The Primacy Of Peter

[Brennin]

Since we are left to take this on your word, let’s first establish the credibility of your word, based on your previous posts.

“Isaiah 22:22 does not refer to Peter”
“There is a parallel but nothing more”
“Matthew 16:19 was not an accident”

Cheers to anyone who can reconcile those three statements.

The language of Matthew 16:19 is reminiscent of Isaiah 22:22. Big deal.

“Isaiah 22:22 speaks of a steward who exceeded his authority, so he was stripped of his authority and it was given to another. This is clearly a prophecy concerning the power-mongering papacy, and it shows God's displeasure with the institution and his revocation of its authority!”

For those who will read Isaiah 22:22 and reconcile it with the previous quote, one must deal with God’s clear “displeasure with the institution and his revocation of its authority” in spite of God’s clear maintenance of the institution and the continuance of its authority. Good luck.

I was being facetious. I do not think Isaiah 22:22 has anything to do with Peter.

“And Matthew 18:18 does not need to mention "keys" because it mentions "binding and loosing," which is what the "keys" are all about.”

This is known as the logical fallacy of “Affirming the Consequent”.

Then you shan't have any problem showing it formally.

 

[Brennin]

Isaiah 22:22 (New International Version)

Components:

Position: “I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David”
Action: “what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open”

Matthew 16:19 (New International Version)

Components:

Position: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”
Action: “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”

Matthew 18:18 (New International Version)

Component:

Action: “whatever you bind on earth will be[a]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”

Once again:

Matthew 16:19 possesses the same components as Isaiah 22:22

Matthew 18:18 does not possess the same components as Matthew 16:19

This is not an argument. It is an observation. No one is claiming that the wording is identical. I don’t know why anyone would even need or want to suggest that. Simply saying no to all of this doesn’t demonstrate anything.

This is not difficult. Keys symbolize authority in both verses. That is the beginning and end of the parallel. What authority do the keys symbolize in Matthew 16:19? "Binding and loosing" in earth and heaven. Who receives that authority? First Peter then the other apostles in Matthew 18:18.

 

[prodromos]

Peter was the ONLY Apostle to receive the Keys to Heaven.

St John Chrysostom disagrees with you. Listen to what he says of the Apostle John:

"...the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master's bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now…. By this Apostle stand the powers from above, marveling at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and the bloom of that virtue by which he drew unto him Christ Himself, and obtained the grace of the Spirit. For he hath made ready his soul, as some well-fashioned and jeweled lyre with strings of gold, and yielded it for the utterance of something great and sublime to the Spirit”​

(St. John Chrysostom, First Homily on the Gospel of St. John).
Of course, you know better than Chrysostom.

These Keys are symbolic of the one who is to hold the seat of Steward or Master of the Kingdom when the King is away and we all know Jesus will not return until the End of Days.

Read Isaiah 22 to learn more about how the Davidic Kingdom recognizes the symbol of the Key.

Isaiah 22 is clearly referenced in Revelation 3:7 and it is plain that Christ holds that key, which is the Key of David. Matthew 16:19 clearly calls these keys something else, the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" so they are not symbolic at all of the key of David. In fact I would challenge you to find any Church Father who makes the connection you do.

The other thing that Catholics overlook in Matthew 16:19 is that everything is expressed as future tense. It is a promise only, the fulfillment of which is not seen until Matthew 18:18 when all the Apostles receive the keys. This is confirmed by these whom Catholics consider as doctors of the church:

St Jerome

"...elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church depends on them all alike". (Epistle 146.1)​

St Augustine

"This refers to the keys about which it is said "whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" -(Sermon III/8)​

St John Chrysostom

"The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" -(Homily 54.2-3.)​

John

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The language of Matthew 16:19 is reminiscent of Isaiah 22:22. Big deal.

Yes it is a Big deal because it is the Word of God.

 

[prodromos]

I am a fool. I don’t believe I will ever doubt the papacy again. I just read the following abridgement at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp :

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It's a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22

…Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers…Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before [who was] Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that's why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister's position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it's the key of David; it's the House of David.

…when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession [papacy].

See my post above.

John

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In fact I would challenge you to find any Church Father who makes the connection you do.

Tertullian on "Modesty". [220 AD]

Quote:
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church," "to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;" or, "Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? "On you," He says, "will I build My Church;" and, "I will give to you the keys," not to the Church; and, "Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound," not what they shall have loosed or bound.


Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Quote:
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep , and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"




Origen in "commentary on Matthew". [248 AD]

Quote:
Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," has been specially set before the words, "And what things soever you shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class (the other Apstles). 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 the 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 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.

Cyril of Jerusalem [350 AD]

Quote:
In the power of the same Holy Spirit Peter also, the chief of the Apostles and the bearer of the keys of the kingdom of heaven


Pope Damasus I (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382])

Quote:
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it".

 

[JacktheCatholic]

St John Chrysostom disagrees with you.

Saint John Chrysostom in his "Homily on St Ignatius"


Quote:
At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man succeeded to the office after him.

 

[Brennin]

Yes it is a Big deal because it is the Word of God.

Duh. It is the mention of keys in both that is not the big deal.

 

[prodromos]

Tertullian on "Modesty". [220 AD]

Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Origen in "commentary on Matthew". [248 AD]

Cyril of Jerusalem [350 AD]

Pope Damasus I (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382])

And not one of them makes the connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16:19, which is the challenge I posed to you, so you have given me a non answer

Also, I gave you a quote from St John Chrysostom refuting the Catholic claim that ONLY Peter received the keys, your above quotes do not address this, neither do they address the fact that doctors of the Church recognise Matthew 18:18 as referring specifically to the keys. You have not engaged any of the points I raised with your quote mines.

John

 

[prodromos]

Saint John Chrysostom in his "Homily on St Ignatius"


Quote:
At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man succeeded to the office after him.

How exactly does this quote state that the keys of heaven were not committed to any of the other Apostles? Or perhaps you are of the opinion that Chrysostom was schizophrenic, writing one thing one day and the opposite the next?

John

 

[prodromos]

Tertullian on "Modesty". [220 AD]

On Modesty
I'm not about to read the whole of this work as it is very long, but it does appear to be responding to a particular issue of someone outside the church claiming the same authority as the apostolic church. What you wish it to say, however, does not fit well with what he says elsewhere. Tertullian only mentions Peter a few times in his works and does not set him apart from the others.

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?" Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead?
The Prescription Against Heretics​

If you have ever read in David, "Lift up your gates, you princes, and let the everlasting gates be lifted up; and the King of glory shall enter in;" if you have also heard from Amos, "Who builds up to the heavens his way of ascent, and is such as to pour forth his abundance (of waters) over the earth;" Amos 9:6 know that both that way of ascent was thereafter levelled with the ground, by the footsteps of the Lord, and an entrance thereafter opened up by the might of Christ, and that no delay or inquest will meet Christians on the threshold, since they have there to be not discriminated from one another, but owned, and not put to the question, but received in. For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him.
Scorpiace​

 

[prodromos]

Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Quote:
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep , and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

This is a favorite of Catholics. Now I don't know if this is one of Cyprian's works which he later reworked or whether the above quote is simply heavily butchered, but I provide the actual text below with a link to the same.

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed my sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? "
On the Unity of the Church.​

Bit of a difference isn't there . St Cyprian, as most of the Church Fathers, sees Peter as a figure or type of the apostles, not as someone above the others.

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: "I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.
Epistle 26​

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Duh. It is the mention of keys in both that is not the big deal.

Symbolism is important to understand when reading scripture. The Key or Keys are both symbolic of the same thing in these two passages from Isaiah and Matthew and intentionally say the same thing in essence. So it is a big deal for it gives us the correct interpretation.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And not one of them makes the connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16:19, which is the challenge I posed to you, so you have given me a non answer

Also, I gave you a quote from St John Chrysostom refuting the Catholic claim that ONLY Peter received the keys, your above quotes do not address this, neither do they address the fact that doctors of the Church recognise Matthew 18:18 as referring specifically to the keys. You have not engaged any of the points I raised with your quote mines.

John

They support what the correlation represents.

They need not specifically mention the two passages. I believe in this early church when many were Jews and familiar with Isaiah 22 that an explanation would be too elementary for their writings.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

How exactly does this quote state that the keys of heaven were not committed to any of the other Apostles? Or perhaps you are of the opinion that Chrysostom was schizophrenic, writing one thing one day and the opposite the next?

John

It speaks of the Keys as only belonging to Peter and it is understand this way in the context.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

On Modesty

I'm not about to read the whole of this work as it is very long, but it does appear to be responding to a particular issue of someone outside the church claiming the same authority as the apostolic church. What you wish it to say, however, does not fit well with what he says elsewhere. Tertullian only mentions Peter a few times in his works and does not set him apart from the others.

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?" Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead?​

The Prescription Against Heretics​

If you have ever read in David, "Lift up your gates, you princes, and let the everlasting gates be lifted up; and the King of glory shall enter in;" if you have also heard from Amos, "Who builds up to the heavens his way of ascent, and is such as to pour forth his abundance (of waters) over the earth;" Amos 9:6 know that both that way of ascent was thereafter levelled with the ground, by the footsteps of the Lord, and an entrance thereafter opened up by the might of Christ, and that no delay or inquest will meet Christians on the threshold, since they have there to be not discriminated from one another, but owned, and not put to the question, but received in. For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him.​

Scorpiace​

Yes, all the Apostles shared a profound and deep understanding of Jesus and the things of Heaven and Earth. But that still does not negate that Peter held a Primacy and it was one of a dynastic nature.

Even during the time of the Apostle John the Bishop of Rome was sought for authority in cases that needed something higher then the Bishop of a region and not John himself. That right there should tell you that the Bishop of Rome held some kind of higher authority than the other Bishops of other areas including any surviving Apostle. When you understand the importance of Peter being the only one to receive the Keys then you understand that Peter held a dynastic office and one that shared it's powers with others in like offices but placed Peter above the others like a Prime Ministers compared to Ministers.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This is a favorite of Catholics. Now I don't know if this is one of Cyprian's works which he later reworked or whether the above quote is simply heavily butchered, but I provide the actual text below with a link to the same.

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed my sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? "​

On the Unity of the Church.​

Bit of a difference isn't there . St Cyprian, as most of the Church Fathers, sees Peter as a figure or type of the apostles, not as someone above the others.

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: "I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.​

Epistle 26​

Again this shows that the Apostles and their successors all had a like authority and powers such as forgiving sins. It also shows that these Apostles and their successors shared in the Powers of the Keys. We can even break it down further to say that the whole Catholic Church in some smaller fashion shared in the power of the Keys.

But what cannot be negated by any of this is that Peter holds a primacy over all the others and it was only Peter that received the Keys. Fact is that scriptures did not mention the Keys in Matthew 18 when the other Apostles were told they could bind and loose. The reason is that only one can hold these Keys and place them on their shoulder for the world to see. The Keys are meant to stay with this office until the return of Jesus at which time Jesus again will hold his Keys as we read in Revelations.

 

[tblaine74]

Isaiah 22 is clearly referenced in Revelation 3:7 and it is plain that Christ holds that key, which is the Key of David. Matthew 16:19 clearly calls these keys something else, the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" so they are not symbolic at all of the key of David.

It is refreshing to see a substantial argument for this position. It appears to me, that this question cannot be satisfactorily answered from writings of the Church fathers, outside of canonized scripture. There appears to be sufficient references from these writings to confuse, and contradict, whatever answer we might draw from them. It seams evident in the writings of St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine, that they both interpret the keys as something belonging to the Church. Yet other Church fathers have interpreted Matthew 16:19 as defending the authority of the apostolic see of Peter. What also seams evident is that the references from St. John Chrysostum and St. Augustine were not intended by their authors to be arguments against the authority of the apostolic see of Peter. This is why I find Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 so intriguing. It appears that particular logic can be applied here, where it is more elusive in the writings of the Church fathers. So to address your particular logic here: by what logic do two names, as a result of their being different, necessitate that they are not symbolic of the same thing?

 

[Brennin]

But that still does not negate that Peter held a Primacy and it was one of a dynastic nature.

That is a fantasy of the Romish Church's invention.

Even during the time of the Apostle John the Bishop of Rome was sought for authority in cases that needed something higher then the Bishop of a region and not John himself. That right there should tell you that the Bishop of Rome held some kind of higher authority than the other Bishops of other areas including any surviving Apostle.

Pull the other leg!

When you understand the importance of Peter being the only one to receive the Keys then you understand that Peter held a dynastic office and one that shared it's powers with others in like offices but placed Peter above the others like a Prime Ministers compared to Ministers.

Jesus extends the same authority granted to Peter in Matthew 16:19 to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18. "Binding and loosing" is what the "keys" are all about. I know the Romish Church is desperate to hang their papal supremacy on Matthew 16:19 but Matthew 18:18 does not permit it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

But what does the Church do after Jesus is ascended into heaven, after Judas has committed suicide? Turn to Acts 1 to see what the Church does in response to Judas' death and Jesus' departure. It's very interesting and important because Peter stands up with the eleven in the Upper Room, verse 15, and He speaks about Judas' death and He says, "It was known beforehand and had even been prophesied in the Old Testament" and so what should we do now?
Notice that Peter -- and by the way, notice that it is Peter who stands up. He's not just contributing an opinion. When Peter declares an opinion it is binding and immediately following, exactly what he advises. And what is it he advises? He quotes the Psalms, "Let his habitation become desolate and let there be no one to live in it." But then he doesn't say, "Hey, guys, we're from twelve down to eleven. We better hang together now or we might end up hanging separately. No we're just down to eleven and it's going to be us from now on." He doesn't say that.
He says, "His office, let another take." Or as the King James version says, "His bishopric, let other men take." The word there is episcopae, where we get the word episcopacy or episcopal. It's the word for bishop. In other words, there's an epioscopal office that is now empty and vacant. Peter stands up and says, "Well obviously, automatically, in line with the Old Testament tradition, in line with this Old Testament practice of patriarchal succession at every level in God's family, not just at top with Moses and his seed and his successors, but even the seventy elders, when they died, they left empty offices that must be filled," Peter is just obviously appealing to this Old Testament precedent is saying, "Let another man his bishopric, his office, take."
And they draw lots and they choose Matthias. No debate, no novelty. The other ten don't say, "Huh, what are you talking about, Simon? This is weird." No, they understand, but even more, they submit. There's no debate, no discussion.
Notice also in Acts 2, Peter's responsibility, not just over the ten, but over all of Jerusalem. He is the one who preaches the first sermon, that Pentecost, verse 14. He is the spokesman for the Church to the world at Pentecost.
Then you go on in chapter 3, we see Peter's second sermon. We also see that Peter is the instrument by which the first real healing miracle occurs, the lame man in the temple in Jerusalem in the portico called Solomon, I should say.
Then in chapter 4, we see Peter's pre-eminence emerging even further as he exercises his teaching authority over the Jewish senate, the Sanhedrin. He's put on trial, so you think he's going to be defensive. He's going to come to His own defense saying, "Oh gosh, guys, you know, please don't do these things." But no. He puts the Sanhedrin on trial for crucifying the Lord. He exercises supreme authority over the Jewish senate. It left them flabbergasted! Who does this fisherman think he is? The vicar of Christ over the family of God. And so they're set free. They are astounded at his boldness.
Then in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira, two wealthy members of the Church, sell some land and then lie about how much money they gave to the Church. Peter said to Ananias, "What are you doing?" Ananias says, "Well I gave you all the money." And Peter says, "You are lying to the Holy Spirit." Ananias said, "No, I'm just lying to you, Peter." But no. In lying to Peter, Ananias was lying to the Holy Spirit and to the Church. He's struck dead! A few hours later his wife Sapphira comes along. Peter says, "What happened?" "Oh, we sold the land for this amount, and we gave you all the money." And, "Hark, the footsteps of the men who just carried out your husband are coming for you." She drops dead! "And great fear came upon all those who heard of it," in verse 5. No wonder. Petrine promise was rather apparent here. I mean Peter's pre-eminence was on display for the whole Church and the whole world and all the Jews to see and to behold. And it goes on and on and on. We see Peter, for instance, in Acts 11 and 12 -- even before that -- Acts 8, the first time non-Jewish half-breeds, Samaritans are brought into the Church. They are baptized. Word reaches Jerusalem that these non-Jewish half-breeds, the Samaritans are coming into the Church. Immediately, what do they do? Send Peter and John. They go down there and what do they do? Well, a Confirmation action, here. "They lay the hand," verse 14, "When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed they might receive the Holy Spirit." They were baptized but they hadn't received this additional grace that we often associate with Confirmation. Then the laying on of hands; they received the Holy Spirit and then Simon Magus tried to buy the gift and Peter rebukes him.



SOURCE: http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp