Did St. Peter act like a pope?

Some of my Protestant friends say that Saint Peter wasn’t the first pope because he didn’t even act like one. Is there any biblical evidence to support him acting like a pope?

Also, I’ve heard that next to Jesus, Peter’s name is mentioned more than any other in the N.T., and coming in 3rd place would be the Blessed Virgin Mary. (No wonder we worship Jesus, listen to Peter, and honor Mary…Catholicism sounds more and more biblical every day!) Does anyone know if that’s true?

[quote=JSmitty2005]Some of my Protestant friends say that Saint Peter wasn’t the first pope because he didn’t even act like one. Is there any biblical evidence to support him acting like a pope?
[/quote]

Of course he did. Right from the beginning of Acts Peter was clearly in charge. He spoke to the community and he spoke for the community (Acts 1-2). In Acts 15:7-12 it is obvious that Peter’s words carry the debate supported by the accounts of Paul and Barnabas. When Peter wrote his epistles he wrote with authority, even going so far as to identify Paul’s writings as “scripture,” something no other Apostle did. When Paul rebuked Peter it was precisely because he, Peter, was the earthly head of the Church and so ought to have known better: Gal. 2:14 "“If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Who else but the earthly head of the Church could "compel"anyone to do anything?

Also, I’ve heard that next to Jesus, Peter’s name is mentioned more than any other in the N.T., and coming in 3rd place would be the Blessed Virgin Mary. (No wonder we worship Jesus, listen to Peter, and honor Mary…Catholicism sounds more and more biblical every day!) Does anyone know if that’s true?

That I can’t comment on on–I couldn’t find any information online about it. Hopefully, someone else knows this information or knows where to look for it. :wink:

[quote=JSmitty2005]Some of my Protestant friends say that Saint Peter wasn’t the first pope because he didn’t even act like one. Is there any biblical evidence to support him acting like a pope?

Also, I’ve heard that next to Jesus, Peter’s name is mentioned more than any other in the N.T., and coming in 3rd place would be the Blessed Virgin Mary. (No wonder we worship Jesus, listen to Peter, and honor Mary…Catholicism sounds more and more biblical every day!) Does anyone know if that’s true?
[/quote]

Peter is named something like 155 times, and always first when in a list with Apostles. All the other Apostles combined amount to about 130 times.

Acts 1 Peter initiates the selection of a replacement for Judas.

Acts 2 Peter is the first to preach after the Apostles recieve the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

				Acts 5 Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is  					ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding  					authority.

				Acts 10 Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter.

Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem. Peter resolves the issue of Gentiles adhering to the Mosaic law.

This is what come to my mind.

Here’s what he wrote verbatim:

if peter is the 1st pope, then the same rules apply to him as they do to the pope now, right? well, peter missunderstood scripture:
Galatians 2:11-14 (KJV)
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. [12] For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. [13] And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. [14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

you see god did not allow the jews to worhsip in the temple. there was a court of the jews, and there was a court of the gentiles; the two never worshipped together. this is what peter could not understand. he couldn’t get it past his thick head that god was no respector of persons (god even told him this in a dream) but peter did not hold true to his dream, for paul says that he was the cause of this church problem. so he (paul) compared peters actions to the gospel. if peter’s interpritation was infallible, how did he missunderstand what God was trying o show him?

Any responses to that?

[quote=JSmitty2005]Here’s what he wrote verbatim:. . .[etc]

Any responses to that?
[/quote]

Your friend’s difficulty re Sts. Peter and Paul arises because he doesn’t understand the nature of Infallibility. Papal Infallibility has to do with the Pope’s teaching authority when he is speaking solemnly to the entire Church. The Pope is not infallible in his day-to-day actions. These qualities apply to St. Peter as well; St. Peter teaches nothing which is not the true and complete Gospel message. The situation in Antioch had to do with Peter trying to appease the Jewish Christians – much as Paul himself did on several occasions – yet this episode went too far, since it seriously threatened the “oneness” of the Church. That’s why Paul was correct, and Peter had to be set straight – even as numerous Popes had to be corrected in their behavior by Saints throughout the ages. Yet St. Paul is not questioning St. Peter’s authority here.

What did St. Peter teach that was wrong? The answer is: Nothing. So, your friend isn’t addressing Peter’s teaching authority, but rather a failure on his part to see the full picture as it applied to his ministry of leadership.

This incident in Galatians is brought up *ad nauseum * supposedly to “prove” that St. Peter had no special authority. But, then, why does St. Paul boast about it? If St. Peter had no special authority, then there would be no reason for St. Paul to boast seeing that, in Galatians 2, St. Paul is defending his right to be called an Apostle. Furthermore, your friend is missing the Jewish pun St. Paul is employing here. Read all of chapters one and two of Galatians. What do you notice here? For starters, St. Paul does something rather strange, he switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. Why? Why use both versions of Peter’s name? The name “Kephas” is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” (“Rock) – the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”. And so, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.

Your Protestant friends are making a classic mistake. They are ignoring 2,000 years of development. It is true that Peter never rode in his own Popemobile. I wonder why. He apparently never sat in an office in the vatican issuing letters. I wonder why.

I was in the military, but I did not train with swords and shields. Am I diqualified as a soldier because I did not act the way Roman soldiers did?

Each Pope, from Peter to Benedict XVI, act alike in that they do what their times requires them to do to fulfill the Lord’s comission to “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.”

Thal59

this is what peter could not understand. he couldn’t get it past his thick head that god was no respector of persons (god even told him this in a dream) but peter did not hold true to his dream, for paul says that he was the cause of this church problem. so he (paul) compared peters actions to the gospel. if peter’s interpritation was infallible, how did he missunderstand what God was trying o show him?

Peter’s “thick head,” huh? How insulting! And how asinine! :rolleyes:

Peter understood all right–he just didn’t act the way he knew he should have, which is why Paul had the right, and indeed the duty, to tell him so.

In her day, St. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the pope for not holding his papal court in Rome, where he belonged. That pope also understood, he simply didn’t do what he knew he should do until challenged to do it.

This in no way deals with infallibility or proper interpretation of Scripture but with impeccability, at attribute the Church has never claimed for the popes, or anyone else, except Jesus and Mary.

[quote=Della]Peter’s “thick head,” huh? How insulting! And how asinine! :rolleyes:

Peter understood all right–he just didn’t act the way he knew he should have, which is why Paul had the right, and indeed the duty, to tell him so.

In her day, St. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the pope for not holding his papal court in Rome, where he belonged. That pope also understood, he simply didn’t do what he knew he should do until challenged to do it.

This in no way deals with infallibility or proper interpretation of Scripture but with impeccability, at attribute the Church has never claimed for the popes, or anyone else, except Jesus and Mary.
[/quote]

Correct, Della. This follows Tertullian’s statement that Peter’s error was one of practice, not of doctrine.

Thal59

[quote=JSmitty2005]Some of my Protestant friends say that Saint Peter wasn’t the first pope because he didn’t even act like one. Is there any biblical evidence to support him acting like a pope?

Also, I’ve heard that next to Jesus, Peter’s name is mentioned more than any other in the N.T., and coming in 3rd place would be the Blessed Virgin Mary. (No wonder we worship Jesus, listen to Peter, and honor Mary…Catholicism sounds more and more biblical every day!) Does anyone know if that’s true?
[/quote]

The name Mary appears 49 times in the New Testament (NASB) and that includes Mary Magdalene and all other Marys as well. That’s not going to earn 3rd place.

We’ll have to award the bronze to someone else :wink:

Blessings,
Richard

[quote=JSmitty2005]Some of my Protestant friends say that Saint Peter wasn’t the first pope because he didn’t even act like one. Is there any biblical evidence to support him acting like a pope?..
[/quote]

How does one define how a pope acts? St. Peter was our first Pope, so by definition he was acting like a pope in whatever manner he acted.

[quote=Richard_Hurtz]The name Mary appears 49 times in the New Testament (NASB) and that includes Mary Magdalene and all other Marys as well. That’s not going to earn 3rd place.

We’ll have to award the bronze to someone else :wink:

Blessings,
Richard
[/quote]

In the Gospels, she’s #2. :wink:

[quote=MonkeyTape]Peter is named something like 155 times, and always first when in a list with Apostles.
[/quote]

Correction: If you include all the references to Cehpas and “Simon” (referring only to Simon Peter, of course, and none of the other Simons), the number rises to 205.

Paul/Saul gets 185 mentions in the NT.

Our Lady? If you add up “Mary,” referring only to Our Lady, “his mother” and “mother” – counting only as one reference the places that say “Mary, his mother” (i.e., not counting “Mary” in addition to “his mother” in those places), you get 78 mentions of Mary in the New Testament.

[quote=FCEGM]Your friend’s difficulty re Sts. Peter and Paul arises because he doesn’t understand the nature of Infallibility. Papal Infallibility has to do with the Pope’s teaching authority when he is speaking solemnly to the entire Church. The Pope is not infallible in his day-to-day actions. These qualities apply to St. Peter as well; St. Peter teaches nothing which is not the true and complete Gospel message. The situation in Antioch had to do with Peter trying to appease the Jewish Christians – much as Paul himself did on several occasions – yet this episode went too far, since it seriously threatened the “oneness” of the Church. That’s why Paul was correct, and Peter had to be set straight – even as numerous Popes had to be corrected in their behavior by Saints throughout the ages. Yet St. Paul is not questioning St. Peter’s authority here.

What did St. Peter teach that was wrong? The answer is: Nothing. So, your friend isn’t addressing Peter’s teaching authority, but rather a failure on his part to see the full picture as it applied to his ministry of leadership.

This incident in Galatians is brought up *ad nauseum *supposedly to “prove” that St. Peter had no special authority. But, then, why does St. Paul boast about it? If St. Peter had no special authority, then there would be no reason for St. Paul to boast seeing that, in Galatians 2, St. Paul is defending his right to be called an Apostle. Furthermore, your friend is missing the Jewish pun St. Paul is employing here. Read all of chapters one and two of Galatians. What do you notice here? For starters, St. Paul does something rather strange, he switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. Why? Why use both versions of Peter’s name? The name “Kephas” is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” (“Rock) – the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”. And so, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.
[/quote]

GOOD ANSWER----AMEN

Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.

That is not what I see. Help me to clarify please.

Gal 1:18 *Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. *

Gal 2:9 *And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they *

*Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. *

*Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto **Peter ** before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? *

BH

[quote=mercygate]Correction: If you include all the references to Cehpas and “Simon” (referring only to Simon Peter, of course, and none of the other Simons), the number rises to 205.

Paul/Saul gets 185 mentions in the NT.

Our Lady? If you add up “Mary,” referring only to Our Lady, “his mother” and “mother” – counting only as one reference the places that say “Mary, his mother” (i.e., not counting “Mary” in addition to “his mother” in those places), you get 78 mentions of Mary in the New Testament.
[/quote]

I counted 37 verses in the Gospels where either “Mary” or “his mother” was used.
I.E. if a verse said “…Mary, His mother…” that counted as one occurrance.

“Moses”, by the way, appears 79 times in the NT.

Blessings,
Richard

[quote=Richard_Hurtz]I counted 37 verses in the Gospels where either “Mary” or “his mother” was used.
I.E. if a verse said “…Mary, His mother…” that counted as one occurrance.
[/quote]

Right. I didn’t “double count” when a reference was “Mary, his mother;” that was a “one.” But I also counted every reference to “mother” (not just the specific: “his mother”) that referred to Mary. And I counted the whole New Testament (i.e., I included Acts), not just the Gospels.

“Moses”, by the way, appears 79 times in the NT.

Neat.

[quote=mercygate]Right. I didn’t “double count” when a reference was “Mary, his mother;” that was a “one.” But I also counted every reference to “mother” (not just the specific: “his mother”) that referred to Mary. And I counted the whole New Testament (i.e., I included Acts), not just the Gospels.

Neat.
[/quote]

Also,

The most commonly occurring name in the Bible is DAVID, which occurs 1,085 times.
The second most commonly occurring name is JESUS, which occurs 973 times.
The third most commonly occurring name is MOSES, which occurs 829 times.

Blessings,
Richard

[quote=BrianH]Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.
[/quote]

That is not what I see. Help me to clarify please.

Gal 1:18 *Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. *

Gal 2:9 *And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they *

*Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. *

*Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto **Peter ** before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? *

BH

I think making any distinction between Paul calling Peter “Peter” or “Cephas” is making much ado about nothing–it’s hair-splitting at it’s most inane, IMHO.

[quote=Della]I think making any distinction between Paul calling Peter “Peter” or “Cephas” is making much ado about nothing–it’s hair-splitting at it’s most inane, IMHO.
[/quote]

Someone posted an excellent paragraph on this a few weeks ago. I copied it and put it in my apologetics file. I apologize for not keeping track of the author:

St. Paul employs a Jewish pun in referring to Peter.

Read all of chapters one and two of Galatians. St. Paul switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. Why use both versions of Peter’s name? The name, Kephas (or Cephas) is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name Kepha (“Rock) – the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Greek, Kephas means something all on its own. In Greek, Kephas means “head”. So, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it is “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14); when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8).

St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.

[quote=mercygate]Someone posted an excellent paragraph on this a few weeks ago. I copied it and put it in my apologetics file. I apologize for not keeping track of the author:

St. Paul employs a Jewish pun in referring to Peter.

Read all of chapters one and two of Galatians. St. Paul switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. Why use both versions of Peter’s name? The name, Kephas (or Cephas) is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name Kepha (“Rock) – the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Greek, Kephas means something all on its own. In Greek, Kephas means “head”. So, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it is “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14); when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8).

St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.
[/quote]

Mercy
If you see my post above, I have quoted the verses and that is not what happens. Unless, I am doing something wrong here.

Also for the first time in history, DELLA and I agree :slight_smile: Della might say, well Brian, this is the first time you were right about anything :slight_smile:
I think it is also reading too much into it.
BH

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.