Who is the first Christian to deny the Primacy of Peter or his successors?

[simonthezealot]

Not a trick question, just curious. I don't know the answer.

First ask yourself who was the first to claim it, then work from there...

I know who that is if you'd like to know.

 

[MrPolo]

I know who that is if you'd like to know.

Are you ready to advance the "Leo I was first Pope" argument again?

 

[Yab Yum]

It may not have been a trick question but there certainly have been many trick answers.

 

[mont974x4]

Really? trick answers? I don't see any real trick answers...unless you think pointing to biblical truth over Tradition is a trick.

 

[chestertonrules]

The Apostles themselves denied the primacy of Peter and his successors (at least as far as the RC belief about the primacy of Peter) by choosing James to be the first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. If the Apostles had the same understanding of the primacy of Peter, then Peter would have been the first bishop and not James. Also, James presided over the first council of all the Apostles, not Peter.

As John Chrysostom stated, James was Bishop of Jerusalem, Peter was Bishop of the world.

There is no explicit rejection of Peter's primacy by the apostles.

 

[chestertonrules]

Not a trick question, just curious. I don't know the answer.

Wow, not a single answer.

 

[katherine2001]

Hi Katerine this seems to contradict Orthowiki

The holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostle Peter is the leader of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ


Apostle Peter - OrthodoxWiki

Is the EO split on who was the leader of the Apostles?

Thanks

Then why was James the first bishop? If Peter was primary, then he would have been the first bishop.

Also, for a short explanation of the Orthodox teaching on the primacy of Peter, see:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papal_supremacy.aspx

 

[RND]

There is no explicit rejection of Peter's primacy by the apostles.

No, that's true. There was no explicit rejection of Peter's primacy by the apostles. It was certainly implied however and I think that was Katherine's point.

Had Peter been first he would have been treated as the first. Besides can anyone really envision Peter gallivanting around in adornments of men?

 

[Fireinfolding]

There is no chief apostle.

Well theres one Hencritter

Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Upon that Rock

Because its a PLURAL foundation and the rock of their profession is Christ

He is FIRST and CHEIF Apostle

 

[MrPolo]

I do think many Protestants refuse to believe that Peter was the leader or leader of sorts simply because that would be lending some form of credance to the Catholic Church who base the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) leadership as the line of Peter.

You can still believe Peter was the leader and still not be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, look at the EO's and the Anglicans.

I think you are spot on here. For instance there's also this recent 2008 statement expresing how West and East viewed the service of the Roman Bishop in the first centuries:

Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
#20 n the West, the accent placed on the link between the bishop of Rome and the apostle Peter, particularly from the fourth century onwards, was accompanied by an increasingly more specific reference to Peter's role within the college of the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles (cf. Jerome, In Isaiam 14, 53; Leo, Sermo 94, 2; 95, 3). The position of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was understood in terms of the position of Peter among the apostles. In the East, this evolution in the interpretation of the ministry of the bishop of Rome did not occur. Such an interpretation was never explicitly rejected in the East in the first millennium, but the East tended rather to understand each bishop as the successor of all of the apostles, including Peter (cf. Cyprian, De unit. ecc., 4-5; Origen, Comm. in Matt.).​

So, chestertonrules, you see the Catholic/Orthodox statement in 2008 says no one in the West or East explicitly rejected the Roman Bishop's primacy for at least the first millennium.

 

[Fireinfolding]

No, that's true. There was no explicit rejection of Peter's primacy by the apostles. It was certainly implied however and I think that was Katherine's point.

Had Peter been first he would have been treated as the first. Besides can anyone really envision Peter gallivanting around in adornments of men?

Well I mean when Paul said, "WHO is Cephas"? He didnt say, "HEAD of the Church" or HE is A Rock too sorta deal right? the foundation is PLURAL apostles and the cheif of the corner is Christ (also an Apostle) as he is allowed to bear witness of Himself= God revealed HIS SON in me (THE ROCK) that I might PREACH HIM.. The flesh and blood deal is mentioned there with Paul as well as it is with Peter because no man can confess him unless it was given him, as Paul says "Not by man" because Jesus contrasts their confession against that of men.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Paul said, "WHO is Cephas"? He didnt say, "HEAD of the Church" or HE is A Rock too sorta deal right? the foundation is PLURAL apostles and the cheif of the corner is Christ (also an Apostle) as he is allowed to bear witness of Himself= God revealed HIS SON in me (THE ROCK) that I might PREACH HIM.

The flesh and blood deal is mentioned there with Paul as well as it is with Peter because no man can confess him unless it was given him, as Paul says "Not by man" because Jesus contrasts their confession against that of men.

See the pluarality?

Ephes 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Hes the rock of their profession being "counted" as an Apostle even as a stone, a chief cornerstone, he is first


Even Peter says, "YE ALSO are as lively stones too

 

[Fireinfolding]

Here we go again... I cant access page 4 of this thread either now, I need to respond from page 1 so if anyone responds to me I cannot seee it if it lands on page 4... what on earth? This keeps happening to me

 

[Unashamed Jesus Freak]

I can't find anything in 1 and 2 Peter where he claimed any special role, authority or power over the church. I would think that Peter would have said something if he had been in such a position. I can't find anything in Scripture saying that Peter or any other apostle state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors either. Would someone please direct me to the biblical references on this issue? Thank you.

 

[Christos Anesti]

So, chestertonrules, you see the Catholic/Orthodox statement in 2008 says no one in the West or East explicitly rejected the Roman Bishop's primacy for at least the first millennium.

We still don't reject the primacy of honor held by the Bishop of Rome. When Rome went into schism there was no longer an Orthodox Bishop of Rome though. There has to be an Orthodox Bishop of Rome in order for him to have that primacy.

 

[MrPolo]

Would someone please direct me to the biblical references on this issue? Thank you.

You can read the article by John MacArthur I posted earlier if you want an argument from a sola scripturist. If you want a more organized at-a-glance list demonstrating Peter's primacy throughout the NT, here is a link.

 

[MrPolo]

We still don't reject the primacy of honor held by the Bishop of Rome. When Rome went into schism there was no longer an Orthodox Bishop of Rome though. There has to be an Orthodox Bishop of Rome in order for him to have that primacy.

I understand. You see in that post what I was pointing out is how it's possible to consider Peter to have had such a distinction and remain Orthodox or Anglican, as boswd said. I agree with boswd that many Protestants are in fear of admitting Peter any additional honor or leadership role out of fear that they will validate Catholicism.

 

[chestertonrules]

I can't find anything in 1 and 2 Peter where he claimed any special role, authority or power over the church. I would think that Peter would have said something if he had been in such a position. I can't find anything in Scripture saying that Peter or any other apostle state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors either. Would someone please direct me to the biblical references on this issue? Thank you.

That's not the question. We know Peter had a special role. He didn't need to brag about it.

The question is, when do we first see his primacy and the primacy of his successors being denied?



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).

Only Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom.

 

[Unashamed Jesus Freak]

No, I did not read the article. I don't want an argument from a sola scripturist. I don't want to argue, debate or quarrel. I don't want strife or confrontations either.

 

[MrPolo]

Here we go again... I cant access page 4 of this thread either now, I need to respond from page 1 so if anyone responds to me I cannot seee it if it lands on page 4... what on earth? This keeps happening to me

In your User CP preferences, you can set threads show 40 posts per page. I'm still on page 1.