Peter as the first and the leader of the Apostles?

[Lik3]

"Peter is always listed first among the Twelve Apostles in the gospels[33] and in the Book of Acts (Acts 1:13). He is also frequently mentioned in the gospels as forming with James the Elder and John a special group within the Twelve Apostles, present at incidents at which the others were not present, such as at the Transfiguration of Jesus,[34] at the raising of Jairus' daughter[35] and at the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.[36] Peter often confesses his faith in Jesus as the Messiah."

As I was reading the wiki article about Peter, why was he considered the First and the Leader according to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teachings? I never realized or even noticed that as a or the leader of the Twelve Apostles. Why would he also be considered the First Pope according to Catholic teachings? There is nothing about him being a Pope in the New Testament. He did performed miracles, but he was also forgiven three times by Jesus for denying Him three times during the night of His Crucifixion.

 

[bcbsr]

"Peter is always listed first among the Twelve Apostles in the gospels[33] and in the Book of Acts (Acts 1:13). He is also frequently mentioned in the gospels as forming with James the Elder and John a special group within the Twelve Apostles, present at incidents at which the others were not present, such as at the Transfiguration of Jesus,[34] at the raising of Jairus' daughter[35] and at the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.[36] Peter often confesses his faith in Jesus as the Messiah."

As I was reading the wiki article about Peter, why was he considered the First and the Leader according to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teachings? I never realized or even noticed that as a or the leader of the Twelve Apostles. Why would he also be considered the First Pope according to Catholic teachings? There is nothing about him being a Pope in the New Testament. He did performed miracles, but he was also forgiven three times by Jesus for denying Him three times during the night of His Crucifixion.

I'm not particularly impressed with Peter. Paul had to rebuke him in Gal 2, where it was also noted that Peter was afraid of the group of the circumcision. Peter had been commanded by the Lord to leave Jerusalem and evangelize the world. But he and the Eleven procrastinated, and even declared their abandonment of ministry to Gentiles as Paul revealed in Gal 2:9. Then there was the fact that out of his own local church - the church at Jerusalem - the heresy of the circumcision was born right under his own nose, and it took a visit by Paul and Barnabus to point to out to him. He ended up only writing two epistles in the NT. Let alone compromising the gospel by endorsing James' Jerusalem decree. These among a few other missteps he took in the book of Acts, I wouldn't trust him to lead.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Different churches believe different things, same as different religions.

Some are right , perhaps only a few, and others are wrong, perhaps many.

 

[Albion]

Peter was one of the leaders of the Apostles but not the only one. Presumably he was close to Jesus, and we see him given some special roles, such as the preaching he did on Pentecost.

On the other hand, none of this qualifies him for the position of Pope which did not even exist until several centuries later when the bishop of the capitol city of the Roman Empire was attempting to assert his rule over all the other successors of the Apostles and their churches.

 

[dqhall]

"Peter is always listed first among the Twelve Apostles in the gospels[33] and in the Book of Acts (Acts 1:13). He is also frequently mentioned in the gospels as forming with James the Elder and John a special group within the Twelve Apostles, present at incidents at which the others were not present, such as at the Transfiguration of Jesus,[34] at the raising of Jairus' daughter[35] and at the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.[36] Peter often confesses his faith in Jesus as the Messiah."

As I was reading the wiki article about Peter, why was he considered the First and the Leader according to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teachings? I never realized or even noticed that as a or the leader of the Twelve Apostles. Why would he also be considered the First Pope according to Catholic teachings? There is nothing about him being a Pope in the New Testament. He did performed miracles, but he was also forgiven three times by Jesus for denying Him three times during the night of His Crucifixion.

You might recall Jesus referred to Peter as a rock and on this rock Jesus built his church (Matthew 16:18). Peter was first named Simon, then renamed Peter from Petros or Petra for rock in Greek. Jesus asked Peter to feed his sheep (John 21:15-17). See also Ezekiel 34. Peter was the one who walked on water (Matthew 14:22-33). In Acts of the Apostles people were being healed by God in the presence of Peter (Acts 3). Peter preached to crowds. In Acts 12:3–19 Peter was imprisoned by Herod who wanted to kill him. The Lord freed Peter. Peter's election was confirmed.

The Pope was elected by men. The Pope is a leader of a large organization, but is not Peter. They called Peter the first Pope, but the RCC is not the same as Peter's group who shared all things in common (Acts 4:32).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Pope just means "Father" and the word itself isn't a problem. The idea that any man is "in charge" of the whole Church and someone whose words should be law, much less infallible, is foreign.

Peter was certainly special among the disciples, as were James and John.

The Rome became a kind of "first chair" because it was important in the sense of being a hub city. Peter was actually bishop of ANTIOCH ... so if primacy were based on Peter it makes as much sense to nominate Antioch.

Primacy, btw, is just the one who keeps order at the meetings. It doesn't mean his opinion overruled anyone else or that he had to be right. That's why James chaired the Council of Acts, because it took place in Jerusalem where he was bishop/overseer.

Of course you will get reasons from Catholics because part of their identity as "THE Church" is based in Peter. Usually the bottom line is "on this rock" and the follow-up being "feed my sheep" (though we consider the "Simon do you love me" discourse to be for the restoration of Peter, being asked three times because he had denied Christ three times, thus "reversing" his sin, in a way.).

 

[TuxAme]

In Catholicism, Peter is considered to have been the first Pope. Of course, what it means to be Pope developed as persecution ended and we were able to have more frequent and extended contact with other believers. This is the same way we were able to declare the doctrine of the Trinity, the canon of the Bible, and other critical concepts. These things were already well believed, but now we had the opportunity to officially declare them and work out the details.

Now, Peter isn't considered to have been Pope because he performed miracles- all of the apostles could do this, and even "mere" disciples. Rather, his "rise to the Papacy" came when he confessed Jesus to be the Messiah. Jesus blesses Simon, son of Jonah- but Simon's father's name was John, so why did Jesus refer to him as the son of Jonah? Possibly Jesus is using the name of Jonah for Himself, as there are several comparisons to draw between the two of them (and this would make sense, since He recalled the prophet Jonah in just the previous chapter). So, Jesus would have been naming Peter as His own spiritual "son". It's also possible that Jesus was instead calling to mind what the name of Jonah meant, which is dove. As the Holy Spirit came in the form of a dove, if Jesus meant it this way, He would be telling Peter that he has a special relationship with the Holy Spirit, Who is guiding the Church on earth, and similarly guiding Peter (and all Popes) in a special way. Perhaps even both.

Then there's the very fact that Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. God changed the names of only a few people throughout salvation history (Abraham comes to mind), and Peter is the only one whose name is changed by God in the New Testament (Jesus referred to John and James as the Sons of Thunder, but didn't actually change their names. As for Paul, that was his Roman name, which he adopted in order to preach to the gentiles). This name change signifies a change in one's mission. Peter was already in Jesus' "inner circle" (which included James, John and himself), and so was allowed to follow Him to places "closed off" to the others- for example, Jesus allowed him to view the healing of Jairus' daughter, not to mention the Transfiguration. But now Jesus was building him up to be a leader among leaders. We can see this elsewhere, particularly just prior to Jesus' arrest and after His resurrection (Luke 22:32 and John 21:15-19 respectively).

Then the phrase, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church". Peter means Rock. Of course, Matthew used petros for Peter and petra for the Rock He would build His Church on. But there's no distinction between the Greek of the two- at least not by the time Matthew got around to writing it, and not in the Koine Greek used. That aside, Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic, according to Eusebius the historian. In Aramaic, then, Jesus would have said, "You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church". So, no difference would exist in those manuscripts. It's only in the Greek (which, again, Matthew would have translated it into) and our own languages that we might see a difference. Such is the nature of language. So what that means is, Jesus was saying that He would build His Church on Peter.

Despite immediately afterwards being likened to Satan by Jesus (he had stopped allowing himself to be led by the Father and returned to the thinking of man) and his later denial of Jesus, not to mention his rebuke by Paul- none of this took away what Jesus had granted him. Paul didn't begin referring to him as Simon, but continued referring to him the way that Jesus had. Jesus didn't revoke His promise to Peter simply because he wasn't impeccable. Nor did- or could- Paul take anything from him.

Then there's the business of the keys, which- if Luke 11:52 is any indication- are a symbol of teaching authority. It echoes Isaiah 22, where the key is taken from an unworthy steward and given to a worthy one. Jesus has the authority to put on Peter's shoulder the keys. All of the apostles were given the authority to bind and loose, but only Peter was given the Keys.

We also find that Peter is singled out very often. An angel visited him to tell him about the Resurrection. Jesus revealed Himself to Peter before the other apostles after the Resurrection. Peter was the spokesperson of the apostles, heading the meeting to replace Judas. It was Peter who spoke to the Jews on Pentecost, preaching to them. He led the council in Jerusalem and declared dogma there. He was the one who received the revelation that Gentiles should be admitted to the Church.

He very clearly had a very special place among the apostles. If he were only "the first among equals" that wouldn't mean too much (and is poorly communicated in Scripture). For what reason would Jesus give someone a mere "honorary title", with nothing connected to it? Jesus named twelve Apostles, and they were given episcopal authority. They could drive out demons and heal the sick, and they had the authority to declare dogma. There was more to their office than a name- should we be expected to believe that Jesus ever handed on an empty title?

 

[TuxAme]

They called Peter the first Pope, but the RCC is not the same as Peter's group who shared all things in common (Acts 4:32).

What makes you say that?

 

[TuxAme]

I'm not particularly impressed with Peter. Paul had to rebuke him in Gal 2, where it was also noted that Peter was afraid of the group of the circumcision. Peter had been commanded by the Lord to leave Jerusalem and evangelize the world. But he and the Eleven procrastinated, and even declared their abandonment of ministry to Gentiles as Paul revealed in Gal 2:9. Then there was the fact that out of his own local church - the church at Jerusalem - the heresy of the circumcision was born right under his own nose, and it took a visit by Paul and Barnabus to point to out to him. He ended up only writing two epistles in the NT. Let alone compromising the gospel by endorsing James' Jerusalem decree. These among a few other missteps he took in the book of Acts, I wouldn't trust him to lead.

Can you imagine if God had made King David's office desolate because of what he did to Uriah? If He had sent him packing before Solomon could take the throne, and how all of that would have negatively affected salvation history?

I'd like to believe that the authors pointed these things out for our benefit, particularly the confrontation mentioned in Galatians. Paul had every right to call out Peter for his actions. But- as I mentioned in my first post- Paul never stopped referring to him as Cephas. He continued to use the name that Jesus had given him, and that's important. One doesn't cease to be whatever God made them merely because they're still prone to human failings.

 

[Albion]

He very clearly had a very special place among the apostles. If he were only "the first among equals" that wouldn't mean too much (and is poorly communicated in Scripture). For what reason would Jesus give someone a mere "honorary title", with nothing connected to it? Jesus named twelve Apostles, and they were given episcopal authority. They could drive out demons and heal the sick, and they had the authority to declare dogma. There was more to their office than a name- should we be expected to believe that Jesus ever handed on an empty title?

Well, for one thing, we must ALSO believe that he handed on this title (which doesn't indicate anything about a Papacy) to people who were NOT Apostles. How does that support your theory here about a Papacy?

Can you imagine if God had made King David's office desolate because of what he did to Uriah? If He had sent him packing before Solomon could take the throne, and how all of that would have negatively affected salvation history?

Keys mean something, yes, but they key given to David is not the same as the keys given to Peter. The connection you are trying to make between the two events doesn't exist.

 

[TuxAme]

Well, for one thing, we must ALSO believe that he handed on this title (which doesn't indicate anything about a Papacy) to people who were NOT Apostles. How does that support your theory here about a Papacy?

The title of Apostle is (and should be) unique to the Twelve and Paul. One wouldn't have to be an Apostle to receive Peter's office. Rather, they would have to be eligible to receive the same episcopal office as him, which would be the office of bishop. Apostle is a title, bishop is the office they all shared, and that is what was passed on to others (notably, Linus, who ended up succeeding him).

I'm not sure how Anglicans view holy orders, but surely you don't believe that they ended with the death of the last Apostle? As the Papacy is part of the holy orders itself, it wouldn't end there, either.

Anyways, Peter wasn't quite able to pass the torch himself- he was martyred. Besides, as you must know, Popes don't choose their own successors anyways. The future Pope is chosen by his peers, so it's unnecessary for the current Pope to choose his successor.

One more thing (and this leads into the second half of what you said): as this saying of Jesus is linked to Isaiah 22, which is concerning stewardship, we can reasonably assume that Peter's office is meant to perpetuate- unless we would say that the King wouldn't choose another to take his place.

Keys mean something, yes, but they key given to David is not the same as the keys given to Peter. The connection you are trying to make between the two events doesn't exist.

I don't think we need be too literalistic in our analysis. Do you believe in the Real Presence? If so, why would you? Don't you know that the Passover lamb had to be roasted before it could be eaten?

If that's not enough for you, let me first correct you- the key wasn't given to David, but Eliakim. He was to receive the key of the house of David.

Now, as for the plural use of keys, I would say that they're linked to what follows:

"And whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

That's binding and loosing- two separate actions. What I'm saying is, I take the plural use of keys to denote the different responsibilities of Peter's office. That being said, they do come together to make up the general responsibility of the chief steward, or the Pope: to govern the house of God, which is the Church (CCC 553). Now, that being said, that one responsibility breaks down into several different components: (1) to absolve sins, (2) to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and (3) to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. But surely we must find such evidence in the Scriptures, right?

1. To absolve sins As an Anglican, surely you believe in confession? And why wouldn't you? He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
2. To pronounce doctrinal judgements As a Christian, you've read the Scriptures, haven't you? How Peter stood up in the assembly and declared, "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."​
3. To make disciplinary decisions in the Church And because you read the Scriptures, you're also aware of how Peter excommunicated Simon the magician- who tried to buy his way into the episcopacy- when he said "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money! You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God."
   
   Scripture is alive- there's already so much going on in the foreground, but it's when you go behind the scenes that you see how things really are and how they all fit together. What would've happened had Toto never pulled back the curtain? Dorothy well would've been trapped in Oz. But thanks to a little digging, she came Home (and yes, that capitalization was intentional- a point is being made).​

 

[Albion]

The title of Apostle is (and should be) unique to the Twelve and Paul. One wouldn't have to be an Apostle to receive Peter's office. Rather, they would have to be eligible to receive the same episcopal office as him, which would be the office of bishop. Apostle is a title, bishop is the office they all shared, and that is what was passed on to others (notably, Linus, who ended up succeeding him).

The point there was that whatever facts are presented about Peter--and the Apostles generally--being special in Jesus eyes and plans, there is nothing to indicate that Christ meant that Peter could pass it onto someone else. And even if you argue that Apostolic Succession enters into the picture, Apostolic Succession is not about passing on any claims about a Papacy.

I'm not sure how Anglicans view holy orders, but surely you don't believe that they ended with the death of the last Apostle? As the Papacy is part of the holy orders itself, it wouldn't end there, either.

Apostolic Succession developed in the late first century as a matter of keeping order in the church. It is an historic and valuable institution, but it is not related to claims about a Papacy. The Eastern churches that are even older than both the Anglican an Roman churches have bishops in Apostolic Succession, as we know, but they don't believe in anything like the Papacy. If they did, they would certainly point to the fact that Antioch was where Peter first was bishop, so that would obviously be the Holy See, not Rome.

Anyways, Peter wasn't quite able to pass the torch himself- he was martyred. Besides, as you must know, Popes don't choose their own successors anyways. The future Pope is chosen by his peers, so it's unnecessary for the current Pope to choose his successor.

That first became the rule in your church during the Middle Ages, so its not going to work as an argument about the origins of the Papacy.

One more thing (and this not leads into the second half of what you said): as this saying of Jesus is linked to Isaiah 22, which is concerning stewardship, we can reasonably assume that Peter's office is meant to perpetuate- unless we would say that the King wouldn't choose another to take his place.

ASSUME is the word here--as it is with most of the alleged proofs that the church relies upon in defending the concept of a Papacy. But in fact, the keys given to Peter were about him being the one appointed to open the world to the Gospel (on Pentecost when that miracle of people from all over the Roman world hearing him speak as in their own languages occurred). Keys open things, right? There is no connection to the key given to david or to the position he was to hold.