Catholics: what does Peter represent for you?

[Zeek]

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

Thanks for posting these...I have looked at several, including the last one about Peter being in Rome. It is not whether or not he was in Rome that is important to me, but the fact that he was numbered amongst the Apostles, and his position was not something that was personally handed down in succession as the writer would have us believe.

I don't see any evidence that he was 'the Bishop of Rome' Paul was never referred to in this way (sorry for mentioning his name ), they were both Apostles, which was a position that carried unique hall-marks (check them out...if you don't know the scriptures I am happy to supply) so that they were readily identifiable as Apostles, and presumably so that the wolves and false-Apostles that would seek to devour the flock, would be more readily recognised.

Finally if any of the Apostles could see the pomp,trappings and sheer religious razzamatazz that go with the position of Pope, I think they would have more than a few words to say on the matter....and I don't think they would be of a congratulatory nature.

{...the writer in those articles, has mistakenly used the word Palestine in place of Israel....a common but note-worthy mistake.}

 

[narnia59]

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.

I assume you're referring to Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem? Where do you see Peter being "shot down" by the other apostles?

The issue over circumcision developed primarily into a battle between Paul (teaching the Gentiles don't have to be circumcised) and James (teaching they did).

Peter had already allowed Gentiles into the church without circumcision, based upon a direct revelation from God. Although he appeared to wish to avoid direct confrontation (which is why Paul challenged him). Peter's behavior did not align with his teaching.

At the council Paul and Barnabas were attempting to make their point but getting nowhere. Then Peter takes the floor with his position. That silences the assembly, and Paul and Barnabas can then speak to an attentive audience. As a result, James concedes his position and brings the church of Jerusalem in line with Peter and Paul, avoiding the first major schism.

 

[Hairy Tic]

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?

## That is God's business, IMO

Christ's strength is made perfect in our weakness, to paraphrase St. Paul.

I get rather tired of the of the EP fixation with his sins. Have his judges never denied Him by their actions, words, omissions ? I notice no such severity is used against St. Paul, the one-time persecutor - but St.Paul is something of an idol to EPs. They condemn St.Peter on the strength of Galatians 2.11 (which gives St.Paul's side, but not St.Peter's) because of St.Peter's alleged caving-in to Judaisers - but don't turn a hair when St.Paul, the man who in Romans pooh-poohs the need for circumcision, circumcises a Gentile Christian. This is "respect of persons" with a vengeance. Why does this happen ?

I think the reason St.Peter is treated so badly is that he is associated with the Papacy - & ISTM that as a result, the loathing many EPs have for the Papacy strikes him too; he ends up as "collateral damage". That he is honoured as a Saint, probably does not help him.

I prefer St.Peter to St.Paul. St.Peter strikes me as more sympathetically human. He's not self-righteous, and he is not one of those slightly off-putting people who invariably say the right things & do the right things; on the contrary, the fact that he is so recognisably human, makes him more attractive: ordinary unsaintly people say and do some awful things - & so does he. What does he not do, is come across as one those truly dreadful people who are in love with their own righteousness & have no sympathy for others.

In addition, people fall, often. They resolve to leave some sin behind, try to, pray for strength to do so, and fall again. St.Peter is a God-given model for such people - a Saint with fewer recorded failings would be too remote from everyday experience. Because he was a sinner, and described himself as one, he is a great help to those of us who know that we too are sinners.

 

[alphonsus12]

Thanks for posting these...I have looked at several, including the last one about Peter being in Rome. It is not whether or not he was in Rome that is important to me, but the fact that he was numbered amongst the Apostles, and his position was not something that was personally handed down in succession as the writer would have us believe.

I don't see any evidence that he was 'the Bishop of Rome' Paul was never referred to in this way (sorry for mentioning his name ), they were both Apostles, which was a position that carried unique hall-marks (check them out...if you don't know the scriptures I am happy to supply) so that they were readily identifiable as Apostles, and presumably so that the wolves and false-Apostles that would seek to devour the flock, would be more readily recognised.

Finally if any of the Apostles could see the pomp,trappings and sheer religious razzamatazz that go with the position of Pope, I think they would have more than a few words to say on the matter....and I don't think they would be of a congratulatory nature.

{...the writer in those articles, has mistakenly used the word Palestine in place of Israel....a common but note-worthy mistake.}

Hello! I would like to apologize in advance for the long post...

I will only be addressing your issue with with succession, as my knowledge is limited in other areas (and I'm sure other faithful Catholics can address said issues!)

Lets start with what the Lord says to Peter in Matthew 16
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 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.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. (NIV)

This is the verse Catholics cite in reference to the primacy of Peter, as all of us are aware (I will explain the added emphasis in a moment). But lets compare this to what the Lord says through Isaiah in Isaiah 22:
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars. 25 “In that day,” declares the LORD Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The LORD has spoken.

In both of these passages the keys represent the position of authority. Eliakim was given, the keys to house of David (the house of David, which might I add, is now ruled by the Eternal King Jesus (See Luke 1:32), a position that was second only to the King of Israel (well third since the Lord is ahead of both of them). As it says "what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." However he is killed while he was in this office (much like St. Peter). However after he was killed (Eliakim that is) his office remained. Likewise while Peter's peg was similarly sheared, the keys (office of authority) remained.

God Bless.

 

[Zeek]

Hello! I would like to apologize in advance for the long post...

I will only be addressing your issue with with succession, as my knowledge is limited in other areas (and I'm sure other faithful Catholics can address said issues!)

Lets start with what the Lord says to Peter in Matthew 16
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 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.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. (NIV)

This is the verse Catholics cite in reference to the primacy of Peter, as all of us are aware (I will explain the added emphasis in a moment). God Bless.

The L-rd bless you too Alphonsus....and it wasn't such a long post....one brother posted about twenty pages for me to get my head around!!

I understand the Roman Catholic teaching...but I don't accept it for a number of reasons.

Firstly I don't believe Jesus was making a point about building His Church on Peter (who is actually a living stone and part of the Church)...it would not make sense as it is evident that all the Apostles were instrumental in building the Church (Universal Community of Believers), rather it is the revelation faith of who Jesus actually is that comes from the Father which is what the Church is built upon ...and certainly not some institution that has sole authority, and whose history is strewn with the bodies of those that disagreed with them.

I also believe that it is evident that ALL the disciples have been given the authority that Jesus mentions in this passage....in fact I actually picture the scenario with Jesus at first addressing Peter and using the famous play on words (Petros and petra), and then addressing all the disciples on the issue of binding and loosing. I don't take this in isolation, and I realise it might not really read that way in Scripture, but I also compare it to Matthew 18:18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven....which is clearly addressed to ALL disciples, and was a well known rabbinical expression of authority.

In Messiah. Zazal

 

[alphonsus12]

The L-rd bless you too Alphonsus....and it wasn't such a long post....one brother posted about twenty pages for me to get my head around!!

I understand the Roman Catholic teaching...but I don't accept it for a number of reasons.

Firstly I don't believe Jesus was making a point about building His Church on Peter (who is actually a living stone and part of the Church)...it would not make sense as it is evident that all the Apostles were instrumental in building the Church (Universal Community of Believers), rather it is the revelation faith of who Jesus actually is that comes from the Father which is what the Church is built upon ...and certainly not some institution that has sole authority, and whose history is strewn with the bodies of those that disagreed with them.

I also believe that it is evident that ALL the disciples have been given the authority that Jesus mentions in this passage....in fact I actually picture the scenario with Jesus at first addressing Peter and using the famous play on words (Petros and petra), and then addressing all the disciples on the issue of binding and loosing. I don't take this in isolation, and I realise it might not really read that way in Scripture, but I also compare it to Matthew 18:18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven....which is clearly addressed to ALL disciples, and was a well known rabbinical expression of authority.

In Messiah. Zazal

Greetings!

I have two major issue with the petros/petra issue. The first is grammatical. As far as I am aware (and my I awareness is based on the word of others, seeing as I don't speak Koine Greek!) the grammar of the passage is that Jesus is still talking to Peter, he has not changed subjects.

The second issue is linguistic. While Matthew records Jesus switching the noun He uses (petros/petra), this is because in Greek, nouns have gender, and in Greek the word for rock is feminine, and Peter obviously was not. So The Gospel writer used a masculinized word (which was a name) and then used the actual word to imply the idea. Further Jesus never actually used the words petros/petra when He spoke to Peter. Jesus called Peter Cephas, which was a masculine noun in aramaic, what Jesus said would read "You are Cephas and upon this cephas I build my church." The Gospel writer had to write in Greek because that was the lingua franca of the part of the Roman Empire they were in, and if you want to evangelize, those you want to reach need to be able to understand what you are writing!

God Bless

 

[Zeek]

Greetings!

I have two major issue with the petros/petra issue. The first is grammatical. As far as I am aware (and my I awareness is based on the word of others, seeing as I don't speak Koine Greek!) the grammar of the passage is that Jesus is still talking to Peter, he has not changed subjects.

The second issue is linguistic. While Matthew records Jesus switching the noun He uses (petros/petra), this is because in Greek, nouns have gender, and in Greek the word for rock is feminine, and Peter obviously was not. So The Gospel writer used a masculinized word (which was a name) and then used the actual word to imply the idea. Further Jesus never actually used the words petros/petra when He spoke to Peter. Jesus called Peter Cephas, which was a masculine noun in aramaic, what Jesus said would read "You are Cephas and upon this cephas I build my church." The Gospel writer had to write in Greek because that was the lingua franca of the part of the Roman Empire they were in, and if you want to evangelize, those you want to reach need to be able to understand what you are writing!

God Bless

Ok, I understand what you say....but just tell me what you think Jesus was saying to Peter in front of all His disciples...Was He going to build His Church on Peter or was it going to be built upon Faith?

Before you answer, look at the passage, and see what Jesus is focusing in on after He asks the question 'who do you say I am'?

 

[Kaitlin08]

Hi Hairy Tic,

Personally, I think the conflicts between Peter and Paul weren't anything out of the ordinary, and are overstated by people who react against inerrant views of the Bible. May I ask you what EP stands for? I wasn't sure about that.

 

[Zeek]

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.!

Bumped...because it is so relevant.

 

[GandolftheWhite]

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?

Hi Kaitlin, it wasn't as if the Catholic Church said one day "Peter is our favorite let's make him our leader"

Peter has always been traditional known as the Leader of the Apostles, we see this in Scripture and in the teaching of the Early Church Fathers.

but to answer your question what I like most about Peter, I would say his his Zeal and his big heart that sometimes is bigger than his Brain and get's himself in trouble.

 

[patricius79]

Thanks for posting these...I have looked at several, including the last one about Peter being in Rome. It is not whether or not he was in Rome that is important to me, but the fact that he was numbered amongst the Apostles, and his position was not something that was personally handed down in succession as the writer would have us believe.

I don't see any evidence that he was 'the Bishop of Rome' Paul was never referred to in this way (sorry for mentioning his name ), they were both Apostles, which was a position that carried unique hall-marks (check them out...if you don't know the scriptures I am happy to supply) so that they were readily identifiable as Apostles, and presumably so that the wolves and false-Apostles that would seek to devour the flock, would be more readily recognised.
}

the early Church unanimously believed in Apostolic Succession, based on Scripture

http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

the Apostles also were bishops apparently since Acts 1:20 reads "let his bishopric another take"

the early Church knew that the Church is built on Simon Rock.

D.A. Carson Protestant Evangelical scholar:

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Pe[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." (Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)
St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome in the Early Church

 

[LOCO]

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?

Hi Kaitlin,

A couple of points:

Jesus specifically changed Peters name from Simon to Peter (cephas which means rock). Why would he do that? He didn't change the other disciples names.

Just as Moses was called 'rock' in the OT, Peter is called 'rock'.

Jesus in giving to Peter not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He's quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known.

Isaiah 22 vs19

"I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David."

Now the House of David is like the House of Bourbon. It's a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, "I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father's house." Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.


The office of the Pope is similar to the Prime Ministership. He is here to teach, tend and protect Our Lords flock against false prophets and doctrines.

Remember Peter denied knowing Jesus three times.

In John 21:15-19 Christ is speaking to Peter after Peter denied knowing him 3 times.

Christ asks 3 times if Peter loves Him. After each affirmation, Christ gives Peter 3 different directives.

15..."Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?"
He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You."
He said to him, "Feed My lambs."
16He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?"
He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You."
He said to him, "Tend My sheep."
17He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?"
And he said to Him, "Lord You know all things; You know that I love You."
Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.

The lambs are the lay people, the sheep are the leaders of the church (priests, deacons, bishops, etc.) Christ tells Peter to feed both the lambs and the sheep. But He also tells Peter to tend the sheep. The one who tends the sheep is a shepherd.

This is why Catholics believe that the Pope is the "Vicar of Christ". Christ gave Peter, and through Peter, succeeding Popes, the authority to lead His Church. A shepherd leads the sheep. One who tends sheep would be called a shepherd.

This is one of the places in the Bible that Scripture shows us that the Catholic belief in the pope is actually a directive from Christ Himself. Not a "man-made" thing, but a directive from Christ Himself.


Blessings

 

[Ave Maria]

Well, obviously Saint Peter had a good leadership quality since he was the first Pope.

 

[rhenziel]

Someone who is a great adviser and friend.