[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by kepha

KFBob makes a good point. Quibbling over a score sheet is rather silly.
But what is important is the ROLE of Peter compared to the ROLE of Paul in the sense of jurisdiction, not quantity of writings. That is like saying the ones who write the most on the board should be the moderators. Nowhere in scripture does Paul act, speak, or write on behalf of ALL the Apostles. There are numerous references where Peter does.

Peter was called directly by God to “feed my sheep”, among many other things. One might argue that Paul was called directly by God too. But look at what Jesus first told Paul to do:

Acts 9: 6 And he trembling and astonished, said: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? 7 And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Nowhere does scripture tell us what God told him directly “what thou must do” after the fact. Paul does nothing until his authority is conferred upon him by the laying on of hands by Ananias, a representative of the Church. A lesser authority cannot ordain a superior authority. This is further proof-text that the Church speaks for Christ, because Paul is about to be told what he must do by the Church, who speaks for God.
He spent time with the disciples for “some days” (Acts 9:20). And later, “grew in strength and confounded the Jews”(Acts 9: 22).

This is much different compared to Peter.
Matt. 16:18 - in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “YOU” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “YOU,” and I tell “YOU,” “YOU” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “YOU” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “YOU” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest; that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Paul did not begin his ministry until after he was ordained by a representative of the Church. Peter began his ministry as leader of the Apostles as indicated by the events in the Gospels. This in no way diminishes the greatness of Paul, but indicates the Primacy of Peter as far as jurisdiction is concerned. By comparing the manner by which Peter and Paul began their ministeries, and their jurisdiction in scripture, to claim that Paul had more authority than Peter based on volume of writings is both ludicrous and unbiblical.

In Galatians 1:18, Paul says he conferred with Peter (Kepha) for 15 days, but says he only saw James, and then swears he is not lying.

Further in Galatians, Paul admonishes Peter for his behavior, not his teachings.

Back in Acts 15, nowhere does James preside at the council over Peter, but makes his contribution as bishop of Jerusalem, the same as any bishop at any council throughout history.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER
Scripture
I. The Primacy of Peter in Scripture
Tradition / Church Fathers
I. Peter Built the Church in Rome
II. Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See
III. Peter’s Successors Claim Authority over the Church
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Lastly, to clear up any confusion, the Bishop of Rome is the bishop of the local diocese of Rome, and is equal to any bishop in the local sense of jurisdiction. Only those who hold the seat in Rome get their direct succession from Peter.

Pope Clement, (whose name is found in Acts), was the recognized head of the universal Church on earth, and was the 4th Pope. Only one person can hold this position. The Apostle John was still alive, and why was John not the head of the Church?

Because John was not the bishop of Rome. Get it?

kepha

I have to disagree with much of what you posted here but since goldenchild does not want discussion here I would like it if you would make a new thread with this post somewhere else where I can respond to it. Thanks.

[kepha]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I have to disagree with much of what you posted here but since goldenchild does not want discussion here I would like it if you would make a new thread with this post somewhere else where I can respond to it. Thanks.

Good idea. Comparing the juridsiction of Peter and Paul can't be done on a few lines. Thread starters might inlude:

Peter as Rock
The Catholic Church Modeled after the Old Davidic Kingdom
Divinely Appointed Authority or Dominating Dictatorship?
The Divine Gift of Infallibility or Self-proclaimed Innerency?
The Heirarchy of the New Davidic Kingdom
The Primacy of Peter
Apostolic Succession being indivisible from the Gospel message whom it was entrusted to.
History of the development of the Bible as a collection of Books.
Paul's relationship to Peter

Only after having a baseline understanding of the above can anything about Catholicism make any sense.

kepha

[goldenchild]

Section on Matt. 16:18 has been edited for content. It has been bolded so the changes can be noted. It will remain bolded until sufficient time has elapsed or until another portion of it is edited.

[goldenchild]

Whole paper has been thoroughly revised and updated: now with extensive source quotes from Protestant scholars. More source quotes to come as I collect them.

[IesusDeus]

Wow, you added an impressive amount a protestant commentaries...

[goldenchild]

Hopefully more of that to come. I'm still doing some learning more on the significance of the keys and some other points. I'll update that soon if I get any more good info to include there. And I still need to make sure I've got all my lexicon references to Greek and Aramaic words in the discussion.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

John 21:15-17 is where the actual delegation of power takes place. "'When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' (Jesus) said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'"

Here they are surrounding a fire, just as Peter did in the courtyard(see John 18:18). In this passage Jesus asks Peter three times the same question, "do you love me". Jesus asks Peter this question three times just as Peter denied Jesus three times. Jesus is forgiving Peter for each time he denied Jesus. After each question, "do you love me", Jesus gives Peter a task, "Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep". This is where Jesus fulfills His promise to make Peter the leader of the Church on earth. He's not giving the Church to Peter, but simply telling him to feed her, to nourish her, to tend to her while He is away. It is here that Jesus gives Peter the authority to guide the Church while He is away.

A lot I would like to comment on (and I know this isn't the place but one thing I do wish to mention here). I 100% diagree with this analysis. Look at the part I emphasized. I'm not sure what translation you use but I am going to post this in both ESV and YLT.

(YLT) 15When, therefore, they dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, `Simon, [son] of Jonas, dost thou love me more than these?' he saith to him, `Yes, Lord; thou hast known that I dearly love thee;' he saith to him, `Feed my lambs.'

16He saith to him again, a second time, `Simon, [son] of Jonas, dost thou love me?' he saith to him, `Yes, Lord; thou hast known that I dearly love thee;' he saith to him, `Tend my sheep.'

17He saith to him the third time, `Simon, [son] of Jonas, dost thou dearly love me?' Peter was grieved that he said to him the third time, `Dost thou dearly love me?' and he said to him, `Lord, thou hast known all things; thou dost know that I dearly love thee.' Jesus saith to him, `Feed my sheep;

(ESV) 15When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.


If Jesus was making Peter the leader here, Peter sure acted in a funny manner. Peter was "grieved" by Jesus's words. Yes, Jesus tells Peter to feed and care for the sheep, but nothing here implies any type of leadership position. What we have here is Christ correcting Peter for his denial in a loving way, not Christ giving Peter authority in the church.

Using Strongs we see that the word translated "grieved" here ( your translation used the word distressed ) means :
1. to make sorrowful
2. to affect with sadness, cause grief, to throw into sorrow
3. to grieve, offend
4. to make one uneasy, cause him a scruple

An odd way to act if one had just been given the position of authority in the church.

[goldenchild]

I will not answer this point by point as it is not the place.

I will say that I completely agree with you're analysis that this is Peter's confession of his denial of Jesus.

Your saying that he did not recieve leadership because of his sorrow just doesn't seem very strong to me. There are quotes from popes saying that they did not wish to be put in this position of leadership because of how stressful it is and different popes, one in particular, also cried at his election.

But Peter's sorrow is most likely focused on his sorrow for his sin and his thought that his sin had caused Jesus to ask him if he even loved Jesus any more.

I just found this from National Geographic: "The newly elected pontiff must then literally walk out of the college of cardinals. He heads toward the altar of the Sistine Chapel, toward a room where the white papal robes await.

It has been given the title the Room of Tears, which gives the impression that maybe a certain amount of emotion and emotional weeping takes place before the man actually emerges now dressed as the new pope."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nconclave.html

You made the correct interpretation that this passage is about Peter's confession of his sin of denial. But then you say he is sorry because he is now the pope? While I see nothing to discredit the papacy because of this(because many popes have become very emotional over it - see room of tears) this seems more in context of Peter being sad because of his sin and because he can't understand why Jesus would have to ask him 3 times if he loved Him.

[IesusDeus]

goldenchild, sorry for the long post. I am replying to Renee's long post.
If not appropriate let us know so that we can bring it into another thread.

Hi dear:

This is because there are many things going at the same time.
You try to bring them together when they should not.

Let me give an example first.
Let's say you give me the keys a brand new mercedes coupe,
and at the same time you make a comment that makes me upset.
I would still be upset by your comment. (It was disparaging.)
The fact that I am grieved, does NOT negate the fact that I am receiving the keys of a mercedes.
The fact that I am grived, also does not negate the fact that I am at the same time honored and happy.
I can be happy about something in my life and at the same time be unhappy about something in my life.
The fact that I have something to be happy for does not negate that I have also something that troubles me.
And vice versa...

That' why I started by saying that there are many things going
at the same time. Same here in this passage:

Peter being distressed does not negate the assignment/responsibility/authority that has been given to him by Jesus.

Now why is Peter distressed or grieved?
The text tells us: Because Jesus "said to him the third time" the same question.
I know personally, that if someone asks me the same question three time in a row, it will be exasperating to me. Most everyone would be distressed too. Including Peter as we see here. He is human too.

Do you think that Peter is distressed because Jesus asked him to 'feed His sheep'? That's not the case. Peter is distressed because Jesus asks him the same question three times.
(If someone asks me the same question three times. I would probably say something like: 'I already answered you. Why do you keep asking me?' And I would not be happy to say the least. Just like Peter.

Also as Goldenchild points out, most probably Peter remembered the night when he denied Jesus three times. That brought additional sorrow for him. Remember what he did that night: "He went out and wept bitterly". (Matt 26:75.)

Now does Peter being distressed negates the words of Jesus.
Absolutely not!
"Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep" stands.
Peter is being given the responsibility to tend to 'my sheep',
to take care of the sheep of the good shepard which is Jesus Christ.
That is a great responsibility (and authority), being the caretaker of the sheep of Jesus Christ.

Jesus here turns Peter denials (something negative) into something positive.
The three denials become three proclamation of love.
Also, instead of focusing on the past, Peter is now given a mission,
something to look forward to and something to do.
Jesus is a great psychologist isn't he?

God bless.

[goldenchild]

Yes. Besides even if Peter was distressed over Jesus' giving him this position of authority it still in no way denies that Peter had this authority.

As I stated above, there is the room of tears, so named because newly elected Popes are often overwhelmed with the concept of their new responsibility. Realizing that you are now held responsible for guiding millions of Catholics in their faith in God would indeed be stressful for probably anyone.

Regardless, I don't see in the context that Peter is crying because of the authority but because Jesus had to ask him three times if he loved him. And because this event quite certainly brings back to his memory the time he denied Jesus three times. You affirmed that this occasion is the time where Jesus gets Peter to repent. Peter was emotional most likely because his denial of Jesus.

Take this as the Catholic interpretation to your question. Since this is not a place to debate this let's just leave this as it is and if you want to pursue this further then I'm sure Thess or I would be glad to talk with you through pm. Or you can take your concerns to Theology.

God Bless.

[IesusDeus]

Something interesting:

Before Jesus declares Simon Blessed, (Matt 16:17) and that He will build His Church on this rock (Matt 16:18). We have the proclamation of Faith of Peter in Matt 16:16.

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I AM?" 16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16)

When Jesus asked His apostles: "But who do you say that I AM?"
He is renewing the message of God-the-father (Yahweh) to Moses.

God said to Moses: "I AM who I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM sent me to you'."
God also said to Moses, 'Say this to the people of Israel, 'The LORD, (*) the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the theGod of Isaac, and the God of Jacob has sent me to you'; this is my name for ever ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations." (Exodus 3:14-15)

(*) The Word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name. YHWH, which is here connected with the verb 'hayah' = 'to be'.

This revelation by Peter occurred on the Jewish "Day of Atonement", which is the only day of the year where the High Priest of Israel could say the Lord's name, "Yahweh".

Jesus is reconstituting the New Israel, and Peter, the New High Priest, is declaring that Jesus, I AM, is "the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

[pillarfan]

In the words of our protestant brothers and sisters, Amen!

[milkshake]

if peter was supposed to be the head of the Roman Catholic Church etc etc etc and the head holds a special position etc etc etc and the pope is infallible (only a recent doctrine) why then did God then let so many evil people head his church?


http://www.crimelibrary.com/borgia/borgiamain.htm

it just doesn't make sense
and all those who opposed the churches teaching eg galileo and people who were translating the bible into other languages other than latin so common people could read it were threatened with death and many were matyred
why would a position Jesus instituted allow the bible to be a book forbidden to read?
i'm a bit troubled by these things
help me if you can

[milkshake]

how come Peter needs to be told things three times?

Peter's Vision
9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

If Peter had never eaten anything unclean did he believe he was drinking Christs blood?

Leviticus17:10 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."

[no_fixd_address]

Milkshake, you have posted a list of things that would require several books to answer in full. I would start with The Origin of the Papacy for a good baseline. It’s rated as a top 10 article.

1) (if peter was supposed to be the head of the Roman Catholic Church etc etc etc and the head holds a special position etc etc etc)
ANSWER: the Primacy of Peter
2) the pope is infallible (only a recent doctrine)

3)(why then did God then let so many evil people head his church? )Impeccability (living without sinning) DOES NOT EQUAL infallibility (teaching without error)

ANSWERWhere does the Bible teach the Catholic doctrine of the pope’s infallibility? [COLOR=Red]

4) (and all those who opposed the churches teaching eg Galileo) ANSWER:The Galileo controversy 5)

(and people who were translating the bible into other languages other than latin so common people could read it)

This is not true. Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.

6) (threatened with death and many were matyred) This conclusion is largely based on exaggerations and propaganda. Wherever you find people, you will find sin, both Catholic and Protestant. It is true that SOME Catholics were evil, but they were sinning against God and violating the laws of the Church. Those few who were executed had trials and handed over to the state for further trail and execution, because civil and religious laws, and the way everyone thought was not like it is today. The greatest penalty the Church can give to anyone is excommunication, never death. The Protestant Inquisition was worse than anything, so it's a backfiring nowhere argument.

A list of conclusions by mostly non-Catholic historians on the Inquisition

The Real History of the Crusades, by Thomas Madden, Prof. of History

7) (why would a position Jesus instituted allow the bible to be a book forbidden to read?)
ANSWER:Did the Catholic Church Try to Keep the Bible From the Laity?

Did the Catholic Church Prohibit Bible Reading?

This one is not too long. You will find out about a king who decreed that all Catholic bibles were to be destroyed. So a Protestant king orders bibles destroyed, and we are accused of not reading it!
This one is a must to read: Did the Catholic Church Prohibit Bible Reading?

More Proof of the Church teaching to read the bible. Lots of it.

Next post:

how come Peter needs to be told things three times?
I dunno, maybe cuz he’s a bit slow.

If Peter had never eaten anything unclean did he believe he was drinking Christ’s blood?
He believes he is drinking consecrated Wine that was prophesied in Malachi 1:11 as a “holy oblation”, and so have Christians since the beginning of the Church.Leviticus17:10 refers to animal blood, not human blood, and definitely not consecrated Wine.

I think I have demonstrated to you that you have not been told the truth about a few of the things of the Catholic Church. How then, can you be absolutely certain you are being told the truth about God and the Bible if those people find it necessary to tell you lies about the Catholic Church?