This blows your whole premise for Peter being your first pope


#1

This post was taken from another thread wehre it was off topic.

1 Cor 1:20-29
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. … 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; 27 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

I think God chooses fallible persons, subject to sin, to glorify Himself.

" But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us." 2 Cor 4:7


#2

BrewMax’s interpretation is erroneous. For one. If the Rock in Matt 16:13-20 is Jesus. Shouldn’t Jesus be renamed Peter? Yet, we don’t see that.

Let me quote it:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Phililippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I AM?” Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. 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. 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. 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 loose in heaven.” Then he strictly charged his disciple to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Jesus gave Peter three blessings. First Jesus told Simon Peter that the Father who is in heaven revealed that Simon Peter is the Rock whom the Son will build His Church upon. Second, he gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Second, the gates of death or hell shall not prevail against meaning that the Church will be preserve from error. This is clearly taken from Isa 22:20-25 when Matthew wrote it. Third, he is given authority to bind and loose. This binding and loosing is the authority to enact laws regarding moral, faith, and disciplinary pertaining to taking are of the people of the kingdom.

If you read the entire context. Jesus address Peter as you (singular).

The Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) by Jesus’ day were interchangeable in meaning. However, we know Jesus in his days spoke Aramaic. The word rock in Aramaic is Kepha. The underlying Aramaic Kepha-kepha of Jesus’ words makes the Rock-rock identification certain.

It is the mere fact that Protestant bias on this passage just want to ignore the fact that Jesus did establish a Church upon Simon Peter.

The interpretation of the passage in Matthew 16:18 is about Peter’s is about His confession of faith that Jesus is the Messiah is true, but that is just picking and choosing a verse and not looking at the Biblical passage at the context, the language, and** intent of the message given**. It is pretty clear that Jesus tells Peter, that the Father in heaven revealed that the Simon Peter is the Rock which Jesus will build upon. It is in this passage only that Simon Peter is the Rock. I also like to note that St. Paul in his Epistle addressed Peter as Cepha or Kephas.

You cannot go around it. BrewMax’s private interpretation is illogical, erroneous, and does not take into account the language written.


#3

When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its comer-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob a coward–in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.
(G.K. Chesterton, Heretics)


#4

I find it hard to take this sort of stuff seriously. It’s as if someone were to say, ‘well, this blows your whole premise for George Washington being your first president.’ No premise is needed. American presidents go all the way back to Washington. Popes go all the way back to St. Peter. The See of Rome was careful to keep the lists from the very beginning. Eusebius the historian confirms it. It’s like trying to tell me that I don’t know who my own great grandfather was, when I clearly do. It’s just historical nonsense.


#5

in the old testament, god works through some very sinfull people. peter, like nay other person, was subject to si, *** we all are. but that doesnt mean that god idnt have a plan for him.

later.


#6

umm…whats up with the stars after sin? thats not how i typed it.


#7

did you try to write the word “as”, but accidently add another “s” to it?
as in ***?


#8

As well, the narrow Protestant view tends to state this: because God had been referred to as “rock” Peter could therefore not be “rock.”

First off, the better question is “Jesus addressed Peter with a term normally reserved for God…and what are the implications of THAT?!”

Secondly, the passage makes no sense if Peter is just “small rock”…if he was a small, insignificant rock, the passage could be paraphrased like this:

Blessed are you Peter!
Peter you are small and isignificant!
And by the way, here are the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven!

:smiley:

And thirdly, so what if Peter was “small stone”?..are we supposed to think Jesus couldn’t build His Church on a stone?

That someone would think the use of Petras “blows the premise that Peter was pope” is more a window into that person’s psychology than anything else.


#9

Why do you think He would’ve let His Scripture be written by imperfect people who are subject to sin? That doesn’t make any kind of sense. I know this blows your whole premise for the Bible being written by everyone we know the Bible was written by, I’m sorry.

:rolleyes:


#10

:rotfl:

That is good.


#11

He says on this rock i will build MY church… why can’t peter be the first pope?


#12

You beat me to it. :smiley:

If God can guide sinful men to write the inspired Word of God, why can’t he guide them into the much lesser charism of making the occasional infallible pronouncement concerning faith and/or morals? :shrug:


#13

Eph 2:20


#14

It’s nothing more than a twisting of scripture to achieve one’s intent–establish that all non-Catholic Christians are the 'true church" because the Catholic Church developed in some fuzzy future time. If they admit they were Catholics before they split with Luther, they got problems of course. Sola scriptura takes second place to survival for Protestants.


#15

So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. --Eph 2:19-20.

Well this is clearly similiar to the passage in Matthew 16:13-20.

Jesus build His Church upon Peter first, then in the later passage in Matthew, he gives the same authority to bind and loose to the rest of the Apostles. Jesus build his church upon the 12 Apostles, and He Jesus Christ himself is the capstone. This passage does not contradict Peter as the first Pope…


#16

All Catholics know that Peter was a sinner. We do not try to hide it, nor deny it, because in and of itself, is a lesson. We are ‘proud’ of it, because Our Lord clearly teaches us through His actions that He can make great things out of any person.

Peter denied Our Lord 3-times; fell asleep at Gethsemane etc. And these occured AFTER he was “given The Church” to lead! Peter probably did not understand what a church was at the time! He was rebuked and told to be vigilant; feed the flock

With this ‘simple’ action, Our Lord shows us that The Church will be led by ‘humans’ and we are not to mistake Popes with the Divine! They are human throughout but He has chosen His Vicar! This is why, even in the face of laity, Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, and even Popes who have erred, we see the faithful understand and 'held fast" to what they were taught!

:cool:


#17

One question, may I ask (since I’m realitively new here and this is my first post, excuse me if it has been answered somewhere else;) )

Trying to dispute Peter’s primacy, Protestants are usually trying to say that other Apostles had the same authority as Peter, i. e. - Peter was not alone ‘‘the head’’, but all 12 Apostles collectively. Based on following sentances:

‘‘James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.’’ (Gal 2,9)

‘’ When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.’’ (Gal 2,11)

I’m interested - what does the author mean by word ‘‘pillar’’? Is it the same role as Peter the rock in Mt 16,18, or something else? Actually, why not pronuncing only Peter as the ‘‘pillar’’ (since Christ gave him authority of keys to bind and loose)… does this dispute Peter’s authoriy and gives it to other apostles?

You said that the fact of giving the same authority to bind and loose does not contradict Peter’s primacy… my question is what authorities does Peter have that others don’t, or what makes his primacy special in relation to Apostles? Is it just primacy in honor (as accepted in Orthodox) or something more?

Also the other verse, is it acceptable for Paul to contradict Peter if he has the exclusive authority that Christ gave him?


#18

Sure no problem.

Trying to dispute Peter’s primacy, Protestants are usually trying to say that other Apostles had the same authority as Peter, i. e. - Peter was not alone ‘‘the head’’, but all 12 Apostles collectively. Based on following sentances:

‘‘James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.’’ (Gal 2,9)

The 11 Apostles in union with Peter are infallible. The authority was given to Peter first in Matthew 16:18 and then the same authority was given the Apostles in Matthew 18:16-20.

‘’ When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.’’ (Gal 2,11)

Well, Peter did not taught what he practiced. Peter in Acts of the Apostles (see Acts of the Apostle Chapter 15 verse 1-41. In verse 12 the assembly fell silence after Simon Peter spoke.

Second, Peter is listed first in all Four Gospels, the lease important Apostle is listed last (which is Judas). Second, Peter spoke first before the Elders of the Temple. When Peter was in prison the entire Christian in Jerusalem prayed for him more than the others. You don’t see this being done by the other Apostles, who were put in prison.

I’m interested - what does the author mean by word ‘‘pillar’’? Is it the same role as Peter the rock in Mt 16,18, or something else? Actually, why not pronuncing only Peter as the ‘‘pillar’’ (since Christ gave him authority of keys to bind and loose)… does this dispute Peter’s authoriy and gives it to other apostles?

The authority given to Peter is from the Blessed Lord himself. His authority is not from Peter alone, for Peter’s authority is from God. For Pau even said, “I live, but no longer is it I who live, it is Christ who lives within me.”

You said that the fact of giving the same authority to bind and loose does not contradict Peter’s primacy… my question is what authorities does Peter have that others don’t, or what makes his primacy special in relation to Apostles? Is it just primacy in honor (as accepted in Orthodox) or something more?

Peter has the charisma of being to lead first. We see this clearly in the first Chapters of Acts. In the Gospel this is more so. It is Jesus who ask Peter, do you love three times. It is Jesus who told Peter feed my sheep, and feed my lambs. It is Jesus who prayed for him more than the others so they his faith may not fall (See Luke 22:31-32). Peter is alone is told by Jesus that the Father received divine knowledge from the Father (see Matthew 16:17). The tax collector approach Peter first for Jesus’ tax (see Matt 17:24). In Matt. 17:26-27, Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. In Matt. 19:27, Peter speaks in behalf of the Apostle. In Mark 10:28, Peter again speaks in behalf the disciple by telling Jesus, they have left everything to follow him.

In Mark 14:37, at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

I can go on. There are countless of verses during the time Jesus was still with his Apostles, and the time he left Earth to be at his throne, that Peter was left in charge of the Apostles.

Also the other verse, is it acceptable for Paul to contradict Peter if he has the exclusive authority that Christ gave him?

There is none. When Peter didn’t practice what he preached by not eating with the Gentile, Paul rebuke him. Peter himself did not taught anything dogmatically.


#19

:rotfl: :thumbsup:


#20

That’s exactly the right retort to such nonsense. I wonder at the blindness of people such as were quoted by the OP that the parallel doesn’t jump right up and smack them between the eyes. Honestly, any Protestant who denies that God would use sinful men to further his purposes should just be embarrassed.


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.