Pope: may all Christians recognize true meaning of Peter’s primacy

AsiaNews ^ | 7 June, 2006

[Petrosius]

If you believe what "Claud has admirably shown", then please explain Eph 2:19-20

Ephesians 2:19-20 reads:

Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.

As for the first part in which we are called "fellow citizens", this in no way prevents a hierarchy of offices within the Church. The President of the United States often addresses the people as "my fellow citizens." Paul himself quite consciously claims the title of apostle.

As for the second part, notice that it mentions the "foundation of the apostles and prophets." Foundations, you will recall, are made of stone. No one denies our Lord's position as the "chief corner stone." But if the apostles can be called a "foundation" then our Lord can designate Peter to be the first of these foundation stones. The Lord is free to do as he chooses without harming his sovereignty.

One thing should be clear in all of this discussion is that the Holy Scriptures are not easy to interpret and require an expert knowledge. Thus we have the falsehood of Sola Scriptura. We are not arguing about the authority of Scripture but its meaning.

BTW, could you show me one passage from Scripture that supports Sola Scriptura and our freedom to ignore the authority of the bishops, presbyters and deacons that have been established to govern the Church?

[Petrosius]

It is the Catholic church an the adhearents to it's false doctrine that have abandoned the Holy Spirit and His teachings.

A conclusion assumed and not proved.

[tenn2005]

A conclusion assumed and not proved.

Nope. Just matching the doctrine of the Catholic church against the teaching of the Bible.

[tenn2005]

But if the apostles can be called a "foundation" then our Lord can designate Peter to be the first of these foundation stones. The Lord is free to do as he chooses without harming his sovereignty.

It is your claim that the church is built on Peter (singular> while the Bible teaches that the church is built on all the Apostles (plural). The clear teaching of scripture denies your contention.

BTW, could you show me one passage from Scripture that supports Sola Scriptura and our freedom to ignore the authority of the bishops, presbyters and deacons that have been established to govern the Church?

Try II Tim 3:16 and II tim 2:15. Sola scriptura is able to make us complete (no need for any teaching other than the Bible). That is why Paul instructed Timothy to study (for himself) and learn to rightly divide the truth. We each have to work out our own salvation with "fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12). If you look to others you place your salvation in their hands. That is contrary to what the Bible teaches.

[tenn2005]

Priest=presbyter=elder. These terms mean one and the same thing but if you wish we can use the term 'presbyter' which applies to the Catholic priest and is the term used in Latin.

Not according to Theyer they don't.

BTW, the word is 'corrupting'. Why do you insist on corrupting the English language with 'currupting'? : )

I plead guily to to a typo.

[tenn2005]

You did not answer my question. How would this differ from the office of bishop?

I answered your question in post 173.

In the early Church there was some flexibility on the usage of the names of offices which would latter be standardized in the three offices of bishop, priest and deacon.

Did you come to this understanding through personal revelation or by being told it by some priest. In any event, there is no flexability on the usage of names and offices in the first century church. Some offices such as Apostles, Evangelist and Profit were limited to the first centure. The others continue to this day, but priest was never one of these offices. If you think that it is then produce your scripture. In Koine Greek, not the Latin translation put forth by the Catholic church.

[Kolokotronis]

"That would be incorrect. The NT was written in Koine Greek. The word presbuterios is nowhere in Greek literature translated as Priest. It is always tranlated as Elder. Check it out for yourself in Thayers Greek Lexicon. I agree that the word Priest is a corruption of the Greek, but it is the Catholic church that has currupted it."

You and Thayer are absolutely wrong. Presbeuterios could indeed mean "elder" but it also meant priest in koine. It is still used somewhat in modern Greek. Another modern usage of the word is presbeuthV which means ambassador. The reason the word was used was because the chief "elder" of a parish and the ambassador of the bishop, whose role within The Church is to represent Christ, is in fact the priest. To this day the wife of a priest is called the presbeutera.

T, Greek is my mother tongue and I must say that it never ceases to irritate me when Protestants insist on spinning my language to further their innovative "theology".

[Kolokotronis]

"Again, if we were having this discussion in Latin or Greek we would not be having this silly argument."

Yeah, you would. Trust me on this one, P.

[bert]

Hocus Pokus.....Dominokus!!

[colorcountry]

I've been out of town. but thank your for your informative response.

[Claud]

Present any historical writing, other than the Catholic Church Fathers, that says Peter died in Rome.

Apologies for the late reply. I was FR-absent this weekend.

Considering the bulk of the historical evidence lies in the Church Fathers (which for some reason you, alone among historians, don't find to qualify as history in the proper sense), you have imposed an almost impossible stricture on me. It would be like me proving Moses's existence outside of the Old Testament, Josephus, and the Talmud.

But very well, let me respond first by asking one simple question. To what does "Bablyon" refer in Revelation 17:5 and Revelation 18:10?

[tenn2005]

But very well, let me respond first by asking one simple question. To what does "Bablyon" refer in Revelation 17:5 and Revelation 18:10?

More than likely, in my opinion, it refers to the Roman Emperial System which ended near the end of the first century when the Roman Senate had Dominition (Sp) assinated and took back the control that they had lost in BC43. The city itself is very likely not the reference because it continued to exist and exert significant world power for over another 1,000 years.

[Claud]

Yes, I think you are right about the "Roman Imperial System", although I think John is representing the city of Rome as the center of that system: for example, Rev 17:9 says that the 7 heads represent 7 mountains, which is an unmistakable reference to the 7 hills of Rome.

Just as a historical aside, the Senate never regained control over Rome again after Augustus came to power before the time of Christ. (Perhaps you are thinking of Domitian in "Gladiator", which was a great movie despite not being historically accurate about Domitian's death). The Emperors governed Rome until Romulus Augustulus was deposed in A.D. 476.

In any case, given that "Babylon" is an apparent reference to Rome, what do you make of this line from Peter's First epistle (1 Peter 5:13):

"The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."

[Claud]

If you believe what "Claud has admirably shown", then please explain Eph 2:19-20

The quote in question is as follows:

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Eph 2:19-20)

So your question is, how can we say that Peter is the rock when Christ is the cornerstone?

This very passage itself already contains the germ of the answer. In describing the household of faith, note what it says right before Christ as the cornerstone:

built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone

Note that there is sort of a three-tiered structure here. The 1) saints and household members rest on the 2) foundation of the Apostles whose 3) cornerstone is Christ. The building needs all three to stand. Take away the cornerstone, there is no foundation and no rest of the building. But leave only the cornerstone, and there's no building either. The three exist together, complement each other, and all go toward making the entire structure, even though the most important part and the part upon which everything else rests remains the cornerstone.

In this passage, does the Apostles' being the foundation in any way contradict the cornerstone of Christ? Certainly not. Are they somehow "coming between" the saints and Christ? Of course not. Their role is to support Christ as the cornerstone, to serve as extensions of his foundational role.

Similarly, we do not say Peter is the Rock *instead* of Christ. Rather, we say he shares in the (true) Rock that is Christ in a special way. This is why we don't see any contradition when we hear all the times that Christ is referred to as the "Rock". Of course Christ is the Rock! But so is Peter! They both are in a way, the former more important, but the latter important in its own way as well.

And in very much the same way that Ephesians envisions a foundation passing from Christ through the Apostles to the saints, we see Christ's Rock passed through Peter to the church.

[tenn2005]

You have done a good job of dodging the question. The question is, How can the Catholic church maintain that Jesus built his church on Peter when Eph. 2:19-20 clearly states that the church is built on the apostles (plural).
The Catholic church claims that the church is built on Peter while the Bible teaches that the church was built on the teaching of all the apostles. Peter was equal to the rest of the apostles and never claimed a primacy for himself. That primacy is the sole invention of the Catholic church.

[Quix]

THE ROCK CHRIST JESUS vs

the pebble petros?

I'll take Christ and Him Crucified over dogma; over tradition; over playing church; over ritual; over doctrines of man; over doctrines of demons; over habit; over works of the flesh; over RELIGION; over churchianity; over phariseeism; over legalism; . . . over a host of other -ism's . . .

any day, any night, any time, all the time.

[tenn2005]

You are wrong in your history. Domitian was the last of the absolute monarchs of Rome. He was assinated by order of the Senate. From that time on the emperors were not absolute monarchs. There were 12 absolute monarchs of Rome beginning with Augustus and ending with Domitian. It was the empirical system that rested on the seven hills of Rome and it was that system that persecuted the Christians until Christ intervened to end it.

I know that you want to make Rome to be the Babylon from which Peter wrote his letters, but it won't fly. Stick with the teachings of the Bible and you will see the fallacy of the teachings of the Catholic church.

[Quix]

Additionally, they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession (cf Acts 1:15ff, and many other examples of episcopal ordinations
- - - -

WRONG.

We COMPREHEND quite well.

We DISAGREE that your interpretation is the correct one.

The FAITH of Peter the pebble IN CHRIST THE ROCK fits the text MUCH BETTER AS THE FOUNDATIONAL TRUTH Christ was referring to than does your explanation.

[Quix]

Great summary. Thanks.

[markomalley]

WRONG.

We COMPREHEND quite well.

---

OK, OK. So instead of being ignorant, you are puffing your chest out and are declaring that you have a complete understanding and have intentionally, with your eyes wide open, separated yourself from that teaching. Works for me!

Speaking of that, just for fun, you should do a little word study on the scriptural usages of αφιστημι, αποστασιον and αποστασια. You might find it interesting.

Or you might not...