The Primacy Of Peter

[Brennin]

Did I say something to suggest the parallel was not “exact”?

Yes.

Eliakim filled a position (singular), of which plurality would contradict the very nature of the position.

That's nice. The same does not hold for the Apostles. Not one is greater than another and not one has his throne set above the others in apocalyptic imagery.

 

[Brennin]

Gibberish.

Popes and bishops debate vigorously all the time.

Then they prayer and try to discern the will of God through the Holy Spirit. The Pope gets the final say given that he was granted special power by Jesus.

Or so goes the RC fiction.

By the way, what caused Peter to accept gentiles as full Christians?

Here's a reminder:

Acts 11

4Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: 5"I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.'

8"I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' 9"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.....

15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[a]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

That revelation doesn't make him "pope," of course.

 

[chestertonrules]

Or so goes the RC fiction.




That revelation doesn't make him "pope," of course.

Your desperation is showing.

Jesus made him leader of the church by giving him the keys of the kingdom. He was chosen by God because he was the first who was shown Christ's true identity.

This case is further evidence of his unique relationship to God among the apostles.


Without a single leader, you get anarchy, which is what you have in protestantism.

Jesus understood this, so he established a hierarchy that was to be lead through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus prayed for unity and we have it. 1.3 billion Catholics and growing.

The largest Church in the world.

Followers of the Church founded by Christ.

 

[tblaine74]

That's nice. The same does not hold for the Apostles. Not one is greater than another and not one has his throne set above the others in apocalyptic imagery.

I’ll take that as another one of those self-demonstrating proclamations you are so blessed to wield. It is a nice distraction from your failed emergence from circular logic. Judging by your last posts, I am guessing this is where we go full circle and start repeating everything we’ve said up until now. I’ll have to join you tomorrow for that.

 

[Brennin]

Jesus made him leader of the church by giving him the keys of the kingdom. He was chosen by God because he was the first who was shown Christ's true identity.

This case is further evidence of his unique relationship to God among the apostles.

That makes Peter first among equals, not "pope."

Without a single leader, you get anarchy, which is what you have in protestantism.

History has shown what a single papal tyrant can do. No, the proper model is that of autocephalous churches.

Jesus understood this, so he established a hierarchy that was to be lead through the Holy Spirit.

The only legitimate hierarchy is that of autocephalous bishops, presbyters, and deacons. "Pope" is a dark ages invention of powermongering bishops of Rome.

Jesus prayed for unity and we have it. 1.3 billion Catholics and growing.

The largest Church in the world.

Followers of the Church founded by Christ.

Matthew 7

13 ‘Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. 14For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[Brennin]

Mark 10:35-45

35 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.’ 36And he said to them, ‘What is it you want me to do for you?’ 37And they said to him, ‘Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.’ 38But Jesus said to them, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?’ 39They replied, ‘We are able.’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; 40but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.’

41 When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. 42So Jesus called them and said to them, ‘You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 43But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. 45For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’

Matthew 20:20-28

20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she asked a favour of him. 21And he said to her, ‘What do you want?’ She said to him, ‘Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ 22But Jesus answered, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?’* They said to him, ‘We are able.’ 23He said to them, ‘You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’

24 When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. 25But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’

Luke 22:24-30

24 A dispute also arose among them as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25But he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

28 ‘You are those who have stood by me in my trials; 29and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

It is amazing what one discovers when he makes recourse to the scriptures instead of the rotting fictions of Rome!

 

[prodromos]

For the record the Catholics of the RCC not only accept this explanation of the Keys but I am sure it is in the Catechism as well so it is a teaching norm.

I spent a good while searching the Catholic Catechism and came up empty. Perhaps you would be so kind as to show us where the Catechism teaches that Matthew 16:19 is a reference to Isaiah. If you can't then will you admit that this is a novel theory which not even your Church teaches?

John

 

[prodromos]

John shares in Peter's authority and the Keys and this is fine.

That isn't what Chrysostom says, however. He states plainly that John is the holder of the keys.

But Chrysostom did state thet Peter alone received the Keys didn't he?

No. That is your interpretation which you read back into the text.

So you must understand his writings in their entirety and not simply the parts we like.

Which is exactly what I have demonstrated you to be doing.

John

 

[prodromos]

John out lived all the Apostles and at a time when John was probably the last Apostle left alive the Church as a whole still looked to Rome for authority.

How did the Church at Corinth suddenly become "the Church as a whole"? You've drawn an amazing conclusion based on your misunderstanding of one situation. Assuming you are not so foolish as to decide something based on one single piece of 'evidence', I presume you will now provide us with many other examples of Churches closer to Patmos turning to Rome for help during the lifetime of the Apostle?

Why? The most obvious answer is that Rome is where the Keys are and the seat of Peter.

This is only obvious to Catholics who have had this drilled into them from an early age. You are incapable of thinking otherwise.

John

 

[prodromos]

You have still to show any proof to the contrary.

Ah, since you cannot produce any Church Fathers who make the connection between Matthew and Isaiah, and you cannot produce anything from the Catholic Catechism to demonstrate that even you Church teaches this, it is now incumbent on me to prove a negative?

You're a funny man Jack.

John

 

[chestertonrules]

How did the Church at Corinth suddenly become "the Church as a whole"? You've drawn an amazing conclusion based on your misunderstanding of one situation. Assuming you are not so foolish as to decide something based on one single piece of 'evidence', I presume you will now provide us with many other examples of Churches closer to Patmos turning to Rome for help during the lifetime of the Apostle?
This is only obvious to Catholics who have had this drilled into them from an early age. You are incapable of thinking otherwise.

John

As a convert, your post is just silly.

No objective reading of the new testament can lead to any other conclusion than that Peter was given a unique position of primacy among the apostles.

In addition, you can see from the writings of the early church fathers that they acknowledged a unique authority in the seat of peter.

Do you think the early Christians misunderstood Christ, but you see clearly?

 

[prodromos]

Unlike what you have been doing I consider all that they wrote and not simply the lines that fit my argument.

I have shown where Chrysostom even supports what I say or at the very least contradicts your claim.

I'm beginning to feel real pity for you Jack.

Chrysostom's writings and sermons are all in complete harmony with the teaching of the Orthodox Church in regards to Peter and the keys. Some of his writings however, as has been shown in this thread, are completely contradictory to the Catholic Churches teaching in regards to Peter and the keys.

The most striking thing about your post of late though, is you are guilty of precisely that which you have the gall to accuse me.

John

 

[Brennin]

No objective reading of the new testament can lead to any other conclusion than that Peter was given a unique position of primacy among the apostles.

That of primus inter pares, not pope. But even if you were correct, Antioch has a far greater claim to the "papacy" than Rome.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I'm beginning to feel real pity for you Jack.

Chrysostom's writings and sermons are all in complete harmony with the teaching of the Orthodox Church in regards to Peter and the keys. Some of his writings however, as has been shown in this thread, are completely contradictory to the Catholic Churches teaching in regards to Peter and the keys.

The most striking thing about your post of late though, is you are guilty of precisely that which you have the gall to accuse me.

John

I wonder what Chrysostom would say today with the division that has happened in the Catholic Church with RCC and EOC and OOC. I am sure he would not be pleased. I also think he would be correcting much of what you have been claiming he meant in his writings.

So do not pity me but rather pity the division in our Church. We are Catholic and should be Catholic in more than name.

Shalom bro and God Bless

 

[prodromos]

Okay Brennin, I’ll jump through your hoop if you require being spoon fed. A grants B does not ensure that B grants A, affirmation of the latter as following from the former is logical fallacy. The possession of keys granting authority to bind and loose does not ensure that the authority to bind and loose grants possession of keys, the affirmation of the latter as following from the former is logical fallacy. Your interpretation of Matthew 18:18 is based on logical fallacy.

Peter does not receive the keys UNTIL Matthew 18:18. Matthew 16:19 is future tense, it is a promise only, the fulfillment of which does not occur until Matthew 18:18 when ALL the Apostles receive the same.

John

 

[prodromos]

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

And your understanding is in complete agreement with these whom Catholics consider "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.)​

As is already apparent in this thread however, this will not stop Catholic 'apologists' continuing to repeat the same error ad infinitum. They will just carry on as if the Church Fathers they claim to follow had never taught any such thing. I've already posted the above quotes at least three times in this thread. No one disputes them, no one can answer them, and yet every single Catholic in this thread continues to post contrary to them. I also have no doubt that they will continue to do so based on this thread and past experience.

John

 

[Brennin]

And your understanding is in complete agreement with these whom Catholics consider "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.)​

As is already apparent in this thread however, this will not stop Catholic 'apologists' continuing to repeat the same error ad infinitum. They will just carry on as if the Church Fathers they claim to follow had never taught any such thing. I've already posted the above quotes at least three times in this thread. No one disputes them, no one can answer them, and yet every single Catholic in this thread continues to post contrary to them. I also have no doubt that they will continue to do so based on this thread and past experience.

John

Thank you, friend, for reposting those statements. Apparently, the Roman Catholic apologists believe only Peter gets to bind and loose with a key; the rest of the apostles have to pick the lock.

 

[prodromos]

As a convert, your post is just silly.

Who said I was a convert? Why would being a convert make my post silly? Would it make a difference if I wasn't a convert? Your comment makes no sense at all.

No objective reading of the new testament can lead to any other conclusion than that Peter was given a unique position of primacy among the apostles.

I have not said otherwise.

In addition, you can see from the writings of the early church fathers that they acknowledged a unique authority in the seat of peter.

The Church speaking through the Ecumenical Councils said Rome held first place because it was the Capital of the Empire. They said nothing about Peter being the reason.
Pope Gregory writes repeatedly to Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria that the See of Peter is Antioch, Alexandria and Rome together and is highly critical of any one bishop claiming to be above the others.

Do you think the early Christians misunderstood Christ, but you see clearly?

My Church sees clearly and is in agreement with the early Christians. I don't trust my own judgment at all.

John

 

[prodromos]

I wonder what Chrysostom would say today with the division that has happened in the Catholic Church with RCC and EOC and OOC. I am sure he would not be pleased. I also think he would be correcting much of what you have been claiming he meant in his writings.

I have not 'claimed' anything. I have merely stated the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the same Church which uses the Divine Liturgy Of St John Chrysostom throughout the year in every nation and language, whose Paschal sermon is still read in the Church every year. He is one of the most beloved saints in the Orthodox Church yet you claim we do not understand his writings. We read his works in the original Greek whereas your Church for centuries knew his works only in Latin translation, a language with only one quarter of the vocabulary of Greek. Who of the two would understand his words better? The Greeks or the Latins?

John

 

[Catholic Christian]

Don't ask me why I keep posting this picture: I just like it: