Peter Is Not The Rock!

[beamishboy]

Then why do not the RCs become Anglican or Orthodox

Good question! We see a lot of highly conciliatory language but in effect, the division and chasm is as wide as the Grand Canyon. Incidentally, the beamishboy has been to the Grand Canyon. Breath-taking. America is beautiful even if its citizens are sometimes incomprehensible. I do find it hard to understand their spoken English. Hehe.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Good question! We see a lot of highly conciliatory language but in effect, the division and chasm is as wide as the Grand Canyon. Incidentally, the beamishboy has been to the Grand Canyon. Breath-taking. America is beautiful even if its citizens are sometimes incomprehensible. I do find it hard to understand their spoken English. Hehe.

We saw it when I was about 12 yrs old. I got car sick a lot and I ended up puking right over the edge of it when we got there

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7286527
Isaiah 14:12 Lucifer translation

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

Let me assure you that there was no sarcasm here.

My dear Anglian,

The beamishboy has grown somewhat and can now spot sarcasm and understand it! Hehe. I now read between the lines with discernment (even if I say so myself; hehe).

I know you mean to say that Protestants treat our own reading of the Bible as infallible.

When I read you writing about other Anglicans as people to be driven out of your Church, that does, alas, sound like the language of infallibility. The Anglo-Catholics have as much right to be in your Church as you do, as do those Episcopalians and Anglicans who hold it right to have gay priests; as you have admitted, a whole range of views exist within your Church, and for you to write as though your own position is the normative one is what makes me think there is a kind of assumption in what you write that your own view is infallible.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are doctrines that have nothing to do with the interpretation of Scriptures.

Catholics would disagree, and support these doctrines with Scriptural references; that you do not agree with them is natural, but to imply that these have nothing to do with the interpretation of Scripture is a little odd.

The only thing you can say about us is that we read and interpret Scriptures. Any reasonable man who reads something must interpret it.

So do we all all; the difference seems to be that you claim your own personal interpretation has a higher place even than that of those set in authority over you, such as your Archbishop; we, and the Catholics, accept the reading offered within Holy Tradition.

In the light of what I have said, I hope you can see that your statement that we claim infallibility is invidious, false and offensive.

I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but do reread what you write and you may understand why it sounds like you are saying your views are normative and infallible.

You say you do no more than read the plain meaning of Scripture, but then admit what we all knew, that it needs to be interpreted. As Narnia points out so well:

Claiming that Protestants take a 'plain' reading without layering interpretation, context, language and culture as opposed to Catholics just doesn't hold up I'm afraid.

The difference between us seems to be that you take as your interpretative framework your own interpretation, along with that of your vicar and a set of writings drawn up in the sixteenth century, whilst the Catholics and Orthodox take their interpretation from the Holy Tradition of which the Bible itself is part. Why might that difference matter? Well, again, Narnia expresses it best here:

Without any assurance that the faith is guarded, there are no limits as to what defines a Christian. Thus, those who claim that Jesus is really not God based upon their interpretation -- in. The gnostics who claim that Jesus really was not fully man -- in. The nestorians who claimed that Jesus really existed as two persons -- in. Those who today claim that there was not really a physical resurrection -- in. Those who exclude the virgin birth -- in.

Your own Church suffers greatly as a result. For all your hope that the gay lobby or the Anglo-Catholics will go away, and for all your implications that they are not part of your Church, they are, and they won't go away, and, what is more, your own Archbishop seems to have no authority to discipline them.

Narnia is quite correct when she writes:

You cannot have it both ways. Either scripture belongs to personal interpretation alone in which case there are no defined doctrines that speak for Christianity, or there must be some authority recognized which establishes the doctrines.

The Anglican Church has been a four hundred year experiment in whether one can actually have it both ways; but as we see the results of that experiment, it would seem that what one gets is a theological and jurisdictional incoherence in terms of the world-wide communion, and a shrinking Church in the UK. I regret this last, because, despite your own comments about other Anglicans, your Church has been a brave attempt to combine pluralism in practice with orthodoxy of theology. But the attempt to keep those who believe in gay ordination, the ordination of women bishops in the same Church with those who don't, seems to be failing.

You may, I guess, get your wish. But with the social liberals and the Anglo-Catholics gone, the Anglican claim to be any sort of national Church will be even more flimsy than its current low numbers suggest. We have already seen that the number of Catholics in the UK going to Church exceeds the number of Anglicans, so maybe a union between Anglican evangelicals and the old nonconformist denominations is the best way to go, and you are actually in its vanguard. It's a thought, I guess.

For Orthodox and Catholics on the other hand, there is the shared heritage as successors of that Church which has always accorded a primacy of honour to Rome, and the task, begun by John Paul the Great and continued by Pope Benedict, of working through how that ancient primacy might best be understood in a world where the Faith is met by the challenges of secular relativism and Islamic absolutism.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[narnia59]

I don't know what language is spoken in America but I can assure you that in my native language, "was" is perfectly legitimate. We say, "It was wrong of the French public to execute Louis XVI in the late 18th century" and this does not carry with it the implication that we think it is right to execute the king if he were to live today. I have not read any American grammar book on this but I find it hard to believe that English grammar in the US is that much different from what we have here in England. But then again, I have been to America and I must say I was quite flummoxed by some of their strange usage.

Your Anglican friends may very well be pro-Rome and it is only natural that you would consider them more "Christian". I perfectly understand that since to me, anything more Protestant and less Romish does appear more "Christian". Like I said, both our religions are poles apart and the sooner our churches realise that a union is totally out of the question, the better it is for all of us.

Beamishboy, I find it interesting that you do not see the fact that a public official cannot disclose their choice of faith, or that a monarch may be deposed for even marrying a Catholic as being in the least bit discriminatory in the current 'is' of the way things are? And correct me if I'm wrong, but the same monarch could marry a Muslim or a Hindu or an atheist and retain the crown, correct, as long as they don't marry a Catholic? You seem to take quite a bit of pride in the fact that this is the case.

I also never said or implied that those I know are more 'Christian'. I simply said I find their views to be much more representative of the body of Christ, meaning they have a much more 'inclusive' view of who perhaps might belong and seem less inclined to believe the church would be 'purer' if those who disagreed with them were no longer a part of their church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your own Church suffers greatly as a result. For all your hope that the gay lobby or the Anglo-Catholics will go away, and for all your implications that they are not part of your Church, they are, and they won't go away, and, what is more, your own Archbishop seems to have no authority to discipline them.

Thou reapeth what thou sowest. Thus says the Lord

Matthew 2:10 Seeing yet the star, they rejoiced joyingly, great, exceedingly/sfodra <4970>. [Reve 16:21]

Reve 16:21 And hail, great as talent-weight is descending out of the heaven upon the men. And blaspheme the men the God out of the blow of the hail, that great is the blow of her, tremendous/sfodra <4970>

 

[beamishboy]

My dear Anglian and Narnia,

Addressing both of you is great because it's like the Protestant Church is speaking to the Orthodox Church and the RC Church. Hehe.

I think you are unable to comprehend the real extent of the Protestant mind. To me, it is terrible that American Anglicans seem quite keen on having gay marriages. That's a sin. But to me, it is far far far, infinitely far worse if the Anglican church had union with the RC church. Let me explain in a way that will be sensitive to RC and Orthodox feelings.

I have lived for almost 14 years (it's ok if you discount the first 6 years but even at that age, I could absorb the facts around me - scientists have shown how even a baby can assimilate facts from his parents' conversations). I haven't lived that long without observing around me the things that are happening. It's natural that I'll draw my own conclusions.

I have no doubt in my mind; I am absolutely definitely positively certain that the RC church has departed so far from Apostolic teachings that it is only redeemable if RCs abandon ship and become Protestant. I'm trying very hard not to sound offensive but I don't know how else to explain my feelings so that you know exactly what I (and many of my brother Protestants) think. It's not just my thoughts; it's my entire being - every cell in my body is imprinted with the anti-RC chromosome. And I'm anti-RC only because I genuinely believe that the RC church has taken many souls away from Christ.

Now, I will explain why the gay issue in my church does not bother me as much as the pro-Rome problems. Let me give you an example. If the vicar of a church is a practising gay, the fact that he commits sin is something God will have to deal with. Apart from his high-pitched voice and pansy movements, there is no real stamp of homosexuality and even the high voice and behaviour are not a conclusive indicator of his sexual wrongs. But if the vicar is RC, he will bring in what I believe to be heresy and false teachings into my church. He may induce us to kiss, bow down and kneel to idols. He may make us invoke dead people (forbidden in the 39 Articles) in our prayers. All these are a direct harm to our spiritual lives, whereas his homosexuality won't encroach into our religious arena at all.

But even if, which is unlikely, there is a union between Rome and Canterbury, God's people will break away from that union and form a church that the beamishboy can seek refuge in - a church that teaches only the truths of scriptures. Even if there is no break-away group, there are enough Bible-believing Protestant churches that the beamishboy can go to. There will be enough of my brothers and sisters in the Lord with whom I can worship God in truth and in spirit.

But the beamishboy has aspirations of joining the ailing Church of England and purge it of non-Protestant elements. With the strong connections that I have and with God on my side, the beamishboy may very well play a pivotal role in steering the CoE between Scylla and Charybdis and emerge unscathed. Hehe.

 

[beamishboy]

Beamishboy, I find it interesting that you do not see the fact that a public official cannot disclose their choice of faith, or that a monarch may be deposed for even marrying a Catholic as being in the least bit discriminatory in the current 'is' of the way things are? And correct me if I'm wrong, but the same monarch could marry a Muslim or a Hindu or an atheist and retain the crown, correct, as long as they don't marry a Catholic?

I'm afraid you are wrong. The monarch of England must be of the Church of England. He must be Protestant. He cannot be RC, Orthodox, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. I think he may be an atheist if he is a secret atheist. It's easiest for an atheist to masquerade as a person of whatever religion because he doesn't mind doing anything since he doesn't believe in God. England is not anti-RC just for the sake of being anti-RC. It is supposed to strive to be true to God's word and it won't do if the monarch becomes a Hindu or a muslim. He or she will have to abdicate for sure.

My Dad is an atheist but he participates in all the religious rituals of my church and our school (it's his school too). Our school which pre-dates the English Reformation is firmly Anglican and has been so since the reformation.

 

[beamishboy]

We saw it when I was about 12 yrs old. I got car sick a lot and I ended up puking right over the edge of it when we got there

I know what you mean. We took a really tiny plane to the Grand Canyon. The pilot showed us Hoover's Dam, etc but throughout the journey, I felt like puking. It was terrible - the ride.

 

[narnia59]

I'm afraid you are wrong. The monarch of England must be of the Church of England. He must be Protestant. He cannot be RC, Orthodox, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. I think he may be an atheist if he is a secret atheist. It's easiest for an atheist to masquerade as a person of whatever religion because he doesn't mind doing anything since he doesn't believe in God. England is not anti-RC just for the sake of being anti-RC. It is supposed to strive to be true to God's word and it won't do if the monarch becomes a Hindu or a muslim. He or she will have to abdicate for sure.

My Dad is an atheist but he participates in all the religious rituals of my church and our school (it's his school too). Our school which pre-dates the English Reformation is firmly Anglican and has been so since the reformation.

According to the Act of Settlement of 1701, I'm not wrong. I did not say the monarch could be of another faith -- it clearly says they must be in communion with the Church of England. I said that they could not marry a Catholic. The same Act puts only that restriction on whom they may marry. It does not say that their spouse must be a member of the Church of England. They can marry any of those I mentioned (Muslim, Hindu, atheist) and it is not in violation of the Act, as long as they do not marry a Catholic, and they themselves remain in communion with the Church of England.

Although you appear to have an interesting definition of what being 'in communion' means, if you think they can be a secret atheist, and as long as somebody participates in all the religious rituals for the show of it, well, that's not a problem. At least, not as big of a problem as if someone were Catholic.

 

[beamishboy]

According to the Act of Settlement of 1701, I'm not wrong. I did not say the monarch could be of another faith -- it clearly says they must be in communion with the Church of England. I said that they could not marry a Catholic. The same Act puts only that restriction on whom they may marry. It does not say that their spouse must be a member of the Church of England. They can marry any of those I mentioned (Muslim, Hindu, atheist) and it is not in violation of the Act, as long as they do not marry a Catholic, and they themselves remain in communion with the Church of England.

Although you appear to have an interesting definition of what being 'in communion' means, if you think they can be a secret atheist, and as long as somebody participates in all the religious rituals for the show of it, well, that's not a problem. At least, not as big of a problem as if someone were Catholic.

I think in the 1700s they didn't know about Muslims and Hindus. They only knew of the RCs.

You misunderstood me. When I said an atheist could still do the rituals I was thinking about my Dad. He could do Anglican rituals as part of the State ceremonies and the ceremonies of some of our institutions such as school. That's because he's an atheist. But it would of course be a problem if he were an RC or a Muslim. He would then have to put his foot down and refuse to perform Anglican rituals. I didn't say an atheist was better than an RC. I meant an atheist could get away with being a king by just doing Anglican rituals because they wouldn't bother him. So he doesn't have to abdicate. But you turned my innocent remark into something pernicious against RCs when it really wasn't intended to be.

 

[Rhamiel]

I think in the 1700s they didn't know about Muslims and Hindus.

you should know your british history better then that, Cromwell was a puritan, there were many breakoff denominations in England at that time, maybe not Hindus and Muslims, that would not have really been a practical concern, but still, there were other faiths

 

[beamishboy]

you should know your british history better then that, Cromwell was a puritan, there were many breakoff denominations in England at that time, maybe not Hindus and Muslims, that would not have really been a practical concern, but still, there were other faiths

But that simply demonstrates what I've been trying to tell all the RCs and Orthodox. A Protestant is a Protestant and even though there are many different Protestant denominations, we are unified and one in the Lord. I mentioned the exchange programme in my school. I attended the Christian fellowship in that school and noted that the RCs aren't called Christians. They were called Catholics. Only the Protestants were considered Christians. Even the non-Christians in that country do not consider RCs Christian. It's always: Are you a Christian or a Catholic? And among the Christians, there is such a wondrous unity despite the diversity. That's something which is again demonstrated in the Parliamentary Act mentioned.

 

[Rhamiel]

Beamishboy

A Protestant is a Protestant and even though there are many different Protestant denominations, we are unified and one in the Lord.

there is no unity among protestant. There are differant schools of thought that denominations fall into and there might be unity among those in the same school, but there is no unity over the broad spectrum of protestantism.
Protestants can not agree on the effects of Baptsim
Protestants can not agree on Calvanism or Arminism
Prostestants can not agree weather child baptism is permissible
Protestants can not agree on the nature of the Lords Supper
Protestants can not agree on the role of ordained pastors/priests
Protestants can not agree on if women should be pastors
Protestants can not agree on the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved (or "preservation of the saints" as it is more formally called)
Protestants can not agree on if drinking alcohol in moderation is a sin
some of these things are more important then others but all of them show a lack of unity.

Even the non-Christians in that country do not consider RCs Christian.

and we are to let the world define us? for years christians have had all kinds of false claims made agianst them. What country were you in btw?

 

[beamishboy]

Beamishboy
there is no unity among protestant. There are differant schools of thought that denominations fall into and there might be unity among those in the same school, but there is no unity over the broad spectrum of protestantism.
Protestants can not agree on the effects of Baptsim
Protestants can not agree on Calvanism or Arminism
Prostestants can not agree weather child baptism is permissible
Protestants can not agree on the nature of the Lords Supper
Protestants can not agree on the role of ordained pastors/priests
Protestants can not agree on if women should be pastors
Protestants can not agree on the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved (or "preservation of the saints" as it is more formally called)
Protestants can not agree on if drinking alcohol in moderation is a sin
some of these things are more important then others but all of them show a lack of unity.
and we are to let the world define us? for years christians have had all kinds of false claims made agianst them. What country were you in btw?

At least I can say one thing. All true Protestants are saved. It's a full stop at the end of that sentence. No "and..." and no "also...".

 

[katholikos]

NON-Copyright source of this post: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/pete.html

===================================


There can be no question, for the attentive reader of the New Testament, that in addition to what the Apostles had in common, something set Peter apart and made him unique. Discounting self-reference, e.g. Peter and Paul naming themselves in their own epistles, Peter's name[3] appears more times in the New Testament than any other Apostle, including Paul.[4] Peter is always named first in lists of the Apostles in the synoptic Gospels (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:12-16; see also Acts 1:13), in spite of the fact that his brother Andrew was called before him (according to John 1:40-42). Matthew even uses the word "first"[5] to describe Peter in his list, without enumerating the rest. Sometimes the Apostles are simply referred to as "Simon/Peter and his companions" (Luke 9:32, Mark 1:36 & 16:7, Acts 2:14, 1 Cor. 15:5)! He frequently acted as their spokesman (Matt. 16:13-16 & 17:24, Mark 8:27-29, Luke 12:41, John 6:67-69), and because of this was the first to publicly proclaim the Gospel (Acts 2:14-40). God directly revealed to Peter Who Jesus Christ is (Matt. 16:17)[6] and the inclusion of the Gentiles (Acts 10:9-48). Clearly, scripture testifies, there is something different about Peter and his role in the Church.

It is Jesus Christ Himself Who gave Simon Bar-Jonah, the fisherman, this unique place among His twelve Apostles. The most obvious place to begin is Simon's name, which Jesus changed. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, "And I say to you [Simon], you are Peter [Petros], and upon this rock [petra] I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." The unfailing Church of Jesus Christ, in other words, is built upon Simon the Rock - Peter. Like the Patriarchs Abram/Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and Jacob/Israel (Gen. 32:28), Simon/Peter received a new identity from the Lord.

Aha, Catholic opponents often say, here is a weakness! Petros (Petros, masculine) is not exactly the same word as petra (petra, feminine). The rock on which Jesus' Church is built is not Simon Peter, they claim, but Simon's confession of faith or perhaps Jesus Himself. The weakness of "the Petros/petra distinction argument" is that in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, the same word, kepha, would be used in both places. But how can we know with certainty that Jesus was speaking Aramaic and not Greek when He renamed Simon? John confirms it: "You are Simon Bar-Jonah; you will be called Kefas [Kefas is Kepha in Greek letters]" (John 1:42). John then explains to his readers, "[Kefas] is translated Petros." Using the Aramaic term, Matthew 16:18 reads "you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build My Church." Catholics do not deny that Simon's confession and Jesus are truly and legitimately called "rock,"[7] but Simon Peter is the primary Rock Jesus is talking about in Matthew 16:18.

Although the reception of a new name is significant in itself, as we know from the stories of Abraham and Israel, Matthew 16:18 also promises that it is on Simon Peter that Jesus' Church will be built. Even though the Apostles in general have been called a "foundation" (Eph. 2:20), Jesus singled Simon Peter out as the "Rock." A similar thing occurs in 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." "Binding and loosing"[8] is a charism given to all the Apostles (Matt. 18:18), but Peter is singled out for "the keys." He is their sole recipient. Something is common to all Apostles, but something is particular to Peter.

Apologists who strictly equate Matthew 16:19 with 18:18[9] miss a rare but crucial biblical motif: "keys" equal authority. Consider the words of Jesus in Revelation 1:18: "Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and hell." What does Jesus mean when He says He holds "the keys"? In Peter's words, Jesus has authority or rights over death: "it was impossible for [Jesus] to be held by [death]" (Acts 2:24). Jesus holds "the keys" of death, death does not hold Jesus.

If "keys" represent authority, what kind of authority is Jesus conferring on Peter in Matthew 16:19? Jesus gives Peter "keys" to a Kingdom. What kind of King is Jesus? Jesus is a King in the line of David (Luke 1:32). So the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus mentions is nevertheless a truly Davidic Kingdom. Jesus possesses "the key" of David (Rev. 3:7), and it is within His authority as Davidic King to authorize Peter, which He does in Matthew 16:19. This is in keeping with the Old Testament practice of kings in the line of David. Jesus reigns through His ministers.

Like other kings in the ancient middle east, kings in the line of David kept what we would call a "cabinet of ministers (or stewards)."[10] One might oversee the treasury, another the military, another stores of food, for example. From among these, one would be authorized as the chief or prime minister (vizier, majordomo), to direct and coordinate the administration of other ministers in the name and service of the king. The Patriarch Joseph once served in a similar capacity in Egypt (Gen. 41:37-46). An example of this office in Jerusalem may be found in Isaiah 22. Shebna, an unworthy "master of the palace" (Isa. 22:15), was being replaced by Eliakim. Eliakim, as the new prime minister, was "father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah,"[11] holding "the key" of the House of David, and what he "opened and shut" remained so (Isa. 22:20-24). Only the king himself outranked his prime minister in authority (Gen. 41:40).

Those apologists who try to collapse "the keys" into the more general "binding and loosing" can only do so by ignoring the historical and biblical significance of "the keys of the kingdom." "Keys" were only given to one man at a time, giving him a particular authority, not simply honor, over the rest of the king's ministers. Jesus gives "the keys" of His Kingdom to Peter alone among the Apostles; "the keys" are not mentioned in passages like Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23. The Apostles, familiar with Isaiah and with Israel's history, would have understood the imagery Jesus evoked. It need not have been any more explicit.

Yet Jesus singled Peter out on other occasions as well. At the Last Supper, in the midst of foretelling Peter's betrayal, a very negative thing, Jesus gives Peter a particular positive mission. "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed that your [singular] own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you [singular] must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:31-32). As James informs his readers, the prayers of a righteous man like Jesus avail much (Jas. 5:16b), and though Peter unfortunately denied knowing the Lord three times, he did turn and strengthen his brothers. One might say he did this in a number of ways. For example, Peter decided that, according to Scripture, a successor to Judas' office must be appointed (Acts 1:15-22) so that the original number of Apostles would not be diminished (weakened). Peter was also the first to command the baptism of Gentiles (Acts 10:46-48), an action which increased the number of Christians by leaps and bounds. As mentioned above, he was considered the first witness to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:5) and was the first to explain the outpouring of the Spirit and preach the Gospel publicly (Acts 2:14-40).

Peter is again singled out by Jesus in John 21:15-19. A few things make this passage interesting. Jesus asked Peter if Peter loved Him, in the agape (charity) sense. Peter responded that he loved Jesus in the philos (friendship) sense. This exchange is repeated. Finally, Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him in the philos sense, and Peter said Jesus knew everything, and that he loved Him in the philos sense. On the one hand, one could say that Peter's distress or shame in verse 17 arises from the triple denial parallel, but it may have arisen from his inability to affirmatively answer the question that Jesus was actually asking (or some combination of the two). Regardless, Jesus gives Peter a particular charge each time, to govern[12] and feed Jesus' sheep. Peter's personal failures in faithfulness, clearly emphasized in this passage, do not seem to have any effect on Jesus' choice: He still wants to entrust Peter with His flock, and only Peter is given this direct instruction.[13] Jesus' last "Follow me" statements (apparently to the cross) are directed to Peter alone.[14]

Of the Twelve, only Simon Peter received a new identity from the Lord, only Simon Peter was the "Rock" on which Jesus promised to build His Church, only Peter received the "keys" of prime ministerial authority from Jesus, only Peter was charged by Jesus to strengthen his brothers, and only Peter was given the threefold charge of governing and feeding Jesus' sheep. The language of Peter's primacy, in Scripture, is no mere "primacy of honor." Peter is given crucial duties and responsibilities and authorized to carry them out.[15] Jesus clearly makes Peter a servant, leader, and unifier to all His Apostles and disciples. This is the testimony of Scripture.

Testimony of Sacred Tradition

The scriptural testimony to Petrine primacy is both substantial and entirely trustworthy, but it is not alone. Sacred Tradition is a second reliable witness to the authentic Christian faith. The historical practice of the Church and the writings of the Fathers, with the Bible, testify that Peter was truly one of the Twelve but also more. Petrine primacy is not an invention of the 9th century, or the 11th, or the 19th. Understanding and expression of the office have grown like a mustard tree from its seed (Matt. 13:31-32), but the office of the papacy has been with us since its institution by Jesus Christ.[16]

Why do we need a second testimony? A second testimony is important because even heretics appeal to Scripture to defend their doctrines.[17] "The devil himself has quoted Scripture texts," said St. Jerome, "we could all, while preserving the letter of Scripture, read into it some novel doctrine."[18] To show that we are not such Bible-quoting heretics, Catholics appeal to the Church's Sacred Tradition.

Patristic testimony supporting Petrine primacy (of authority, not merely honor) is plentiful. Most important are the sources which predate the East/West Schism, and among those, the Eastern Fathers. Here are some samples of things said about Peter and his successors at Rome (emphasis added): LINK

Conclusion

A point of clarification is long overdue. Many people in modernity equate the word "authority" with "arbitrary power" and "power" with mere "brute force." To most moderns, might makes right. This is not what the Catholic Church means by authority. When we speak of the pope's authority we mean, rather, that the pope has been given the right, by the Lord, to maintain unity in the Church in the Lord's order of faith and morals. He has this right, with or without "might," because he was given the responsibility or the dictate of service: to serve the Lord by being Servant to the Lord's ministers and faithful. The only "power" he has, really, is the power of God's grace which enables him to serve. Like Jesus, Peter truly "leads" and "rules" by self-sacrificial service.

The Petrine office was, as Scripture and Sacred Tradition (even in the East prior to the Schism) both faithfully testify, established by Jesus Christ for the service and benefit of His Church and all her members. Though the papacy was not born full grown, like Athena from Zeus' head, it is certainly not a late breaking Western innovation by any stretch of the imagination.
Footnotes

 

[MamaZ]

Beamishboy
there is no unity among protestant. There are differant schools of thought that denominations fall into and there might be unity among those in the same school, but there is no unity over the broad spectrum of protestantism.
Protestants can not agree on the effects of Baptsim
Protestants can not agree on Calvanism or Arminism
Prostestants can not agree weather child baptism is permissible
Protestants can not agree on the nature of the Lords Supper
Protestants can not agree on the role of ordained pastors/priests
Protestants can not agree on if women should be pastors
Protestants can not agree on the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved (or "preservation of the saints" as it is more formally called)
Protestants can not agree on if drinking alcohol in moderation is a sin
some of these things are more important then others but all of them show a lack of unity.
and we are to let the world define us? for years christians have had all kinds of false claims made agianst them. What country were you in btw?

Are all of these you offer above dependent on our salvation? For we preach Christ Crucified and risen to the saving of the soul..
We preach that there is no other foundation layed but Christ Jesus. We may not all agree on all doctrine issues but we do preach Christ.. We do not give Gods glory to any other but God Himself.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

On the subject of the Act of Settlement, I'm afraid you are not correct. Of course English people knew Islam and Hinduism existed, they traded with people of both religions. The Act only prohibits the monarch from marrying a Catholic; that is clear discrimination, and, for many, nothing to be proud of at all.

I think you are unable to comprehend the real extent of the Protestant mind. To me, it is terrible that American Anglicans seem quite keen on having gay marriages. That's a sin. But to me, it is far far far, infinitely far worse if the Anglican church had union with the RC church.

It is this sort of comment which prompted mine about infallibility. Here you claim to be able to decide that something which the Bible prohibits as a sin is not as bad as some other sin you claim to have discovered. Whence comes this ability to decide between the degree of sinfulness? The plainest of plain readings of Scripture prohibits active homosexuality, so whence comes your power to declare it a lesser sin? Not even the Pope in Rome claims to do that - yet you are happy so to do?

I have no doubt in my mind; I am absolutely definitely positively certain that the RC church has departed so far from Apostolic teachings that it is only redeemable if RCs abandon ship and become Protestant. I'm trying very hard not to sound offensive but I don't know how else to explain my feelings so that you know exactly what I (and many of my brother Protestants) think. It's not just my thoughts; it's my entire being - every cell in my body is imprinted with the anti-RC chromosome.

I have asked you before where such feelings are commended by Our Lord, and how they fit with His gospel of love; you have never answered this question.

And I'm anti-RC only because I genuinely believe that the RC church has taken many souls away from Christ.

Do you see, here, again the infallibility in action? Your being genuinely convinced of something does not make you right, nor does it justify the attitude you evince towards Catholic Christians. I have seen no one deny that Protestants are Christians, if misguided; but you seem to be denying the very title of Christian to Catholics.

Even if there is no break-away group, there are enough Bible-believing Protestant churches that the beamishboy can go to. There will be enough of my brothers and sisters in the Lord with whom I can worship God in truth and in spirit.

Do you not see how very offensive such a comment is? It implies that only in such conventicles can God be worshipped in truth and in spirit. What did Christians do for the 1500 years previously?

But the beamishboy has aspirations of joining the ailing Church of England and purge it of non-Protestant elements. With the strong connections that I have and with God on my side, the beamishboy may very well play a pivotal role in steering the CoE between Scylla and Charybdis and emerge unscathed. Hehe.

Well, I wish you luck, but an attitude which suggests that only one of the many strands within Anglicanism is correct, is unlikely to leave anything that looks like historic Anglicanism left. Do you not perceive that those in favour of Anglo-Catholicism or Gay rights within your Church have as much right to their position as you do?

At least I can say one thing. All true Protestants are saved.

Is this a final claim to some kind of infallibility? The most any of us can say is that only God knows who will be saved. For any sinful man to claim to such certainty is to arrogate to himself what is God's. God's wisdom may be, in the eys of humans, folly, and our wisdom His folly. The Incarnate Word founded a Church, He wrote no book. His Church canonised the words of the Apostles and has continued to teach them faithfully. Before the sixteenth century this was accepted by both Catholics and Orthodox. Those who subsequently decided they knew better will hold to that opinion; the rest of us hold to what has always been held.

On the subject of the OP, it would be interesting if someone came up with an answer to Narnia's excellent question of why Christ changed Peter's name to Rock if it had no significance.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Are all of these you offer above dependent on our salvation? For we preach Christ Crucified and risen to the saving of the soul..
We preach that there is no other foundation layed but Christ Jesus. We may not all agree on all doctrine issues but we do preach Christ.. We do not give Gods glory to any other but God Himself.

Dear MamaZ,



So do we all - but some do so and deny the divinity of Christ; others do so and deny His humanity; yet others do so and divide Him from His Father. As He says, not all who call Him 'Lord' will He acknowledge.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[katholikos]

Beamishboy
there is no unity among protestant. There are differant schools of thought that denominations fall into and there might be unity among those in the same school, but there is no unity over the broad spectrum of protestantism.
Protestants can not agree on the effects of Baptsim
Protestants can not agree on Calvanism or Arminism
Prostestants can not agree weather child baptism is permissible
Protestants can not agree on the nature of the Lords Supper
Protestants can not agree on the role of ordained pastors/priests
Protestants can not agree on if women should be pastors
Protestants can not agree on the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved (or "preservation of the saints" as it is more formally called)
Protestants can not agree on if drinking alcohol in moderation is a sin
some of these things are more important then others but all of them show a lack of unity.
and we are to let the world define us? for years christians have had all kinds of false claims made agianst them. What country were you in btw?

And yet they all claim that the Holy Spirit leads them in interpreting the Scriptures. LOL. There must be a lot of Holy Spirits out there... ...or some kind of spirits anyway

 

[simonthezealot]

And yet they all claim that the Holy Spirit leads them in interpreting the Scriptures. LOL. There must be a lot of Holy Spirits out there...

GOOD job katholikos...Mocking the HS