Posted on 11/06/2007 10:23:55 AM PST by Titanites
No. All of the Apostles. There is no mystery here. In Matthew 16, Jesus addresses Peter alone and before the others, establishing his primacy. Later, in Matthew 18, He bestows the power to bind and to loose on the other Apostles, as proper to their office as Apostles. They are not merely Peter's "water carriers," but have real authority vested in their apostleship, too. Peter couldn't be everywhere as the Church spread out geographically, so all of the Apostles had "ordinary jurisdiction" in their own territories.
Peter does have the primacy, however, and has the final word in areas of contention, which we see exercised at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Peter makes his speech regarding circumcision, "after much debate" previously taking place, in verses 7-11, and then "all the assembly [of the apostles] kept silence." In other words, the matter was decided then and there. Paul and Barnabas relate their deeds among the Gentiles, and then James, as the "host" Apostle who had normal control of Jerusalem, sums up the meeting. But Peter's call on the matter of circumcision ended the debate, because he was recognized as having "the keys." After all, most of the people present at the Council of Jerusalem were there when Jesus bestowed the primacy on Peter at Caesarea Philippi, knew what He meant, and weren't going to argue with Peter now.
We've been through this before. All of the examples in Scripture where Jesus is quoted speaking his native language, he's speaking Aramaic. "Talitha koumi" is Aramaic. "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani" is Aramaic. And so forth.
Interesting Wikipedia article which gives many examples
I believe Josephus also attests to the common usage of Aramaic in the Holy Land in the 1st C.
Also, I should point out that Aramaic is typically written using the Hebrew alphabet.
"Golgotha" is an Aramaic word, not Hebrew.
Then, only if two of the apostles gather together will Christ be there. That is not retained by the people either.
Matter of fact, the only relationship that the ordinary peasant can possibly have with God and the salvation of their souls is submission to the Catholic church, regardless of each one having a soul created by God. 
So John was lying??? Scripture is wrong? Don't you think that John knows more than latter day revisionists???
What you are failing to realize is that Hebrew like any language takes into itself words from other languages for which it has no words within itself -- especially the names of little Syrian girls named "Tabitha". But the Hebrew already had the name of the word for "rock" within it, especially the word for a hollow rock [keph].
If I say that I had an "enchilada" for lunch, am I speaking English or Spanish??? Just because Jesus used a few Aramaic words does not mean that Aramaic was the language that he spoke among the Jews in that day and the Jews among themselves.
And BTW "Golgotha" comes from the Hebrew "gulgoleth" [[Strongs 1538] -- a word derived from the Hebrew "gilgal" and the name of the city from Joshue's day. The Aramaic borrowed that word from the Hebrew, just as the Aramaic borrowed the word "kepha" from the Hebrew "keph" [hollow rock].
lol
And why is that??? Could it be because Aramaic borrowed a lot of things other than just the Hebrew alphabet from the Hebrew -- like perhaps a lot of its words as well.
So when a Syrian is using some of those Hebrew words in his everyday speech with his Syrian friends, is he speaking Hebrew or Aramaic???
How do you get "skull" out of that? Because, remember, the Scriptures give the translation of "Golgotha".
Just because Jesus used a few Aramaic words does not mean that Aramaic was the language that he spoke among the Jews in that day and the Jews among themselves.
Of course, the Talmud and the Targums were all written in Aramaic, but that was just an afterthought ... obviously nobody actually used that language.
Let's see, not only do you want to set yourself up as an authority over and against the Christian Church's own understanding of themselves, but you also want to set yourself up as an authority over and against the Jews' own understanding of their own history.
There's no point in continuing this discussion.
The successors to the Apostles were/are the bishops. Their number spread quickly beyond merely 12, even during the timeframe bracketed by Acts, and to this day, bishops have the same powers as the Apostles, as their successors.
The early Church quickly saw the need to extend the ordained ministry beyond even this, however, and established the presbyterite, or priesthood, to aid the bishops in their tasks. The bishops are priests, too, of course, but, while they have all of the powers of the Apostles, simple priests are given only some of them. Priests cannot ordain others to the priesthood (only bishops can do that), and priests can only confer the Sacrament of Confirmation by delegation of their bishop.
Finally, the early Church established the order of the diaconate, originally to help the Apostles (bishops) in their tasks, and later to help both the priests and bishops.
There are several thousand Catholic bishops worldwide today, and something over 100,000 priests. While the priesthood could certainly stand to have higher numbers, the situation is - and always has been - hardly as numerically problematic as you suggest. In any event, from the beginning, the Church’s structure has always been “hierarchical,” with various ministries performed by people ordained to their tasks.
Oh, and, BTW, the word is "Talitha", not "Tabitha," and it not anyone's name; it comes from the Aramaic word for "little". The Scripture translates it for you right there: "Little girl, get up".
You are being very bold in presuming who or what I hold in authority. While I will not make a list, I will make it clear that you have no authority to make any statement about what I believe or what I hold as authoritative.
My understanding of the use of Petros and Petra are the same as yours. Good exposition.
Catechism Of The Catholic Church
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
In addition to giving Peter a threefold chance to reaffirm his loyalty, Jesus’ threefold questioning of Peter was a relatively mild public rebuke for Peter’s threefold denial of Christ. The choice of names was fitting as a part of that rebuke. Surely you don’t suggest that Jesus, the Son of the Living God, “changed His mind” regarding the choice of names? Anyway, notice what He says: “Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep.” A singular responsibility not directed at any of the other Apostles. Not that they didn’t share the responsibility, but Peter (or, “Simon, son of John” if you insist, it doesn’t alter his authority) is charged with the task in a special way, overarching the others’ responsibilities.
For that matter, produce a "young" Greek document, one written in the 1st century AD for instance.
Till then the exact wording and it's meaning is pure speculation on the part of Protestants and Catholics.
BTW the Catechism Of The Catholic Church is more in agreement with the Protestant position that the "Rock" in question was Peter's confession of faith. But then, you know better.
Certainly.
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.