Replies

You said,
“Peter (and his successors) were (and are) in charge of the Church on earth in Christ’s absence...”

Christ is in charge of the church on earth, as well, as He is not, nor has He ever been absent.

Elsewhere you said,
“The Church is built on Peter, and Peter “stands” on Jesus, exactly as a lieutenant’s authority derives from his captain. There’s nothing whatsoever “inconsistent” about the exegesis.”

And so, ultimately, the rock upon which Christ builds IS Christ Himself. So, when Peter was in error (as in Galatia) Paul “resisted him to his face,” because Peter’s doctrine was WRONG. Did the Lord know this error would come up when He was addressing Peter in Matthew 16, or didn’t He? Did He know that this “rock” would be responsible for misguiding certain would-be new believers with a works-based message of salvation (Paul warns in Galatians about those who would preach another gospel, whether they be men or angels, which is no gospel at all)Of course, the answer is, “Yes,” (Peter tells the Lord in John 21, “You know all things, Lord...” when the Lord told Peter to “feed my sheep.”

Peter was suffering from the fear of men when he was compelling certain non-jews to go along with Jewish converts who were insisting on the idea of circumcision. He was wrong, out of step, serving as a veritable blind-guide. Paul says, “I withstood him to his face...” How must that have looked for the “rock” (so-called) to have to back down to this new upstart apostle, the one who was himself wasting the church? If everyone around knew Peter to be the one upon whom the church would be built, wouldn’t they have rebuked Paul? Wouldn’t Peter (if he knew himself to be the rock upon which Christ had said, “I will build my church”, wouldn’t he have interjected, “No, Paul. Christ has chosen me to be the chief apostle here. I am the one to whom the church must look.” None of this occurred because Peter knew himself to be full of human frailty—not a rock, but shifting sand at best. He needed a major ROCK underneath him to keep him from all his predisposition to sin.

One last thing you said was about Paul:
“And you must have missed the point about Paul hiself journeying to Jerusalem to have his ministry “blessed” by Peter and the other apostles (by the “laying on of hands”, which indicates his official consecration into priestly office)...”

There was no doubt occasion for all sorts of hashing out the Lord’s motives and intents for the new church. After all, He was using flawed human beings to carry out His work. The Apostles (those who walked and talked directly with the Lord, who were given special powers of healing, speaking in other languages, powers to even raise the dead) were indeed seen as those given ultimate authority/responsibility as the spreading of the Gospel and building of the church began. Paul, a persecutor of the church before his conversion, was doubtlessly viewed as a questionable christian by all who knew of his former life as a persecutor of the church. By receiving a blessing from those in Jerusalem, he received the imprimatur of Christ’s Apostles. In gatherings of believers it is wise for those seeking to begin new ministries in Christ to have the approval and blessing of believers with established testimonies in the Lord. At our meeting we do not let a new convert conduct a ministry within the church (gathering of believers, not a building) until elders, deacons, the flock are sure of their testimony of their walk with the Lord. No apostle is called for, none needed. We follow the scripture when it comes to the run and order of gatherings of believers. The days of Apostles is over. The office no longer operates. After all, Apostles were those who walked and talked directly with the Lord. Christ use them to initiate his work in building a church. So, if all this arguing for Peter is over his POSITION as a founding member, then I believe we are in agreement. But if it is to argue for his position as AUTHORITATIVE HEAD of the church, then we are not. And, so, if you continue to look to continue the office of Apostle by continuing a line of Peters, you are not founding your practice on sound exegesis. Even if you were to do this, why wouldn’t you (if you are a gentile) follow the “established” Pauline Apostleship? He himself declares in Romans, “For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office...” and also, “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” As the apostle to the gentiles (a title Peter never claimed—and for which never corrected Paul, nor withstood him to his face), it would appear he has the weightier claim on gentile devotion and obedience.

One last thing, all who are in Christ are made priests and kings to our God (see Revelation 1). All believers have DIRECT access to God through the ONE MEDIATOR, which is Christ (see 1Tmothy). This is done not by human apostles, but by the “...the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus...”

My contention, as I suppose the contention of many who disagree with the view held by the Roman church on the subject of Peter (but I do not presume to speak for anyone else here—let everyone search the scriptures ALL the scriptures) is that the elevation of a person other than Christ in the Church (with a capital ‘C’) will always lead to vanity, pride, error. “He must increase, I must decrease,” is ever the way of the people of God and His church.

"And, so, if you continue to look to continue the office of Apostle by continuing a line of Peters, you are not founding your practice on sound exegesis. Even if you were to do this, why wouldn’t you (if you are a gentile) follow the “established” Pauline Apostleship? He himself declares in Romans, “For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office...” and also, “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” As the apostle to the gentiles (a title Peter never claimed—and for which never corrected Paul, nor withstood him to his face), it would appear he has the weightier claim on gentile devotion and obedience.

Unfortunately for your position, none of the Apostles ministered strictly to the Jews. ALL of them ministered to whomever asked. I doubt that Thomas found much of a Jewish community in India, for instance. Indeed, Peter made a mistake---so what---Paul made a few too. But if you recall, it was Peter, and NOT Paul, who accepted the first Gentile converts--so what Paul was upbriding Peter for (and rightly) was being inconsistent. But again, so what---the Church doesn't claim impeccability for its leadership.

But, as usual, you completely mis-understand Catholic doctrine (as 99.99% of Protestants do). Like it or not, Christ established a hierarchical church, with Peter in charge, and priests and deacons as teachers. This is what the Bible itself teaches throughout the New Testament, and this is what history shows was universally believed for a millennium and a half, until Luther started teaching apostasy.

So I'll stick to the original Church, as Christ founded it, and which has been in continuous and active existence for two millennia. (Footnote: I didn't start out there, as I joined the RC church only recently--but I did so after LONG and arduous study of Catholic doctrine. As a result of that study, I found that the Protestant doctrines were simply and grossly wrong, in the face of Biblical, historical, and logical evidence).