The Primacy Of Peter

The contention that Peter held the primacy over the entire church and that his authority is passed on to the "bishop" of Rome continually is neither backed by scripture, early church fathers, or HISTORY...Rome is the BIG lie when it comes to the universal authority together with apostolic succession!

A better case could be made historically for Jerusalem and Antioch.

It's ridiculous people buy into the "known for all ages" propaganda.

simonthezealot said:

The contention that Peter held the primacy over the entire church and that his authority is passed on to the "bishop" of Rome continually is neither backed by scripture, early church fathers, or HISTORY...Rome is the BIG lie when it comes to the universal authority together with apostolic succession!

Click to expand...

Presently there is demonstrated here that suggests it is backed by scripture. Are you going to challenge what has been suggested? I don’t see how simply stating that it is wrong demonstrates anything except your disbelief.

tblaine74 said:

Presently there is demonstrated here that suggests it is backed by scripture. Are you going to challenge what has been suggested? I don’t see how simply stating that it is wrong demonstrates anything except your disbelief.

Click to expand...

Jesus, himself citing ISA 22:2 after Peter has died, applies these words to himself. Odd, if, in fact, this refers not to the King, but to the King's "prime minister" in the person of the not yet existing bishop of Rome...
Revelation 3:7: ""And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens,
the fact that the Lord Jesus cites this text of Himself post-resurrection clearly indicates that the attempted use of the passage (a use unknown, to my knowledge, in at least the first 1000 years of church history) stands against the New Testament's own understanding and teaching.

tblaine74 said:

Presently there is demonstrated here that suggests it is backed by scripture. Are you going to challenge what has been suggested? I don’t see how simply stating that it is wrong demonstrates anything except your disbelief.

Click to expand...

Understand please that I get bored arguing against ridiculous parallels...

22"Then I will set (AD)the key of the (AE)house of David on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will (AF)open.
23"I will drive him like a (AG)peg in a firm place,
And he will become a (AH)throne of glory to his father's house.

24"So they will hang on him all the glory of his father's house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars. 25"In that day," declares the LORD of hosts, "the (AI)peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even (AJ)break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the (AK)LORD has spoken."

simonthezealot said:

The contention that Peter held the primacy over the entire church and that his authority is passed on to the "bishop" of Rome continually is neither backed by scripture, early church fathers, or HISTORY...Rome is the BIG lie when it comes to the universal authority together with apostolic succession!

A better case could be made historically for Jerusalem and Antioch.

It's ridiculous people buy into the "known for all ages" propaganda.

Click to expand...

I might have put it differently, but you have laid the matter out correctly.

1. If there is this primacy, it applies to Peter, not to 200+ other people living centuries after Christ.
2. Primacy does not mean rule...or infallibility...even though proponents of both of those speak as if establishing primacy automatically makes any role or power one can imagine into a reality.
3. There is no evidence whatsoever from the Apostolic Church showing that any bishop of Rome considered himself to be the possessor of this power, and
4. The Church Fathers are divided on the matter, with those coming the latest--400 or so years after Christ and some time after the bishops of Rome began claiming universal jurisdiction--the ones most likely to approve of the claims being made by the bishops of Rome in their own lifetimes.

Brennin said:

That is, of course, a load of bald assertions and nonsense. You can't bind/lock or loose/unlock without keys. (Unless you want to entertain the possibility that Jesus gave the other apostles lockpicks.) Binding and loosing is not something separate from the keys, the desperate apologia of your church notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

Of course it is.

Binding and loosing is the ability to forgive sins.

This is a separate issue from the authority granted to the holder of the keys.

Albion said:

I might have put it differently, but you have laid the matter out correctly.

1. If there is this primacy, it applies to Peter, not to 200+ other people living centuries after Christ.
2. Primacy does not mean rule...or infallibility...even though proponents of both of those speak as if establishing primacy automatically makes any role or power one can imagine into a reality.
3. There is no evidence whatsoever from the Apostolic Church showing that any bishop of Rome considered himself to be the possessor of this power, and
4. The Church Fathers are divided on the matter, with those coming the latest--400 or so years after Christ and some time after the bishops of Rome began claiming universal jurisdiction--the ones most likely to approve of the claims being made by the bishops of Rome in their own lifetimes.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

The handing over of keys is the handing over of power that is successive power. In fact, in Isaiah the new Prime Minister, so to speak, was taking over for another.

In addition, we see in acts that Mathias is chosen to replace Judas, so we know that the apostles were part of a succession.

The early church understood this as well.

We know who the early leaders of the Church were because they were recorded in historical documents, most noticably by Iraeneus.(sp?)

chestertonrules said:

Of course it is.

Binding and loosing is the ability to forgive sins.

This is a separate issue from the authority granted to the holder of the keys.

Click to expand...

Repeating that ad nauseam does not make it true, sorry.

Scripture


Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.
Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.
Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.
Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.
Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.
Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.
Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.
Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."
Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.
Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.
Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.
Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.
John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.
John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.
John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.
John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.
John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.
John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.
Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.
Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.
Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.
Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.
Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.
Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.
Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.
Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.
Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).
Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.
Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."
Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.
1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.
1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.
1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.
1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.
2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.
2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock. Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

Brennin said:

Repeating that ad nauseam does not make it true, sorry.

Click to expand...

Neither does rejecting it make it false.

Which FACT are you disputing?

I'll be glad to cure you of your ignorance.

tblaine74 said:

I took liberty to do your homework for you. So then, one possesses the keys if and only if one can bind and loose. I see no contradictions to this in scripture. Though how are you going to affirm the consequent? We have the same problem. One can bind and loose if and only if one possesses the keys. Matthew 18:18 contradicts this, Jesus confers this authority without mention of the keys. Incidentally, the only way you have been able to interject the keys is via the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Click to expand...

It ain't a "fallacy" if the implication flows in both directions. As I have written before, the evangelist does not need to mention "keys" specifically a second time because one cannot bind and loose without them. Read that until it sinks in.

chestertonrules said:

Neither does rejecting it make it false.

Which FACT are you disputing?

I'll be glad to cure you of your ignorance.

Click to expand...

This is not difficult, so try to keep up, Chesterton redivivus. Keys lock (bind) and unlock (loose). The evangelist already introduced the symbol of the "keys" in Matthew 16:19 as well as their function, so he need not mention "keys" explicitly again in Matthew 18:18. Read that until it sinks in.

Brennin said:

This is not difficult, so try to keep up, Chesterton redivivus. Keys lock (bind) and unlock (loose). The evangelist already introduced the symbol of the "keys" in Matthew 16:19 as well as their function, so he need not mention "keys" explicitly again in Matthew 18:18. Read that until it sinks in.

Click to expand...

Clearly, the power of the keys are separate from the power of binding and loosing.

The power of the keys was granted to a single person in both the old and new testament scriptures.

Your attempt to muddy the waters is quaint, but fruitless.

Brennin said:

It ain't a "fallacy" if the implication flows in both directions. As I have written before, the evangelist does not need to mention "keys" specifically a second time because one cannot bind and loose without them. Read that until it sinks in.

Click to expand...

The difference is I am using what Matthew 18:18 says. You are using what you want Matthew 18:18 to say. This isn’t a logical problem. It seems to be more related to your ability to read.

chestertonrules said:

Clearly, the power of the keys are separate from the power of binding and loosing.

Click to expand...

That is, of course, false.

chestertonrules said:

The power of the keys was granted to a single person in both the old and new testament scriptures.

Click to expand...

In Isaiah but not in Matthew.

chestertonrules said:

Your attempt to muddy the waters is quaint, but fruitless.

Click to expand...

That is especially amusing coming from a RC.

tblaine74 said:

The difference is I am using what Matthew 18:18 says. You are using what you want Matthew 18:18 to say. This isn’t a logical problem. It seems to be more related to your ability to read.

Click to expand...

I have explained to you why "keys" are not explicitly referred to in Matthew 18:18.

Brennin said:

That is, of course, false.



In Isaiah but not in Matthew.



That is especially amusing coming from a RC.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you are illiterate, or a liar.

Fill us in.

Who are the other people granted the power of the keys in the new testament?

Please provide the relevant quote for the class, genius.

simonthezealot said:

Understand please that I get bored arguing against ridiculous parallels...

Click to expand...

So you prefer to see Matthew 16:19 as a miraculous accident, rather than that Jesus intended the parallel to Isaiah 22:22. There is something ridiculous about that.

simonthezealot said:

the fact that the Lord Jesus cites this text of Himself post-resurrection clearly indicates that the attempted use of the passage(a use unknown, to my knowledge, in at least the first 1000 years of church history) stands against the New Testament's own understanding and teaching.

Click to expand...

You’ve already stated this at least once. Could you elaborate on how this contradicts the parallel between Matthew and Isaiah? Are you suggesting Jesus is saying something like: “The key is as literal as any metal key, and I still have it in my pocket, because if I gave it to Peter, I wouldn’t have it anymore would I?” If so, that’s a pretty boring argument.