Peter the First Pope?

[DArceri]

About halfway through Acts attention turns away from Peter and to the activities of Paul, and the Bible is fairly silent on what occurred to Peter afterwards. A fleeting mention of Peter being in Antioch is made in Gal 2:20 where Paul confronted him, and historians have furnished other evidence of Peter's sojourn in Antioch. Most accounts of Peter by the Catholic church is based on assumptions that fit the churches need for a Pope. Again, biblically, the Church is those "In Christ " (ie. beleivers with the Holy Spirit) and Christ is the cornerstone of our faith. All papal authority is the RCC reading between the lines. Eph. 5:23-25 shows that Christ is the only head of the church.


One of the greatest arguments against the primacy of Peter is the fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves as to which of them should be the greatest. Notice the following:

"Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'" (Luke 22:24-26).​

The very fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they did not understand that Peter was to be prince. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal--the last night of the Lord's earthly ministry--and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their heads, "But not so with you." Thus, Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the others.

 

[DArceri]

Peter was truly an important man, just as Paul was. In all groups some people are more outspoken than others, and this was surely Peter's case. But nothing says he was Pope or head of the church. The fact a man is able to speak well does not prove he has authority over others.

 

[DArceri]

A Better Case Could Be Made to Prove Paul Was Pope.
Both we and Catholics deny that Paul was ever a Pope, but if we used the kind of reasoning that is used to "prove" Peter to be Pope, we could make a better case that Paul was Pope.
* Paul was not married (1 Corinthians 7).
* Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.
* Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); Peter never rebuked Paul.
* Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).
* Paul was not behind any apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter never made such a claim for himself.
* Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books. Peter wrote only 2 little ones.
* Peter cited Paul's letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15,16), but Paul never cited Peter's letters as authority.
* Scripture expressly tells us Paul was in Rome, but never says Peter was there.
* Paul's labors exceeded those of other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:23).
Now if, despite all these facts, we properly conclude that Paul was not a Pope, then surely we can see that the evidence offered for Peter as Pope is equally unconvincing.

 

[DarkLord]

LOL all u have done is merely listed various reasons why Paul is better than Peter...every sole in Christendom would have spat on you for the first 1500yrs.

1) Whose name did the Lord change?

2) To whom did the Lord give the KEYS alone?

3) To whom did the Lord allow to exercise the powers of binding and loosing alone?

4) To whom did the Lord say to feed his sheeps

5) Who was answerable to the Lord on them sleeping in Gethsamne

6) Whom did the Lord pray that his faith will never fail and to strengthen his brothers?

7) Who alone did Christ pay the half shekel tax for?

Those are the verses which u ahve not handled at all....Peter being given the keys (prime minster office etc). U failed to deal with all this listed above.

Church Father I suppose were all liars:

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]). St Clement of Alexandria

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]). St Origen

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27). Cyril of Juerasalem

"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).Ephraim the Syrian

 

[Optimax]

The pope does not go Malaysia and tell wad the Bishop of Malaysia has to do. Paul listened to Peters teachings. this is clear in the Council when he amde no argument after Peter voiced out his doctrine. Peter exercises his authoirty by finding a replacement fer judas.

I suppose when Christ gave the Keys to Peter...that meant nothing. When Christ gave Peter the directive to feed his sheeps....that meant nothing. When Christ told Peter to strengthen the Apostles....that meant nothing.

Why did Christ give Peter alone the Keys which represent a prime minister role in a Davidic Kingdom?

I suppose Irenaus was lying here in Against Heresies

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

Jesus also said this to Peter.

Mt 16:23
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan : thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
KJV

 

[DarkLord]

Jesus also said this to Peter.

Mt 16:23
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan : thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
KJV

1) Did Christ revoke his gifts to Peter? No why because popes can still sin however the powers of binding and loosing gurantees Peter ability teach without error...he cant bind and loose error in heaven.

2) Note how Satan attempts to attack Peter. But Christ drove it away...divine protection of the office. Thats why the papacy has survived for 2000yrs with all our teachings intact.

3) To further reinforce my pt, look at this quote

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

Why dont u go even further and say the Peter denied Christ thrice. But did Jesus take away the gift...NO. Instead he told him to feed his sheep thrice.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1) Did Christ revoke his gifts to Peter?

You first need to verify that Christ ever gave "them," what "they" are, and why Peter had the right to give 'em away.

So far, no one has done that.


Once that's verified, we can discuss your question.


Half of the world's Christians have been waiting for some confirmation of these self-claims for over 1000 years, but patience IS a virtue. Maybe you'll be the one, my Catholic friend!!! I hope so, you certainly seem promising!



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[Trento]

Jesus also said this to Peter.

Mt 16:23
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan : thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
KJV

Jesus calls Peter "blessed" (makarios in Greek). This word always denotes the blessedness of the person whose relationship to God is correct and holy. Read Mt. 5:1-11; Rom. 4:7-8; Lk. 1:45. There is another word for "blessed" (eulogetos in Greek) which is used only of God and means "Praise". For example, Lk. 1:68


Luke 22:31-32 "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.

The opening of this section in Mark's epistle finds Jesus speaking openly about what will happen to Jesus. Peter cannot believe this is going to happen and rebukes Jesus. Jesus responds by rebuking Peter. The specific rebuke, though, is directed at Satan.
In the Garden of Eden, Eve was seduced by Satan and then in turn seduced Adam. Adam, listening to Eve instead of paying attention to the things of God, agreed with what Satan had in mind.
In this parable the three figures are seen again. Jesus plays the role of Adam, Peter of Eve and Satan plays himself.
In this replay of the original story is different from the original in one very important way. Instead of listening to Eve, Adam rebukes Satan: "You have in mind the things of men rather than the things of God."
Jesus is adding an editorial: This is how Adam should have responded. Jesus did not end relationship with Peter. Jesus simply dealt with his sin.

 

[Trento]

You first need to verify that Christ ever gave "them," what "they" are, and why Peter had the right to give 'em away.

So far, no one has done that.


Once that's verified, we can discuss your question.


Half of the world's Christians have been waiting for some confirmation of these self-claims for over 1000 years, but patience IS a virtue. Maybe you'll be the one, my Catholic friend!!! I hope so, you certainly seem promising!



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

No one has verified what books and letters
constitute inspired scripture. The New Testament does not tell us that.
Half the worlds Christians who are waiting for these self claimes need to find a definitive table of contents to be obeyed by all
Christians.

 

[Trento]

In 1 Pet 5:1-4, is it not clear that Peter does not see himself in a position of supremacy?

If Peter was supreme, why does it seem that James was the dominant person at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13-35)

Let's look at how this dispute on circumcision was handled in Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15? The apostles Paul and Barnabus were disputing with the Christians who came from Judea who wanted to force the new believers to be circumcised. The question is who made this decision and how was it made? According to sola scriptura they would have to decide it in one of two ways: They would have to look up some Old Testament scripture and prove that view from the scripture: or the apostles would have written down the answer to that question, and after it was determined it was now New Testament scripture, they would have said circumcision is now necessary or not necessary based on this new scripture. Is that how it was determined? The bible shows that neither one of these sola scriptura methods were used. Peter settled it the Catholic way. After all the disputing Peter came out with an infallible decree that binds all Christians since. He said that circumcision is not necessary for salvation in Acts 15:7-11. What was the reaction of these people who were in such dispute? Did they say like you would "Who are you, a mere man, to tell me what to do? I follow no Pope!" No! Read Acts 15:12. Remember, prior to Peter speaking, there was much division.


Circumcision is not necessary. Also, nowhere does Peter say "This must be written down."Once Peter spoke, "Then all the multitude kept silence,..." The people recognized his authority, as they knew that he received his authority from Jesus.
Later, acting as local bishop James puts in guidelines to his local community. His guidelines assume the full force of Peter's decree. Acts 15:13-20 shows that for that time, so as not to offend the Jews, they were to abstain from strangled meat, and blood.

 

[Trento]

Doesn't the fact that Paul publically corrected Peter demonstrate Peter himself was not viewed as supreme (Gal 2:11-14)?

St. Paul correcting St. Peter for weak behavior is no different from St. Catherine of Siena correcting weak popes in the Middle Ages. There was no doctrine involved. St. Peter himself had settled the doctrinal point at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul corrected St. Peter for being unwilling to confront the Judaizers from Jerusalem. Remember, St. Paul was among those who fell silent at the Council of Jerusalem once St. Peter spoke.
Peter’s unique authority --most especially Acts 10:1-48, where Peter exercises his power to “bind and loosen” by unilaterally admitting the first Gentiles into the Church. And, he does this after receiving a personal vision from Jesus instructing him to do so. Furthermore, in Acts 11:1-18, none of the other Apostles question Peter's authority to admit the Gentiles into the Church. Rather, they accept the unilateral decision of Peter. And, a few years later, when some Jewish Christians from the party of the Pharisees try to impose circumcision on these Gentiles, Peter (in Acts 15:7-12) gives the definitive teaching at the Jerusalem council. After he speaks, the entire assembly falls silent and all debate on the Gentile issue comes to an end.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Let's look at how this dispute on circumcision was handled in Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15?

Let's do...


Who is the leader of the meeting? James. Not an Apostle at all. Certainly not Peter.

Who "hears" it and does the arbiting? The Apostles AND elders AND the "whole church" (verses 6 and 22). Nothing about Peter alone or the RC denomination or the Pope or the Vicar of Christ or the Bishop of Rome or Pope Benedict. Nope. The Apostles and Elders and whole church.

Who gives the pronoucement? James. Not Peter. Not any Apostle. Not the Bishop of Rome. Not the RC denomination. Not the "vicar of Christ."

What serves as the normative authority? Scripture. Nothing here about any "keys" or "Tradition" or secrets God kept out of Scripture and gave to the RC denomination instead. Scripture.

Thus, we don't see this "Three-Legged-Stool" Catholics and Mormons insist upon. We see no support for the RC denomination ALONE being the SOLE interpreter and SOLE arbiter, nothing about the Peter and his keys or being the Infallible Pope, nothing about any secrets known only to the RC denomination.



Now, I'm interested for the confirmation that Peter was the first POPE (or a Pope at all). Since there's nothing in God's Holy Scripture about this, is there at least some objective, contemporary, unbiased historical confirmation? Something from close to 65 AD that specially says he was a POPE - infallible, authoritative, the vicar of Christ, not first among equals and not simply A bishop - but the Infallible Pope, supreme and authoritative, the vicar of Christ? Something? After all, when Joseph Smith made claims, Christians asked for something to support it, isn't that what we are commanded to do? Didn't Christ commend and praise the Ephesians because they tested claims and found them to be false?



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Trento]

Peter never claimed authority over the other apostles, as he calls himself a "fellow elder" (1 Pet 5:1). Also Paul warned the Corinthian church not to claim to be of Peter, of Paul, or of Apollos. He wrote' "Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Co 1:12,13)

When the Pope acts in his capacity as Bishop of Rome, he is no different, other than a "first among equals," than the rest of the bishops over their own jurisdictions. The Pope does also have another title, "Vicar of Christ" wherein he stands in Christ's place here on earth, over Christ's Church. This authority is clearly given to St. Peter when "The Good Shepherd" told Peter, "Feed My lambs...Tend My sheep...Feed My sheep" (John 21:16-17). In this sequence, Jesus is speaking directly to Peter, and not to any of the rest of the Apostles, all of whom are also present (minus Judas). So there is something special about Peter, and the see that he would occupy. This isn't the position of a tyrant, a king, or a dictator, but a shepherd. Clearly Jesus left one of the Apostles "in charge" to "tend (His) sheep," and that one Apostle is St. Peter. This is not an exclusive authority over the other Apostles - just an added responsibility for Peter and his successors. Having one Apostle to hold this position is the unifying factor for all true Christians.

 

[Trento]

[/color][/font][/size]


Let's do...


Who is the leader of the meeting? James. Not an Apostle at all. Certainly not Peter.

Who "hears" it and does the arbiting? The Apostles AND elders AND the "whole church" (verses 6 and 22). Nothing about Peter alone or the RC denomination or the Pope or the Vicar of Christ or the Bishop of Rome or Pope Benedict. Nope. The Apostles and Elders and whole church.

Who gives the pronoucement? James. Not Peter. Not any Apostle. Not the Bishop of Rome. Not the RC denomination. Not the "vicar of Christ."

What serves as the normative authority? Scripture. Nothing here about any "keys" or "Tradition" or secrets God kept out of Scripture and gave to the RC denomination instead. Scripture.

Thus, we don't see this "Three-Legged-Stool" Catholics and Mormons insist upon. We see no support for the RC denomination ALONE being the SOLE interpreter and SOLE arbiter, nothing about the Peter and his keys or being the Infallible Pope, nothing about any secrets known only to the RC denomination.



Now, I'm interested for the confirmation that Peter was the first POPE (or a Pope at all). Since there's nothing in God's Holy Scripture about this, is there at least some objective, contemporary, unbiased historical confirmation? Something from close to 65 AD that specially says he was a POPE - infallible, authoritative, the vicar of Christ, not first among equals and not simply A bishop - but the Infallible Pope, supreme and authoritative, the vicar of Christ? Something? After all, when Joseph Smith made claims, Christians asked for something to support it, isn't that what we are commanded to do? Didn't Christ commend and praise the Ephesians because they tested claims and found them to be false?



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

Our critic is chasing "phantom Catholicism," not the real thing. The Pope, for example, is the linear successor of the Apostle Peter IN THAT he directly succeeds to the EPISCOPAL OFFICE held by the Apostle Peter (1 Peter 5:1), which was the episcopate of the city of Rome (called "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13, just as it is in Rev 14:8, 16:19, 1:5, 18:2, 18:10, 18:21, etc). And the episcopal office of Peter holds particular responsibilities when it comes to maintaining the unity and orthodoxy of the entire Church (e.g. John 21:15-19).

I can also point to the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus and the (258) Bishops who offered no protest when the papal legates read out this statement at the council:


"There is no doubt, and in fact has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place." (JP&K, 258)

Not to mention the Eastern bishops who wrote to Pope Symmachus (342) or the 250 Eastern bishops who signed the Formula of Pope Hormisdas (268; the authors of JP&K cite Dollinger to the effect that this number eventually climbed to 2500 Eastern signatories).

Protestan Patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines sums up how unanimous the Church was in the patristic period, evidence becomes overwhelming for the primacy and authority of the Papacy --

"Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding...that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as 'the archbishop of the whole world' .....It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)​

Protestant scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy: ​

[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church. If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome? To S. Irenaeus Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error. The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility. The Church and Infallibility by B.C. Butler pgs. 136-137 (c. 1954​

Protestant Historical scholar Harnack recognizes the original teacher here.​

Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954​

Taking into account the phenomenon of development, the notion of primacy needs to be established first. The Church of Rome enjoyed a Primacy over the other Churches from the earliest period for which we have records with indications that this priority was not an innovation. Dr. Harnack claimed that "The Roman Church from the end of the first century possessed a de facto primacy in Christendom" (Mission und Ausbreitung pg. 398). ​

Phillip Schaff Protestant Patristic and historical scholar-- HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH​

CHAPTER IV: ​

In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the post apostolic period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the old Catholic episcopal system.​

Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian scholar-- commenting on Clements letter to the Cornithians A D 90

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'​

St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.​

I cited the testimony of Protestant Historical scholars acknowledging that the Catholic position was the one espoused in the ancient Church of the late first Century and throughout much of the 1500 years before the Reformation
​

 

[BrightCandle]

When the Pope acts in his capacity as Bishop of Rome, he is no different, other than a "first among equals," than the rest of the bishops over their own jurisdictions. The Pope does also have another title, "Vicar of Christ" wherein he stands in Christ's place here on earth, over Christ's Church. This authority is clearly given to St. Peter when "The Good Shepherd" told Peter, "Feed My lambs...Tend My sheep...Feed My sheep" (John 21:16-17). In this sequence, Jesus is speaking directly to Peter, and not to any of the rest of the Apostles, all of whom are also present (minus Judas). So there is something special about Peter, and the see that he would occupy. This isn't the position of a tyrant, a king, or a dictator, but a shepherd. Clearly Jesus left one of the Apostles "in charge" to "tend (His) sheep," and that one Apostle is St. Peter. This is not an exclusive authority over the other Apostles - just an added responsibility for Peter and his successors. Having one Apostle to hold this position is the unifying factor for all true Christians.

Jesus spoke directly to Peter, because messed up big time, when he denied Jesus three times! He was trying to encourage him in his ministry, but definitely not exalting Peter over his brethren! Tending sheep is a humble calling, not one that trumps a person up, as the Pope is in the RCC! Do you think that Jesus would have given Pete the title Pontifex Maximus? I don't think so! And yet, the Popes gladly take a title that exalts them over their brethren, and over all of Christendom for that matter.

 

[BrightCandle]

Phillip Schaff Protestant Patristic and historical scholar-- HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH​

CHAPTER IV: ​

In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the post apostolic period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the old Catholic episcopal system.​

I cited the testimony of Protestant Historical scholars acknowledging that the Catholic position was the one espoused in the ancient Church of the late first Century and throughout much of the 1500 years before the Reformation
​

The quote from the Protestant historian actually gives insight into how the RCC got its form of goverment, and how it was not the same type of government that was used by the first Apostles. Note, the phrase above, where it states that: "The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the old Catholic episcopal system." That is the key. This is where churchmen starte exalting themselves over their brethren, and that is why Paul in the first century noted, that the "mystery of iniquity is alread at work".

 

[Trento]

This is from my previous post:

As for the "keys" statement, this refers to witnessing by the apostles. All this verse is saying is that the apostles were given the power to grant or deny access to the kingdom of God based on how people respond to the Gospel message. Those who respond favorably are granted access while those who choose not to believe are denied access to the kingdom of God.

Protestant Historian. Oscar Cullman, ** in his work Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (1953) writes “In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who wish to come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.”


The Anchor Bible commentary, A Protestant work says this: “By conferring the power to bind and loose upon church leadership, Jesus authorizes it to interpret the Scriptures and establish norms for Christian behaviour (vol 1).” R.T. France, another Protestant scholar says; “these terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, but that of the steward whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989. 247) (Isn’t that the office of the pope defined?

One final quote from a Protestant authority, you might recognize the name, Martin Luther, 5 years after the Reformation: “So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matt 16:19 that he will give the keys to Peter. He does not say he has two kinds of keys, but he gives to Peter the keys he himself has and no others. It is as if he were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is my mouth, and his tongue is my key case. His office is my office, his binding and loosing are my binding and loosing” (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p 365-366)

 

[Trento]

The quote from the Protestant historian actually gives insight into how the RCC got its form of goverment, and how it was not the same type of government that was used by the first Apostles. Note, the phrase above, where it states that: "The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the old Catholic episcopal system." That is the key. This is where churchmen starte exalting themselves over their brethren, and that is why Paul in the first century noted, that the "mystery of iniquity is alread at work".

I don't know about you but i trust Jesus words here.

"I am with you ALL days, even until the end of the world."
Matthew 28:20

"...and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

"...and I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of Truth..."
John 14:16-17

"I will not leave you orphans."
John 14:18

 

[Trento]

Jesus spoke directly to Peter, because messed up big time, when he denied Jesus three times! He was trying to encourage him in his ministry, but definitely not exalting Peter over his brethren! Tending sheep is a humble calling, not one that trumps a person up, as the Pope is in the RCC! Do you think that Jesus would have given Pete the title Pontifex Maximus? I don't think so! And yet, the Popes gladly take a title that exalts them over their brethren, and over all of Christendom for that matter.

The formal title of the Pope is;

'Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God',

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

Peter, James and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.... James the Righteous, John, and Peter were entrusted by the Lord after his resurrection with the higher knowledge. They imparted it to the other apostles, and the other apostles to the seventy...

Clement Outlines Book VI,

Now when the royal chair was changed, the royal dignity was in Christ transferred to the church from the house of Judah and Israel which is of the flesh, but the throne is established in God’s holy church forever, the throne whose royal and high-priestly dignity rests on two bases - the royal dignity coming from Our Lord Jesus Christ in two ways, from the fact that he is of King David’s seed according to the flesh and from the fact that he is, as is certainly true, a greater king from eternity in his divinity.

James having been ordained at once the first bishop, he who is called the brother of the Lord and apostle... But we find as well that he is of David's stock through being Joseph’s son and that he was a Nazarite. There is much to say about this.

Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis

Aaah history...who CAN we believe...?