prince of the Apostles. The NACE article on Peter is St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles.

Peter doesn't call himself the Chief Apostle or Head of the Church in the Epistles of Peter. In I Peter, he introduces himself as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ." --I Peter 1:1 NIV
He doesn't claim any special distinction above the other apostles.

Peter doesn't claim to be the "rock" the church is built on. In Chapter 2, he says that Jesus is "the living stone" and "the capstone." See I Peter 2: 4-8 NIV Jesus is the rock, not Peter.

Later in I Peter he calls himself a "fellow elder" and a "witness" and tells elders to be "shepherds." Jesus is the Chief Shepherd, so he does not claim this title for himself. Instead of claiming the authority to lord it over others, and be taken care of, he warns against "lording it over" others and against being "greedy for money."

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away."

--I Peter 5: 1-4 NIV

If anything, the opening of II Peter is more humble than the opening of I Peter. "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ." --II Peter 1:1 NIV

Dale said:
Is Peter the Chief Apostle or the Ruler of the Church? There is a verse in the Gospel of John often cited by the Eastern Orthodox as evidence that Jesus gave authority to all of the apostles.

After the Resurrection in the upper room:

"And with that He [Jesus] breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
--John 20:23 NIV

Jesus is clearly speaking to all the apostles here.

If Jesus ever did give Peter any special status in Matthew 16, the same authority is very quickly widened to include all the apostles and even to all disciples, to the whole church.

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
--Matthew 18:18 NIV

Did Jesus give out 12 sets of keys???

This comes after Jesus tells the church how to deal with a brother who sins against the church. Jesus is addressing the whole church.

Pope Francis is bishop to the diocese of Rome, like any bishop anywhere in the world. In that sense, he is equal to other bishops. Peter is equal to the other Apostles in that same sense. Whoever takes the Chair of Peter still remains the local bishop of Rome, but with universal jurisdiction; "Servant of the Servants". That should help you understand why Clement was the 4th Pope while John was still alive, John cannot occupy 2 chairs.

The first 40 popes were killed by pagan Romans. That point never comes up on anti-Catholic sources.

kepha31 · Oct 2, 2017

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

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 exceptions to the rule).

Matt 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Act 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. What other man has walked 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. 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 5:4,10 - 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 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.

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 1:15 - Peter initiates 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 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 apostles and works 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. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles.

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.

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.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER - Scripture Catholic

tz620q · Oct 2, 2017

prodromos said:
There were no Patriarchates or Metropolitans in the apostolic period. It took time for the structure to settle.

So you would agree that on this issue of structure and authority there was a need for development? And if so, was that development only temporary and ended in the fifth Century A.D.?

Open Heart · Oct 2, 2017

prodromos said:
Sure they can. The very act of appealing to someone gives them authority over them.

No. That would be disobedience to the one who has authority over them.

Open Heart · Oct 2, 2017

Dale said:
If Jesus ever did give Peter any special status in Matthew 16, the same authority is very quickly widened to include all the apostles and even to all disciples, to the whole church.

All the apostles had a certain authority in the Church: "He who listens to you listens to me." But only Peter was given the keys.

Peter: Thirty-Five Years as Bishop of Rome?

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads