Posted on 08/21/2007 5:01:42 PM PDT by NYer
The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first. Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s traitor, is always listed last (cf. Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometimes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf. Mat. 18:21; Mark 8:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).
Let those who have eyes ... read and those who have ears ... hear.
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Pope: may all Christians recognize true meaning of Peter’s primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Absolutely right!
Imagine those 1st century martyrs who learned about Jesus through oral tradition and went to their death, chanting hymns and singing prayers, in the Coliseum. Some of them were turned into living torches, mothers and children were fed to hungry beasts - while still alive! - still others were crucified - all for the pleasure of the citizens of Rome. Not one of them had a Bible! The New Testament had not yet been written!
Jesus calling Peter the rock on which He would build His Church is absurd.
Matthew 16
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The subject of which Christ speaking is the revealing of His divinity by His Father in heaven through the Holy Ghost.
This is the rock Christ is speaking of that the gates of hell won't prevail against. Not Peter...
Peter was murdered...
But personal revelation from our Father in Heaven is eternal...which the gates of hell will not prevail againt.
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 10:4)
Where do you find these?
In this time of disturbance, this is solace to me. Thanks.
The Bible is a collection of writings. The early followers of Christ had all the writings that had been passed down from generation to generation. They had been kept by the Jews.
They had far more than what we call the Bible today.
Those who created the church of rome discarded all but the few we have today.
Do I read your comment to mean that you don’t believe God inspired the writing of the gospels and the other New Testament Books? ... I’m frankly astonished! Jesus did write for us a text, through the hands of the Apostles and disciples! Even Peter dictated his witness to be written down for us. Do you seriously presume that Jesus didn’t write this witness in the person of the Holy Spirit?
But, but, but ... where then is the boasting?
Here is some additional scripture for you to peruse.
Mt 16:18-19 ... Jesus gives Peter primacy: rock, keys, binding and loosing.
Is 22:22; Rev 1:18 ... keys as symbol of authority.
Jn 21:17 ... “feed my sheep”
Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32 ... Peter always mentioned first, as foremost apostle.
Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:68-69 ... Peter speaks for the apostles.
Acts 2:14-40 ... Pentecost: Peter who first preached.
Acts 3:6-7 ... Peter worked first healing.
Acts 10:46-48 ... Gentiles to be baptized revealed to Peter.
Jn 1:42 ... Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: Kepha for rock).
Lk 22:31-32 ... “Simon ... strengthen your brethren”.
Lk 10:1-2, 16; Jn 13:20; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 4:14; Acts 5:1-5 ... “vicars” (substitutes) of Christ.
Mk 6:20; Lk 1:70,2:23; Rom 12:1; Act 3:21, 1 Cor 7:14; Eph 3:5; Col 1:22 ... humans can be holy (“call no one holy”).
They had a lot of oral tradition. Nothing was written down until the apostles starting dying off in the years, 80 or 90.
Well, I guess since Peter was Bishop of Antioch FIRST, then that blows Rome’s claim out of the water.
The only “primacy” that Rome ever had was “primus inter pares”..............
Nothing else.
Very good. And since the Rock is Christ, and Christ Himself renamed Simon to Peter (Rock), it should be no great strain to see the significance of this particular renaming: namely, that Simon Peter was to be the Rock acting in the place of The Rock after the Ascension. *Someone* fleshly has to lead the Church, after all! Even with a visible head, look how contentious we all are! How much more tenuous would the fidelity to the Truth be if we were “on our own” in discerning the Spirit from the time of the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost!
Whenever God renames someone in the Bible (Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel, and Simon/Peter, for example), there is a rather blunt significance to it. You might do well to consider this before trotting-out the well-worn and grammatically impossible argument that the renaming is based on Peter’s confession, and not on the fact of his foundational status, upon which the Church of Jesus Christ would be built.
Well, then, according to your own argument, it should be Antioch, not Rome, that enjoys the status of “primus inter pares.” Why is that not so, from an Orthodox POV?
Because Orthodoxy recognizes that the Imperial City was given that honor. Peter had nothing to do with that.
The primacy of Peter is a Roman/Latin innovation. NOT Orthodox.
“...the church of Rome discarded all but the few we have today.”
What on earth are you talking about? Usually around here, we Catholics are accused of having too many OT books as it is; now you’re saying we threw (presumably) many out? Or are you saying that there should be more NT books than there are? If so, then please name the ones you think should be added to the canon of Scripture, along with your reasons why they should be canonical.
You clearly demonstrate no knowledge of how or when the canon of Scripture came to be. It did not simply fall out of the sky ready-made, nor was it determined at some date after October 31, 1517. And the 1st Century Christians, the discussion of whom prompted your response I’m citing here, certainly had *no* compilation of Scripture along the lines of the New Testament we have today. Many were dead before even half of it was written, and , in any event, none of them would have had, in the 1st Century, anything like all 27 books. It took a *long* time in those days to print and disseminate anything for common use by all; most Christian communities had maybe a Gospel and a few Pauline letters, and this would be after the 60’s AD. They would have had even less or nothing at all of the NT earlier than that. Though, certainly, all of the NT had been written by the end of the 1st Century, it wasn’t until well into the 2nd Century that *most* of the NT would likely be in the hands of a given Christian community, and the exact number and roll of the 27 books involved would vary considerably. The canon wasn’t finally a settled matter until the turn of the 5th Century.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.