Did Jesus pick Peter to lead the Apostles and the church?


#1

Need help addressing these points …

if what you are saying is true would you agree that your leaders first act was that of treason?

(NASB): Matthew 16:22 - Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.”

(NASB): Matthew 16:23 - But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

Wow, what a leader! :wink: I suppose it is easier to accept the pope’s authority in light of the fact that the first act of your supposed head was satanic. Thankfully, it is your blasphemy against Peter, and not the truth that has determined your perspective. Peter himself rebukes you even with his sin.

Also, tell me who headed up the council that met in Jerusalem as recorded in the book of acts. Was it Peter? NO! In fact it was James. Strange that a man assigned to the task of leadership by the Lord himself would be assigned a secondary role at that council would it not?

Thirdly, Paul rebukes Peter for his actions in the book of Galatians. I believe Paul refers to Peter as “standing condemned.” Is this the Christ appointed leader you submit to? Would you be willing to say te same of the pope, or is he so infallible that you will following him to the depths of Hell yourself? You do realize that “your man” believes and has stated that sincere Muslims are saved? I encourage you to embrace the rebuke of the one who came to you in baptism, and reply to the man who’s imprisoned your heart by saying, “Get behind me, Satan!”

Lastly, if you read Augustines correspondence with the Roman emperor during the 4th Century regarding the Pelagian controversy, you will see that the notion of a centralized bishop was clearly rejected by the church as a whole. You are supporting a tyranny that no Christian should tolerate.

… thanks in advance.


#2

Hello

Well, though it would be better to prepare a bigger reply and I know there many people who can provide much better arguments, I think I can tell you a couple of things:

First of all, the first act of Peter was not that one. His first act was to follow Jesus. Then he proclaimed Jesus is the Messiah and then he made his first mistake: he tried to prevent Jesus to suffer and die. After that Jesus told him “Get behind Me, Satan”. Satan means “liar” and “tricker” in hebrew. Jesus was just telling Peter to stop being so rampant because he was messing the things up and he also told the Apostle to get behind Him, that is, to follow him.

It was like this: Peter acted silly and Jesus said “Don’t mess the things up and just follow me”. Peter had just received the keys of the Kingdom from Jesus, now he was the “prime minister” of the King (the references of the israelite royal court is very clear here). He had authority, but he still couldn’t act freely. he had to follow the King, who knew better than Peter what was the plan.

To say Peter acted “satanic” is a very twisted way to see the things.

Well… I know I could improve a lot more what I have just said, but I hope this first point is now clearer… :slight_smile:


#3

First, I would like to say that reading a few books on the papacy might help. I’m assuming this was a message sent to you from someone you are carrying on a dialogue with. If so, it will probably be a drawn out event. Reading a few books will be helpful if this happens. Many of the books are broken down by category; so, you can find the section of the book that you need and use that. When a new question comes up, read that section and respond. A few books that I suggest are Jesus, Peter, and the Keys (Authors: 3 authors-one of them is Davis Hess-can’t remember the others-sorry), Pope Fiction (Patrick Madrid), and Upon This Rock (Stephen Ray). I’m pretty sure that all of the questions raised in your post have been brought up before, and I’m sure there is a good response to each in one or all of these books.

Beyond that, it seems as though the person writing this to you doesn’t understand infallibility. Infallibility prevents the pope from proclaiming something that is false when proclaiming doctrine. In other words, not all of his words, casual dinner conversations are not infallible. It is also apparent that they don’t understand infallibility because they seem to indicate that infallibility means without sin. This is not the case. Just because he did some things that might be sinful doesn’t mean that he isn’t infallible.

Good Luck

Luke


#4

Luke, thank you for your suggestion. I will look into obtain some books on the subject for the future but presently I was quickly trying to defend the Catholic faith from I viewed as unfounded statements.

Giennensis, thank you for your reply. I will use most of what you said in my response.

Anyone have any comments about Paul rebuking Peter for his actions in the book of Galatians or Augustines correspondence with the Roman emperor during the 4th Century regarding the Pelagian controversy where a central bishop was rejected by the church? These are areas that I am not sure how to reply to.


#5

Our Lord was very tough on Peter because he had to prepare him for the incredible responsiblity of leading the early Church. Again, the comparison of sons and earthly fathers come to mind. My dad gave me alot of tough love growing up, and I’m a better man for it.


#6

This seems relatively easy to dispute. It implies Jesus should have chosen someone who was perfect. Of which there are none.


#7

Hi Sir Knight,

A very good place to start is right here, there are several tracts in Catholic Answers where you can get more accurate information. One very good one that will disprove your friend in the Augustinian letters is here
An abstract from it is a quotation of St. Augustine himself:

“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).
"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

I hope this will help on that point. I’ll come back with answers to the other points soon…

Peace of Christ,
J.C.


#8

[quote=Sir Knight]Need help addressing these points … … thanks in advance.
[/quote]

Sir Knight : Jesus is the Rock and Peter was a stone. When Jesus entered Jerusalem on the back of a colt he explained that if the people did not worship him the stones would. Peter did have a revelation that Jesus did admire, as you recall Peter recognized Jesus as Messiah. Jesus saw some thing in Peter that offered hope to the rest of mankind and it was upon this that Jesus built his church, not upon Peter. If Peter was able to see that Jesus was Messiah so could we. By the way, I doubt Peter was ever in Rome, in his epistle he says he was in Babylon? Could be he meant Roman Empire proper? Galatians tell us Paul was sent to the Gentiles, last time I checked the Romans were considered to be the UN- circumcision and not Jews.


#9

The answers to much of this can be found in the tracts section of this website-INCLUDING one about Peter in Rome!!!


#10

[quote=jc_escobar]Hi Sir Knight,

A very good place to start is right here, there are several tracts in Catholic Answers where you can get more accurate information. One very good one that will disprove your friend in the Augustinian letters is here
An abstract from it is a quotation of St. Augustine himself:

I hope this will help on that point. I’ll come back with answers to the other points soon…

Peace of Christ,
J.C.
[/quote]

Notice he said “Catholic” and not Roman Catholic which is a contradiction of terms. Universal is not Romanism.


#11

[quote=uniChristian]Notice he said “Catholic” and not Roman Catholic which is a contradiction of terms. Universal is not Romanism.
[/quote]

“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (St. Augustine, *Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *5 [A.D. 397]).


#12

As to whether James was more in charge than Peter at the council of Jerusalem, let’s look at Peter’s words in Acts:15. Remember, they are debating whether circumcision should be required of the Gentiles.

*7
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9
He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10
Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” 5
12
The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them. *

It seems to me that Peter, not James, is asserting primacy. He settles the issue and they go on to discuss other matters.

James later makes a recommendation which is agreed to by the others, but by no means does he assert the kind of authority Peter does.


#13

In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus singles out Peter to strengthen the brethren, saying:

31"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [plural you, the brethren], that he might sift you [plural you, the brethren] like wheat, 32but I have prayed for you [singular you, Peter] that your [singular your, Peter’s] faith may not fail; and when you [singular you, Peter] have turned again, strengthen your brethren."


#14

[quote=Sarah Jane]“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (St. Augustine, *Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *5 [A.D. 397]).
[/quote]

What is your point?


#15

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.