The Primacy Of Peter

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html"]Scripture[/url]

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).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

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.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - 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 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

[KnightofChrist]

I find it amazing when ever Holy Scripture is used to prove Catholic teaching, there is nothing but silence from non-catholics... or anti-catholics whatever the case may be.


Bump

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1210961' date='Mar 9 2007, 01:51 PM']I find it amazing when ever Holy Scripture is used to prove Catholic teaching, there is nothing but silence from non-catholics... or anti-catholics whatever the case may be.
Bump[/quote]

Finally I can disagree with you

[quote]IV. The issue of the SUPREMACY OF PETER:



In the Holy Scripture the Apostle Peter, whom the Papists, relying on apocryphal books of the second century, the pseudo-Clementines, imagine with a purpose to be the founder of the Roman Church and their first bishop, discusses matters as an equal among equals in the apostolic synod of Jerusalem, and at another time is sharply rebuked by the Apostle Paul, as is evident from the Epistle to the Galatians. (Galatians 2:11).


Moreover, the Papists themselves know well that the very passage of the Gospel to which the Pontiff refers, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," (Matthew 16:18) is in the first centuries of the Church interpreted quite differently, in a spirit of orthodoxy, both by tradition and by all the divine and sacred Fathers without exception; the fundamental and unshaken rock upon which the Lord has built His own Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, being understood metaphorically of Peter's true confession concerning the Lord, 'He is Christ, the Son of the living God.' (Matthew 16:16). Upon this confession and faith the saving preaching of the Gospel by all the apostles and their successors rests unshaken.


Whence also the Apostle Paul, who had been caught up into heaven, evidently interpreting this divine passage, declares by divine inspiration, saying: "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:10,11) But it is in another sense that Paul calls all the apostles and prophets together the foundation of the building up in Christ of the faithful; that is to say, the members of the body of Christ, which is the Church" (Col. 1:24) when he writes to the Ephesians: "Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophts, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone." (Eph. 2:19,20; 1 Peter 2:4, Rev. 21:14)


Such, then, being the divinely inspired teaching of the apostles respecting the foundation and Prince of the Church of God, of course the sacred Fathers, who held firmly to the apostolic traditions, could not have or conceive any idea of an absolute primacy of the Apostle Peter and the bishops of Rome; nor could they give any other interpretation, totally unknown to the Church, to that passage of the Gospel, but that which was true and right; nor could they arbitrarily and by themselves invent a novel doctrine respecting excessive privileges of the Bishop of Rome as successor, if so be, of Peter; especially while the Church of Rome was chiefly founded, not by Peter, whose apostolic action at Rome is totally unknown to history, but by the heaven-caught apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, through his disciples, whose apostolic ministry in Rome is well known to all. (Acts 28:15; Rom. 15:15-16; Phil. 1:13).[/quote]

[N/A Gone]

Did you come up with that yourself like a good sola protestant, or are you just trading a proper authority (rome) for another authority? Either way, you are following an authority.

In regards to the quote, the arguments are elementary and uneducated and have probably been dealt with by numerous authors as well as numerous threads on this forum. I will let someone else have a crack at it before I dust off the old basic defense books.

Im not trying to be uncharitable, it is just the irony of protestantism.

[Mr.Cat]

Gal. 2:11-14 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter's evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile's salvation in Acts 10,11. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying "Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!" The verse really underscores, and not diminishes, the importance of Peter's leadership in the Church.

Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status. Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in [b]Eph. 2:20[/b], the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in [b]1 Peter 2:25[/b], Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." [u]Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter[/u]. Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "[b]lithos[/b]" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need [b]Matt. [/b][b]16:18[/b] to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in [b]Mark 3:16 [/b]and [b]John 1:42[/b]!).

To further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See [b]Matt. 27:46 [/b]and [b]Mark 15:34 [/b]which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of [b]Psalm 22[/b] declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time. Also, 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.”

In addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom). To further rebut the Protestant 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.

Also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built...

[Mr.Cat]

In another topic he/she claims to be Schismatic Orthodox...

Edited March 9, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Anomaly]

LOL.
Do you want to discuss and explore your theory, or are you just looking for an argument?

I'd discuss it from a reasonable perspective, but data dumps that just restates what the RC Church says is pointless.

Surely, you are familiar with how Aquainas discusses and defends his points. Do you think you can do that? I'm willing to try.

[KnightofChrist]

The point is to show protestants/non-catholics that the Primacy of Peter is backed up by Holy Scripture. The "data" is overwhelmingly. I have yet to see any thread where you can seriously and reasonably discuss anything without some sarcasm, or rude and pointless statements. Perhaps I've missed it.

Ether way if you were serious perhaps you should have started by countering the Primacy of Peter with some data of your own, instead of the usual pointless sarcasm.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Did you come up with that yourself like a good sola protestant[/quote]Actually it was written by an Syriac Orthodox Priest, but this proves your ignorance to stereotype everyone just because they disagree with your personal beliefs.

[quote]Im not trying to be uncharitable, it is just the irony of protestantism.[/quote] Yes you are trying to be uncharitable, hence why you attacked me rather then sticking to the issue at hand. Why would an Orthodox [or even Protestant for that matter] want to discuss it further if ignorant and stuck-up Romans like yourself attack with such insults? I've NEVER insulted Romans in a personal attack, such as those that you've given but always stuck to the issues, despite not agreeing with Romans and considering them the one's that committed the Schism against their Orthodox Brothers and Sisters.

Due to the rude responses, I'm not going to discuss it further but don't post statements such as this:

[quote]I find it amazing when ever Holy Scripture is used to prove Catholic teaching, there is nothing but silence from non-catholics... or anti-catholics whatever the case may be.[/quote] If you're just going to issue personal attacks, when they do respond with a scriptural and Christian position that is something other then what you've come up with, unless you claim to be perfect of course.

Reza

Edited March 9, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[thessalonian]

Rezal,

Hate to say it but your post shows it's colors when it has to resort to a derogatory term "Papasts". So if your going to complain about attacks, look no further than yourself basically calling us all papists.

pa·pist Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation [b]Usually Disparaging[/b].
–noun 1. a Roman Catholic.
–adjective 2. papistical.


From the tone of your posts and the tone of your authors essay I think the usually can be left out. The rest of your article is easily refutable. More later.

Blessings

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1211043' date='Mar 9 2007, 05:14 PM']Rezal,

Hate to say it but your post shows it's colors when it has to resort to a derogatory term "Papasts". So if your going to complain about attacks, look no further than yourself basically calling us all papists.

pa·pist Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation [b]Usually Disparaging[/b].
–noun 1. a Roman Catholic.
–adjective 2. papistical.
From the tone of your posts and the tone of your authors essay I think the usually can be left out. The rest of your article is easily refutable. More later.

Blessings[/quote]

I wasn't aware that the term "Papist" was offensive? However, I didn't write the article, rather I just posted an article addressing the issue at hand [as others have done]. In addition, I never attacked anyone personally here... but again, it's no wonder nobody posts here to discuss these topics.

If you find "papist" offensive, then why isn't Schimatic Orthodox offensive? If orthodox are referred to as "schimatics" [which we aren't], by Romans... Romans shouldn't have a problem being referred to as "papists".

Reza

Edited March 10, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[thessalonian]

Whether you wrote the article or not is immaterial. By posting it your put your approval on what it says and the terminolgy it uses. That is what ann coulter is going through having advertisers pull advertising from her show because she called john edwards a flower. They didn't call him a faggat but it associates them with her if they advertise on her program now. I am not too offended. Just letting you know.
Would you post an article that called blacks nice black men on a board that had blacks on it. I sure hope not. I see these topics discussed plenty. Protestants leave however because they can't take the truth. That is a fact because the Catholics hang around on Protestant boards. If Protestants were so sure of themselves they could stay here through the heat and take it if what we say is so offensive. By the way, why are people being so offended. Aren't you criticizing me for being offended. Yet you seem to be offended by us. I don't really care if you call me a papast.

Blessings

[thessalonian]

By the way, perhaps you can show me where someone called you a schismatic orthodox since you've been here. I did a search and I'm not seeing it.

[thessalonian]

Never mind. Found it. I would think it would have been better left unsaid. Orthodox would have sufficed. Especially since Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication.

Edited March 10, 2007 by thessalonian

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1211054' date='Mar 9 2007, 06:10 PM']Never mind. Found it. I would think it would have been better left unsaid. Orthodox would have sufficed. Especially since Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication.[/quote]

Again... its no surprise that non-catholics don't want to post here...