As a Catholic I have always accepted the teaching of the Church on Peter because it made sense and because the scriptural passages used to support it seemed pretty clear. I have thought about it more over the past few years because of the world situation and the concomitant attack on the Church. It seemed quite clear that there was an attack on the Church from within and without that seemed intent on destroying it. Consequently heavy fire has been aimed at the Primacy of Peter. What better way to obliterate something than to destroy its head or leader or spokesman. It seemed to me if man wanted to enslave his fellow man,it would be imperative to ensure that nothing greater had the allegience of the soon to be enslaved,thus the authenticity of the Catholic Church and the truth of its teaching and the legitimacy of its leader has been targeted with increasing ferocity. Destroy the repository of the faith and you can confuse the messages Christ wanted to have taught to all nations.
So using a unique system of scholarly research that I put together myself based on a combination I figured out from responses that non_Catholics seem to rely on in the Neverending thread, I offer you my findings re the Papacy based only on parts of the New Testament I choose to use as well as the Havocian proofs of proof by non existence of documentation.
For starters,none of the apostles were married and Jesus was not inclined to ask married men to go out and teach all what He taught them. (No mention of any wives in the Gospels)
Peter was to be head of the Church Christ established to be visible on earth until the end. Only Mark does not seem to vest in Peter this authority and the reason is that Mark is recording Peter's teachings,Peter knew that the first must be last or in other words humble,so he couldn't very well go around blatting about how he was the big cheese among the apostles of Jesus. This explains why that is the shortest Gospel because the other ones gave him the honors and responsibilities that Christ gave him but his humility prevented him talking about it. So it doesn't matter whether it was first,second or third the big tahoo about its placement does not make a whit of difference, its the content and the reason for it that counts.
Jesus told him to feed his sheep,fish for men,gave him the keys and changed his name to a name that meant rock. You don't think Jesus knew what He was doing?
Jesus also rebuked him and that was to let him know that he was not to try to divert God's Will which must be done.This was quite possibly the most important direction that Christ gave to Peter with regards to leading His Church.
Peter also fell asleep,followed at a distance,warmed himself by the fire and denied knowing Jesus. These human failings which we all stumble into were for us,reading and hearing the Gospel all these many years later would know that Popes were also prey to human failings. It was only after all of that that Christ again confirmed that Peter was to feed Christ's flock. Yes, I think the Gospels clearly point to the Primacy of Peter and the Papacy as instituted by Christ for a reason. Well, this may sound incoherent by now since its pretty late but I am going to send it to you. Hope to hear from you.
I'm afraid you're findings are in error. In addition to the scriptural fact that Peter was not given any special preference by the other apostles; Peter was, and other apostles were married.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 Corinthians 9:
1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?
2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 This is my defense to those who would examine me.
4 Do we not have the right to our food and drink?
5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? ==========================================================
Peter (Cephas) was married.
sara, thanks for the insight to your reasoning and your faith which I think is great, and that you have a neat little picture of how it fits into your life.
If God wills,.... pray that you can always be content with your present knowledge, and that you never have to question it.
Your statement that I italicized seems to me to be the major factor in why you are at your present belief, "you were brought up in it."
My wife was a Catholic since birth and her childhood was spent in Catholic schools and Churches, and they were totally supported by her Catholic parents. Her childhood dreams were that of becoming a Nun, and dedicating her life to the Church.
As it turned out these dreams never came to fruition, but she remained a loyal Catholic, and never missed Mass, or weekly services although she had never had a personal relationship with Christ, but more of one with Mary and the Church as a family.
Had it not been through a miracle, and her and I meeting this would have been the way she spent her whole life, as many of her friends from childhood have done since.
They cling to the fact they are Catholic, and feel spiritually safe, but know nothing about Christ the Savior, and can not discuss religion or their belief, because they have never sat down and asked themselves, what does the Bible really say.
For many years it was hidden from them by being taught in Latin, but then when that was stopped, they were left with an old English writing that unless you had read it since childhood, you couldn't understand what it said, and when they bought a NAB or a Living Bible, even though it was put out with the Catholic Churches blessing, they were still told it was a Protestant influenced translation, that couldn't be trusted.
Most Catholics have been taught from the Church that when someone tells them that the Bible states thus and such, to simply say, if it's not the Catholic Bible, you haven’t got the complete Bible, therefore your Scripture means nothing to me.
They have been duped into thinking that there are books missing from the New Testament that have a direct bearing on what Christ said, and just as many Catholic posters do now, but they never tell anyone that the disagreements that have come up over the canon of the Bible deal with books that were in the Old Testament, which have nothing to do with doctrine or the salvation teachings of the New Testament Church.
They seem to elude that it was NT books that were disregarded, which as you know, the Catholic Church itself rejected.
Back to my wife, when we first met, I had bought her a Catholic approved living Bible for Christmas, and it wasn’t until a couple of years ago that she started reading it after a challenge from a friend to prove that works could bring salvation.
Then one night we were listening to Charles Stanley out of Atlanta Georgia, and she was moved to bring the real Christ into her life, and from that moment on she began a personal relationship with Him, and she has grown in leaps and bounds since.
My point is this, had she never been led away from the Catholic Church, and to a personal one with Christ, she would have continued on as have her friends and sisters to where they are really nice people, but none of them know Christ or what he taught, and although the book is still out on whether simply being a good person is enough to be given eternal life, I feel it is too important to leave to chance.
I realize that the Catholics we meet on the threads here seem to be knowledgeable of Christ and the Bible, but I think you represent a very, very small portion of the everyday Catholics we see out there in the world today, and especially the older ones, who were discouraged from reading the Bible.
I think it remains a fact that what we call, "the true Body of Christ", that group of people in the world who know Christ's voice, and are called of him, are not a part of any brand named Church other then when it is used in identifying the name of the building they choose to meet in.
This goes for Protestants, or any others that are out there, and you may even be able to quote people who have had to come to the Catholic Church to find their calling, but that does not change the fact that you certainly do not have a monopoly on bringing people to Christ any more than do Baptist or Methodist or even *grin, grin* AOG's, but Christ searches through all of them to find those who will hear him and become a part of his family.
First error. Peter was married and that has been biblically documented in these threads - recently I might add.
Only Mark does not seem to vest in Peter this authority
Actually, no one seems to vest in Peter this authority - no one. If Jesus had entrusted anything so major to Peter, there is an incredible amount of evidence that no one honored it. Nobody. So either every other Apostle is in sin, or Peter wasn't anything greater than an Apostle. And I woulnd't even call him first among equals. If such a title applies to any of the Apostles, it would more properly belong to Paul.
Peter knew that the first must be last or in other words humble,
Humility does not require the allowance of what would be insubordination by Paul and the others when Peter was jerked back in line by Paul. If Peter had any authority at that point, it was his obligation to excercise it - not his right, his obligation. Yet no excercise of such authority can be shown.
but his humility prevented him talking about it.
Again, evidently it prevented everyone from talking about it or honoring it.
Jesus told him to feed his sheep,fish for men,gave him the keys
All are charged to feed the sheep - nothing greater than any other there. Fish for men, God made all his Apostles fishers of men.. Nothing special there. And the keys are given to all the Apostles - and then offered to all mankind. Every true Christian has the keys. They are two, salvation and obedience.
Jesus also rebuked him and that was to let him know that ..
He was rebuked because he was out of the will of God and TEMPTING God.
It was only after all of that that Christ again confirmed that Peter was to feed Christ's flock
Feeding the sheep is teaching. That is the job of every Apostle, every pastor and so on. It is not a divine office given to one man and one alone, nor to one man to pass on to only one man. It was given as direction for all. It wasn't Just Peter's responsibility.
the Gospels clearly point to the Primacy of Peter and the Papacy as instituted by Christ for a reason
There is no Primacy proffered in the Gospels or elsewhere in the NT - nor is it supported in the actions of Either Peter or any of the others. This is shown in example after example of the other Apostles pretty much telling Peter what to do, when he's wrong and excercising authority over him in other ways. It would be more accurate to say that no authority was given the others that was not also given to Peter. The only Apostle that really seems to have taken the bull fully by the horns was Paul. The only one that looks or acts like a leader, if one could say any existed was Paul. But there aren't verses to misquote or take out of context to raise Paul up on a Pedestal in some carnal praise misplaced in a man.
Peter was an Apostle - no more - no less. Pretty words don't lend any more credance to the absence of evidence. They might make one smile; but, they have little bearing on the truth.