The Primacy Of Peter

[simonthezealot]

No comment on these facts from scripture.

Too much to read, Brennin?

Take your time. I know it's harder for you because you need to add words that aren't there occasionally.

As well 50 have been posted for Pauls primacy, don't think your paving some new road friend this is all recycled hogwash...from Dave Armstrong.
You do a fabulous cutnpaste job...Reps to you!

 

[simonthezealot]

Scripture


Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.

So what you don't consider Saul/Paul to be an apostle?
He does you know!
He himself is in scripture 157 times SO there!
Try some non armstrong material, it all been refuted.

 

[Albion]

So what you don't consider Saul/Paul to be an apostle?
He does you know!
He himself is in scripture 157 times SO there!
Try some non armstrong material, it all been refuted.

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.

The point is that being mentioned a lot doesn't make one infallible or the ruler of the Christian world--both of which are necessary if the claim is that he was the first 'Pope.'

There can be dozens of reasons for him to have been mentioned as much as he was, and none of them mean that he was a Pope, not any more than that he was Spiderman or the King of Siam.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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

Chrysostom is recognized highly with the RCC as well. Do not think the Orthodox church has some kind of monopoly on him cause you do not.

My previous statement of your interpretation of Chrysostom stands.

Shalom


Quoting Chrysostom:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])
"Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness." (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])
"The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples." (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])
"The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world." (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])
"Peter, the base, the pillar...." (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])
"He said not to Peter, 'If thou lovest Me, do miracles,' but, 'Feed My sheep'; and everywhere giving him more honor than the rest, with James and John, wherefore, tell me, did he prefer him?" (Hom 46[47] in Matt 3, vol VII, 480[485])
"After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: 'Peter lovest thou Me more than these?'" (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])
"He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep.' Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])
"It was not Christ's intention to show how much Peter loved Him, because this already appeared in many ways, but how much He himself loves His Church; and He desired that Peter and we all should learn it, that we may also be very zealous in the same work. For why did God not spare His Son and only-begotten, but gave Him up, though He was His only One. That He might reconcile to Himself those who were His enemies, and make them a people for Himself. Why did He also pour forth His blood? To purchase those sheep whom he committed to Peter and his successors."

 

[Catholic Christian]

The point is that being mentioned a lot doesn't make one infallible or the ruler.....

Taken alone, true; it would not. But, when taken in conjunction with him being the keeper of the keys (the fullfiment of the David Kings' Prime Minister), and with the authority to bind and loose, and with the duty to feed Christ's flock (John 21:15-17), and with the recognition of the Early Church Fathers of the supremecy of the church in Rome... ...then its another matter. Then we see that Peter (and his successors) ARE the fullfiment of the Davidic Kings' Prime Minister: They are Prime Minister to the King of Kings, JESUS THE CHRIST.

 

[simonthezealot]

Understanding Matthew 16 in the context of Isaiah 22 puts an end then to the speculation of Peter being the pope and the line of succession.
One must realize that the one prior could not appoint his successor. Only the king himself could personally and directly appoint his next. Only Hezekiah could personally and directly appoint Eliakim. Shebna could not appoint his successor. That Jesus personally and directly appointed Peter and the apostles. The apostles had not power to appoint their successors. Only the king can do that. Jesus has not returned to personally and directly appoint his next in line. No matter how you guys try to squeze this into your mold it does NOT work.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I am sure if the King were dead and no king was available to appoint directly that the position would still be filled by the others in charge (the ministers would appoint a new Prime Minister). I mean, how does England work these things out? It is an office that needs to be filled and that is why it is dynastic me thinks.


Here is another quote about these offices:

By the time of Isaiah the office of the master of the palace was three centuries old and the highest of the royal administration which Solomon organized in full . . .

Solomon set up the office in imitation of the office of the Pharaoh's vizier. Unlike in Assyria and Babylon, where the master of the palace was a mere administrator of the king's household affairs, in Egypt as well as in Judah and Israel the master of the palace was the second in command after the king. In Egypt he reported every morning to the Pharaoh, received his instructions, and by ceremoniously opening the gates to the palace he let the official day begin for the Pharaoh's highest administrative offices. He was privy to all the major transactions of the Pharaoh's kingdom, all important documents had to have his seal, all other officials were subordinate to him, and he governed the whole land in the Pharaoh's absence. It was precisely this function which was exercised by Joseph whom the Pharaoh put in charge of his house (Gen 41:40), made the keeper of the royal seal and the ruler over the entire land of Egypt. Similarly, the master of the palace of the king of Israel headed the list of royal officials (2 Ki 18:18) and he alone appears with the king (1 Ki 18:3). The importance of the title is particularly apparent when Yotham [or, Jotham] assumes it in his capacity of regent of the kingdom during the final illness of his father King Ozias [or, Uzziah, or Azariah] (2 Ki 15:5).

(Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, 27-28)

 

[simonthezealot]

Here is another quote about these offices:

the Pharaoh's vizier.

Jack how many different people throughout the NT are called fathers, it surely isn't only Peter...I can tell you without word searching that Paul to timothy and his reference to Abraham used this so i'm not sure what the pharoahs vizier has to do with Peter? if anything it speaks again in opposition to the view you are attempting to champion.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack how many different people throughout the NT are called fathers, it surely isn't only Peter...I can tell you without word searching that Paul to timothy and his reference to Abraham used this so i'm not sure what the pharoahs vizier has to do with Peter? if anything it speaks again in opposition to the view you are attempting to champion.

The vizier from the quote was referring to the office that the Keys denote.

What I got out of it was the OT references to steawrds or overseers or one that is second only to the king and is appointed as one to act on the kings behalf.

The vizier was steward of the realm and took care of things with the Pharoahs authority and power.

This is like the office Peter received.

 

[tblaine74]

Peter does not receive the keys UNTIL Matthew 18:18.

I am willing to consider this if you can demonstrate it.

Matthew 18:18 when ALL the Apostles receive the same.

Your admission of plurality destroys the intended parallel of Matthew 16:19. This has already been demonstrated, and you are welcome to demonstrate a challenge.

 

[Catholic Christian]

I am willing to consider this if you can demonstrate it.....

Prove you are the Messiah: Come down from the cross now, and we shall worship you.

Frightening

 

[tblaine74]

Understanding Matthew 16 in the context of Isaiah 22 puts an end then to the speculation of Peter being the pope and the line of succession.
One must realize that the one prior could not appoint his successor. Only the king himself could personally and directly appoint his next. Only Hezekiah could personally and directly appoint Eliakim. Shebna could not appoint his successor. That Jesus personally and directly appointed Peter and the apostles. The apostles had not power to appoint their successors. Only the king can do that. Jesus has not returned to personally and directly appoint his next in line. No matter how you guys try to squeze this into your mold it does NOT work.

JacktheCatholic,

Why are you standing on this nonsense as a point to argue from? Don’t step in this mess. No one here has, in any satisfactory way, demonstrated that Jesus did not, in fact, personally and directly appoint Peter as steward, as noted (regardless of allusion or not) in Matthew 16. Surely no one is arguing here that Christ appointed Peter as something of a king, rather than something of a steward.

 

[tblaine74]

Prove you are the Messiah: Come down from the cross now, and we shall worship you.

Frightening

Am I asking for proof of a messiah, or am I asking for you (who is not the messiah) to demonstrate your suggestion? Nice dramatic cop out.

 

[Brennin]

I am willing to consider this if you can demonstrate it.



Your admission of plurality destroys the intended parallel of Matthew 16:19. This has already been demonstrated, and you are welcome to demonstrate a challenge.

As I wrote before, it is not an exact parallel, nor need it be.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

JacktheCatholic,

Why are you standing on this nonsense as a point to argue from? Don’t step in this mess. No one here has, in any satisfactory way, demonstrated that Jesus did not, in fact, personally and directly appoint Peter as steward, as noted (regardless of allusion or not) in Matthew 16. Surely no one is arguing here that Christ appointed Peter as something of a king, rather than something of a steward.

I can see the logic of the question and believe I can answer how Peter could appoint a new person to the office or for that matter the Bishops or Magestterium.

It was not more than 3 years ago that I was not sure if I should see Jesus as God.

We all learn and grow in Christ differently. We should be accepting of everyone. If Simon is hard for you to communicate with then you should do as Jesus commanded and show him charity. You get nothing for loving those who love you but to love your enemy...

Besides Simon is a friend and a Christian.

Shalom

 

[tblaine74]

I can see the logic of the question and believe I can answer how Peter could appoint a new person to the office or for that matter the Bishops or Magestterium.

It was not more than 3 years ago that I was not sure if I should see Jesus as God.

We all learn and grow in Christ differently. We should be accepting of everyone. If Simon is hard for you to communicate with then you should do as Jesus commanded and show him charity. You get nothing for loving those who love you but to love your enemy...

Besides Simon is a friend and a Christian.

Shalom

I find no disagreement in anything you have said. I should not have presumed to advise you. I only wonder, however, if you are going to chase every evasive suggestion that is posted here, how we will end up discussing anything whatsoever. As for love and acceptance, we are not discussing Simon, we are discussing his posts.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I find no disagreement in anything you have said. I should not have presumed to advise you. I only wonder, however, if you are going to chase every evasive suggestion that is posted here, how we will end up discussing anything whatsoever. As for love and acceptance, we are not discussing Simon, we are discussing his posts.

No problem.

I am interested in what Simon replies with.

 

[chestertonrules]

Chrysostom is recognized highly with the RCC as well. Do not think the Orthodox church has some kind of monopoly on him cause you do not.

My previous statement of your interpretation of Chrysostom stands.

Shalom


Quoting Chrysostom:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])
"Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness." (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])
"The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples." (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])
"The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world." (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])
"Peter, the base, the pillar...." (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])
"He said not to Peter, 'If thou lovest Me, do miracles,' but, 'Feed My sheep'; and everywhere giving him more honor than the rest, with James and John, wherefore, tell me, did he prefer him?" (Hom 46[47] in Matt 3, vol VII, 480[485])
"After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: 'Peter lovest thou Me more than these?'" (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])
"He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep.' Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])
"It was not Christ's intention to show how much Peter loved Him, because this already appeared in many ways, but how much He himself loves His Church; and He desired that Peter and we all should learn it, that we may also be very zealous in the same work. For why did God not spare His Son and only-begotten, but gave Him up, though He was His only One. That He might reconcile to Himself those who were His enemies, and make them a people for Himself. Why did He also pour forth His blood? To purchase those sheep whom he committed to Peter and his successors."

I Don't expect them to respond to this.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Chrysostom is recognized highly with the RCC as well. Do not think the Orthodox church has some kind of monopoly on him cause you do not.

My previous statement of your interpretation of Chrysostom stands.

Shalom


Quoting Chrysostom:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])
"Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness." (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])
"The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples." (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])
"The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world." (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])
"Peter, the base, the pillar...." (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])
"He said not to Peter, 'If thou lovest Me, do miracles,' but, 'Feed My sheep'; and everywhere giving him more honor than the rest, with James and John, wherefore, tell me, did he prefer him?" (Hom 46[47] in Matt 3, vol VII, 480[485])
"After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: 'Peter lovest thou Me more than these?'" (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])
"He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep.' Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])
"It was not Christ's intention to show how much Peter loved Him, because this already appeared in many ways, but how much He himself loves His Church; and He desired that Peter and we all should learn it, that we may also be very zealous in the same work. For why did God not spare His Son and only-begotten, but gave Him up, though He was His only One. That He might reconcile to Himself those who were His enemies, and make them a people for Himself. Why did He also pour forth His blood? To purchase those sheep whom he committed to Peter and his successors."

Well done, young man.

 

[chestertonrules]

"It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times…But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’…On him 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, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” [see endnote]
St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 1st edition, A.D. 251

“(T)hey have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” And the vessel of divine election himself said: “If ye have forgiven anything to any one, I forgive also, for what I have forgiven I have done it for your sakes in the person of Christ.”
St. Ambrose of Milan, On Penance, Book One, Ch. VII, v. 33, c. A.D. 390.

“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion of Christ.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 3.2, ca. A.D. 110

“There is nothing more serious than the sacrilege of schism because there is no just cause for severing the unity of the Church.”
St. Augustine, Treatise On Baptism Against the Donatists, Bk 5, Ch. 1, A.D. 400