St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome

Ignatius Insigiht.com ^ | not given | Stephen K. Ray

[Salvation]

St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome | Stephen K. Ray | From Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church


There is little in the history of the Church that has been more heatedly contested than the primacy of Peter and the See of Rome. History is replete with examples of authority spurned, and the history of the Church is no different. As we proceed with this overview of history, we will allow the Scriptures, the voice of the apostles, and the testimony of the early centuries of the Christian community to speak for themselves. In many quarters, over the last few centuries, the din of opposition and uninformed dissent has drowned out the voices of these ancient witnesses. Novel ideas, like a voracious flood, have tried to erode the foundations and the clear historical precedents provided by the Holy Spirit's work in the primitive Church.

History has a clear and distinct voice, but it does not force itself upon us uninvited. History is prudent and waits quietly to be discovered. Conversely, the ingenious inventions of recent theologians and innovators are loud and demanding, bursting upon our ears and minds, our lives and hearts, demanding our immediate attention and loyalties. The riches of history fall quietly aside as the prattling innovators blast their trumpets and loudly parade their followers through new streets, trampling the knowledge of the ages under their cumulative feet.

Here we will allow the voices of the past to speak again--for themselves. And what the reader will find is that the utterances of the past still resound with one voice, with clarity and force. To study those who have gone before us, following in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus, his apostles, and our Fathers in the faith is to lose interest in much of the clamor of modern notions. We find these theological innovations and ecclesiastical groups poorly devised, if not disingenuous. This is what John Henry Newman, a Protestant clergyman at the time, found as he studied the primitive Church. He concluded: "To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant." [1] As the Protestant churches continue to fragment and lose the fervor and orthodoxy of their past reform efforts, many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are looking to the past to hear what the early Fathers have to say today. They are beginning to listen to the unobtrusive voice of the early Church, and they are finding it is quite different from what they have been taught. Reading the writings of the early Church allows us to tap into the very heartbeat of the apostolic teaching and tradition of the primitive Church--the very Church bequeathed to us by the apostles.

Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant role in our research. William Webster has written a book that we will refer to several times in our study. Webster is an ex-Catholic who decided to abandon the Church and cast his lot with the Fundamentalist Protestants. His book is entitled Peter and the Rock and asserts that, as the blurb on the back of the book says, "The contemporary Roman Catholic interpretation [of Peter and the rock] had no place in the biblical understanding of the early church doctors." To ascertain whether or not such an assertion is true is one of the main goals of this book. But along with what the Fathers say, we need to hear their silence as well.

While reading Webster's book, I noticed, along with his selective use of the Fathers in attempting to discredit the Catholic Church's teaching on the Papacy, that there are no citations "revealed" in his book in which a Christian, especially a Church Father, explicitly denies the Petrine primacy or the Petrine succession. Webster collects a large number of passages that are supposed to prove that the Fathers oppose Catholic teaching, yet never is there a flat-out denial of the Petrine primacy or the primacy of Rome. This is a silence that speaks volumes! We may find differing interpretations of Peter's primacy, which is what we should expect, according to John Henry Newman, yet we find no denial of that primacy.

I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster's response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, "No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that primacy and succession were 'exclusively' related to the bishops of Rome." [2] What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome's primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy.

The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred. Irenaeus may challenge the appropriateness of a decision made by Victor, but he never challenges Victor's authority to make the binding decision. Cyprian may at times disagree with a decree of Stephen's on baptism, but he never rejects the special place of the Roman See, which would have been the easiest means of winning the debate. The bishop of Rome was unique in assuming the authority and obligation to oversee the Churches. Clement and Ignatius make this clear from the first century and the beginning of the second. If the authority exercised had been illegitimate, or wrongly arrogated, it would have been an act of overzealousness at one end of the spectrum, of tyranny at the other. Yet no one ever stood up and said, "No, you have no authority. Who are you to order us, to teach us, to require obedience from us, to excommunicate us?" If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been a matter of self-aggrandizement, someone would have opposed it as they opposed other innovations and heresies in the Church. The silence is profound.

As doctrines develop, as authority develops, as even a family or society develops, there is discussion relating to authority and its exercise. Amazingly enough, this is also true for the canon of the New Testament, which was not finally collected and codified for almost four hundred years after the death of Christ. Does the fact that there were various interpretations of what the New Testament was, or which books it contained--a discussion, by the way, that raised its head again in the teaching of Martin Luther--in any way prove that somehow the New Testament held by the Protestant is uncertain or in doubt because there were various applications or perceptions of that canon in the early years? The faithful Christian may have believed various things about the canon, but he never denied that the Scriptures held a special place. He may have clung to a different collection of books, yet he always understood that there were "apostolic" books. In the same way, early Fathers, especially Eastern Fathers, may have defined the primacy of Peter and the supremacy of his successors in nuanced ways, yet they never denied that the primacy or authority was attached to Peter and his See in Rome.

Authority has always been an object of distrust and, very often, defiance. The nation of Israel refused to hear authority: they rejected the authority of the prophets [3] and rejected their Messiah sent by the Father. [4] The apostles themselves were abused and rejected. [5] Should it surprise us that many in our present day reject and demean the unifying authority God has ordained in his Church? In the primitive Church, as we learn from St. Irenaeus, the greatest theologian of the second century, many groups splintered off from the apostolic Church and "assembled in unauthorized meetings". [6] Rejecting the Church and spurning her shepherd is nothing new to our day.

Christians of many traditions are currently espousing recent Protestant traditions and modern schisms; yet they all claim the early Church as their own--asserting that they are the rightful heirs to the teachings of our Lord, the apostles, and the Fathers of the apostolic Church. Are they? Do they have a legitimate claim to the theology of the early Church? Was the early Church essentially "Protestant" in her theology and polity, or was she Catholic?

Much of the distinctive character of the Church through the centuries has been based on the teaching concerning Peter and his place within the apostolic company and in the Church. Was he chosen for a special position? Did Jesus separate Peter out from the Twelve? Did Peter have authority over the body of Christ, the one sheepfold? Was the position of bishop carried on by his successors? How did the first generations of Christians relate to Peter? These are questions we will try to answer as we proceed with this study. 

Holy Scripture must be interpreted, since it is not laid out simply in the form of a Church manual or textbook. One principle of proper interpretation involves studying a topic or passage within its context, both the immediate context and the context of the whole Bible. If this is neglected or done poorly, a plethora of problems arises. Historical context must also be taken into account.

In studying Peter and the subject of primacy, it is especially important to consider who or what makes up the foundation of the Church. The many facets of the Church are like the multiple surfaces of a diamond glistening in the sunlight. These facets are written about from different angles, and the metaphors used--foundations, builders, stones, and so on--are as varied as the gem's surfaces. In grammar school we learn not to mix metaphors. Mixing metaphors makes clear communication difficult and can lead to misunderstandings. This confusion of context is especially pronounced in much of the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant understanding of the foundation of the Church. However, even George Salmon, no friend to Catholic teaching (in fact he has proven himself a hero to many opposed to the Catholic Church and wrote The Infallibility of the Church to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church), understood the need to understand properly the metaphors used in Scripture. I provide an extended quotation from Salmon's book to lay the foundation (pun intended) for understanding the biblical and patristic references to Peter and the foundation of the Church.

It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):--"Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." And in like manner we read (Rev 21:14) :--"The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, "for one is our Father which is in heaven." And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter's also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone. [7]

Our current study comprises four interrelated topics. The first two sections examine the life and ministry of the Apostle Peter from biblical and historical sources. The last two sections examine the continuing authority of Peter through the centuries, carried on through apostolic succession and the primacy of Rome. We divide the study in this way:

1. The Life and Ministry of Peter

A. Biblical study: Peter the man, the apostle, the rock: What is his place in the teachings of Jesus and in the New Testament?

B. Historical study: Did Peter travel to Rome, oversee the Church as bishop, and die a martyr's death in the city of Rome?

2. The Primacy of Peter in the Early Church

A. Earliest document study: The primacy of Rome in the earliest non-canonical writings of the Church, authored by Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch.

B. Early Church study: Peter and the primacy of Rome taught and practiced throughout the first five centuries.

Certainly, it is not possible to compile every passage from the Fathers that pertains to the study of Peter and the primacy. This is true, first of all, because such passages are too abundant and, secondly, because many times the primacy is not demonstrated by written teachings per se, but by the actions of the Fathers in particular historical situations. Some Fathers write of the Petrine primacy and later change their stance as they move away from orthodoxy or from a literal understanding of Scripture or when they enter into a personal conflict with the bishop of Rome. Lately, several books have come out that are hostile to the Catholic Church's teaching on papal primacy (we will discuss these books in the course of our study). A perusal of these books shows that their inability to deal fairly with the issue stems from their tendency to "proof-text", by which they point out things that seem to support their contentions and ignore everything that does not.

Another reason these opponents find it difficult to comprehend the Papacy is a perspective, inherited from the Protestant Reformation, that is essentially anti-sacramental, anti-mediational, and anti-incarnational. God's economy, however, always involves mediation. The people of God, for example, stepped back and demanded that God not speak to them directly, for they were afraid and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die" (Ex 20:19). Take another example--Paul. God could very well have "saved" him directly, but instead the great Paul was sent to the lowly Ananias for baptism and instructions. Paul later went to Peter for approval and to make sure he "was not running in vain", even though he had received revelations and had even been taken up to the "third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2). No Christian baptizes himself; this is done though the mediating agency of another person. Without an understanding of how God works through mediation, it is difficult to understand the fullness of the faith. [8]

It would take volumes to deal thoroughly with every biblical passage, every Father's writings, and every argument against the Papacy. However, we will provide ample material to establish the firm foundation of Catholic teaching and to refute the opposition. In the process we will attempt to be fair with the material, analyzing not only the Catholic position but the interpretation espoused by the opposition. Much can be said about each of these topics and detailed accounts can be read from other sources listed in the bibliography.

In our journey through the Scriptures and the primitive Church, we will consult our first brethren in Christ. We will conclude by looking at the current teaching of the Catholic Church as well as the widespread opposition. Now let us journey back in time to the New Testament period and the generations that followed in the footsteps and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

ENDNOTES:

[1] John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in Conscience, Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 50.

[2] E-mail from William Webster dated August 16, 1997.

[3] Mt 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

[4] Jn 1:10-11: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not."

[5] Paul says in 2 Timothy 1: 15, "You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, and among them Phygelus and Hermogenes." The Apostle John writes in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us."

[6] "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 3, 2, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985], 1:415 [hereafter ANF]).

[7] George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (London: John Murray, 1914), 338-39.

[8] The objection will arise, "But we have only 'one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'" (1 Tim 2:5). To this the Catholic offers a hearty Amen! Yet we see, not four verses earlier, Paul commanding Timothy to pray for all men--to intercede (from the Latin intercedere, to intervene or go between, to mediate). Yes, Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, for such a unique covenant takes a unique mediator (Heb 8:6). But do we assume that, because Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, there is no longer any mediation in the Church? Prayer is mediation. We are mediating God's message to a sinful world when we preach the gospel. No finite human being can mediate an eternal covenant between God and man, but a pastor can certainly mediate God's word, and a simple soul can certainly intercede for the mighty. Mediation is alive and well as we enter into the New Covenant and participate in the mediating work of Christ.

[srweaver]

Yes, I have been to many Catholic masses, and never knew Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior when I was Catholic, nor do I remember being invited to have/develop a personal relationship with Him during my sojourn there. It seems that being a good Catholic “externally” was sufficient.

As to the teaching that the “elements” turn into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, I have to disagree.

Do you think Jesus was serving Himself literally at the last supper (passover before he was crucified) when he said “this is my body,” and “this is my blood,” or do you think He was speaking symbolically?

[Salvation]

If you were baptized a Catholic you still are a Catholic and can come back at any time. All you need to do is sit down with a priest and get your questions about the Mass and Jesus Christ answered.

Of course, listening and hearing in your heart would be very important too.

I would be the first to welcome you back.

Jesus was not speaking symbolically at the Last Supper. He told the apostles to “Do this in remembrance of me.” That’s why a Mass is not a re-enactment of the one Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. We are celebrating in MEMORY of him as he commanded.

“Taking the bread, He broke it, blessed it and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take this and eat; this is my body’”

“In like manner, He took wine, blessed it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take this and drink; this is my blood.’”

“Do this in remembrance of me.”

It all happened in reality then and it all happens in reality now in each Mass as the priest (a stamd-in for Christ because of his ordination) says those very same words.

Why do you disagree with trans_(transfer_substantiation(substance.) Are you saying that Christ, the Son of Man and Son of God cannot change bread and wine into his flesh and blood?

Have you ever studied in depth any Eucharistic miracles? Please check them out. The proof is there.

[Salvation]

**nor do I remember being invited to have/develop a personal relationship with Him during my sojourn there.**

I am truly sorry about this. I wish you could hear my priest preach — you would not remain separated from the church of your birth for long. He constantly urges us all to form that personal relationship with Christ and not the modern day world.

[Salvation]

Vultus Christi

God rejects no one. The Church rejects no one.

By

Father Mark

 on April 19, 2010 12:25 PM |

"Yet in his great love, God challenges all of us to change and to become more perfect."

The Holy Father's address to young people in Malta will not, in all likelihood, get much coverage in the secular media. And yet, how much the world needs to hear that hatred and anger can be swept away by the power of Christ's love!

Changed Forever

Saint Paul, as a young man, had an experience that changed him for ever. As you know, he was once an enemy of the Church, and did all he could to destroy it. While he was travelling to Damascus, intending to hunt down any Christians he could find there, the Lord appeared to him in a vision. A blinding light shone around him and he heard a voice saying, "Why do you persecute me? ... I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:4-5). Paul was completely overcome by this encounter with the Lord, and his whole life was transformed. He became a disciple, and went on to be a great apostle and missionary. Here in Malta, you have particular reason to give thanks for Paul's missionary labours, which spread the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean.

An Overwhelming Experience of Love

Every personal encounter with Jesus is an overwhelming experience of love. Previously, as Paul himself admits, he had "persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it" (Gal 1:13). But the hatred and anger expressed in those words was completely swept away by the power of Christ's love. For the rest of his life, Paul had a burning desire to carry the news of that love to the ends of the earth.

God Knows Our Strengths and Our Faults

Maybe some of you will say to me, Saint Paul is often severe in his writings. How can I say that he was spreading a message of love? My answer is this. God loves every one of us with a depth and intensity that we can hardly begin to imagine. And he knows us intimately, he knows all our strengths and all our faults. Because he loves us so much, he wants to purify us of our faults and build up our virtues so that we can have life in abundance. When he challenges us because something in our lives is displeasing to him, he is not rejecting us, but he is asking us to change and become more perfect. That is what he asked of Saint Paul on the road to Damascus. God rejects no one. And the Church rejects no one. Yet in his great love, God challenges all of us to change and to become more perfect.

Do Not Be Afraid

Saint John tells us that perfect love casts out fear (cf. 1 Jn 4:18). And so I say to all of you, "Do not be afraid!" How many times we hear those words in the Scriptures! They are addressed by the angel to Mary at the Annunciation, by Jesus to Peter when calling him to be a disciple, and by the angel to Paul on the eve of his shipwreck. To all of you who wish to follow Christ, as married couples, as parents, as priests, as religious, as lay faithful bringing the message of the Gospel to the world, I say, do not be afraid! You may well encounter opposition to the Gospel message. Today's culture, like every culture, promotes ideas and values that are sometimes at variance with those lived and preached by our Lord Jesus Christ. Often they are presented with great persuasive power, reinforced by the media and by social pressure from groups hostile to the Christian faith. It is easy, when we are young and impressionable, to be swayed by our peers to accept ideas and values that we know are not what the Lord truly wants for us. That is why I say to you: do not be afraid, but rejoice in his love for you; trust him, answer his call to discipleship, and find nourishment and spiritual healing in the sacraments of the Church.

[armydoc]

when Catholics disagree on a matter of faith, we take it to a higher authority (the Catechism, the Bible, the Magisterium) until we resolve the conflict. Protestants simply form a new denomination.

Actually, when Catholics disagree on a matter of faith, they, for the most part, feel comfortable warming the pews anyway and continue to call themselves Catholics. Surveys show that a majority of professing American Catholics disagree with one or more essential Catholic doctrines. In essence, there are millions of personal Catholic denominations within the Catholic Church. YOPIOC, if you will. Go ahead and tell me these people aren't really Catholics. Fine. But don't turn around and spout the "billion Catholics" line.

[pgyanke]

This is where most Protestant theology leaves the reservation. You say that Our Lord is not yet holding His Wedding Feast... then, what was He doing on that Cross? You are blind to what is right in front of your face.

Our Lord was Priest, Sacrifice and Bridegroom in offering of His Own Body as the sacrificial Lamb of the New Covenant. The problem is you don't understand covenant language. Covenant-making is family making in the same way as a marriage or an adoption and the Bible is full of this language from beginning to end. That is the whole purpose of the Cross! Our Lord didn't just take our sins and suffer our punishment... that's the smaller part of it. That language is ritualistic and harkens back to the sacrifices required of the Israelites to extricate themselves from their idol worship. It is an atonement... but not the bigger picture. We are meant to look more deeply than seeing a vengeful god venting his righteous anger and we are meant to have more than simple gratitude that it wasn't vented on us.

Our Lord was lifted up on that Cross as the sacrificial offering of the New Covenant that restored us to communion with God. There is no future covenant, no future sacrifice that will make this union any stronger. St Paul tells us that we will judge the angels. That's right... but why? It's because we are more than sinners redeemed, more than the condemned exonerated... we are sons and daughters restored to the Family of God. We are part of the Royal Family of Heaven and, through the Marriage of the Lamb to His Church (as spoken of throughout Scripture... and very eloquently and directly in Ephesians), we are One Flesh with Christ and participants in the Life of the Holy Trinity.

The Once for All Sacrifice of the Cross is the Offering of the Marriage Feast of the Lamb that stands as the centerpiece of history and the eternal and ever-present reality of Heaven. We participate in this eternal mystery in each Mass when the Church joins Herself to Her Savior in a marital embrace. The Revelation of John is that this reality is all around us now as we celebrate our communion with the saints in Heaven.

[srweaver]

You posted: I am truly sorry about this.

Thanks, but all to often it is still the same in Catholic churches today. Most Catholics I know (not all) do not demonstrate a “personal” faith in Christ, but think they are saved by the external actions of the church/priest, while their hearts lives do not reflect submission to biblical principles or Christian love/servive.

Thankfully, there are some exceptions, and most of these, in my experience, are those who expand their “religious” activity outside the bounds of Roman Catholicism into fellowship with “other” Christian believers.

[pgyanke]

You’re funny. You think you are making your own point... but you are making mine even better than I did.

What kind of faith is unexamined and never questioned? Using your own yardstick, you could say that every individual on the planet is his own denomination. Of course that’s ridiculous and tortures the language. The fact is that even when Catholics question the Faith, they are still in the pews listening, learning and participating. We are not outside the Church making a church of our own.

I was one who questioned my faith to the point of nearly leaving the Church. What brought me back was a careful reading of the Bible, history, the early Church Fathers, apologetics and actually participating in the Mass rather than being a disinterested spectator. It really was a question of authority... just as it is for much of the rest of Christianity. Certainly even a cursory view of history is all that is needed to see that we need the authority Christ gave His Church. When we stray from it, we set up our own authorities with private interpretations... and that has led to the fractalization of the Protestant world. Rather than the unity we preserve with God’s Grace and the prayers of Our Lord, the Protestant world demonstrates disunity and division.

Ask yourself this... what is the purpose of the Epistles? They are not simply letters of support and encouragement... although they have those elements. If you read them closely, you will see that they teach on matters of the faith and reproach the churches for straying from the traditions given them by the Apostles. By what authority does one church tell another church it is wrong? I’ll tell you... by the authority of One Church which brings all into conformity. My Protestant friends tell me there are meant to be separate churches as shown in the Epistles. However, they miss the fact that the purpose of the Epistles was to maintain the unity of Faith as One Church.

[srweaver]

Yes, I am still a “catholic” in the meaning of “universal,” but I am not a Roman Catholic, nor do I want to be, after having experienced the “faith,” both inside and outside of the RCC.

I’m glad God, by His grace, led me to a place where I could meet the Jesus of the Bible, who changed my life (by giving me life).

By the way, I find it interesting how you “claim” me as a Catholic because you think I was baptized Catholic. If you think baptism saves you apart from faith, I encourage you to reexamine the scriptures for yourself, but doubt you will get beyond Roman Catholic dogma.

Thanks for substantiating your belief in transubstantiation (pun intended). Of course, you are free to believe what you want about what Jesus means by His teaching, but count me out. If you can’t tell the difference between the texture of meat (flesh) and bread, what can I say? Or does the change take place after you swallow? If it isn’t literal flesh, as you claim, then I guess its symbolic. I know I’m wasting my time here...so I will stop.

[srweaver]

BTW, “Salvation,” did you want to respond to substantive posts (62 and 64) rejecting your assertions of Peter’s position according to Catholic mythology, or are you just going to ignore them as they are based on the Bible and history, not “after the fact” fantasy.

[pgyanke]

If you think baptism saves you apart from faith, I encourage you to reexamine the scriptures for yourself...

Ok... John 3:22 [ John's Last Testimony ] After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. Hmmm... Jesus was baptizing. Was He wasting His time?

John 3:26 And they came to John and said to him, " Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, He is baptizing and all are coming to Him." Clearly, He does this a lot! Maybe not as much as John...

John 4:1 [ Jesus Goes to Galilee ] Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John... Ok... He baptized more than John. But that's it, right?

Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit... Oh. We're supposed to continue baptizing...

Don't get me wrong, I saw where you noted "apart from faith"... I merely point out to you that Scripture records Jesus doing more baptizing than anything else! You'll have to forgive us RCCers if we think there's something to that.

Next, I'm sure you will harp on infant baptism... I'll leave that to the 1,001 other discussions... you can read the answers to your heart's content. The bottom line is that Jesus told us to be baptized and to baptize. Why? Because baptism is the restoration of our family place in the Family of God. It is not the end unto itself, it is the beginning of our life in Grace.

Don't worry. You were baptized into the Family of God... God is working on you and will bring you home.

[Salvation]

I figured I was carrying on a sidebar with you only at this time.

[srweaver]

Ah, I see. I’m sure you will get to them eventually. Thanks for the conversation, though neither the article you posted, nor your subsequent arguments have done anything to establish the primacy of Peter or Rome in Jesus’ church.

Have a good evening.

[srweaver]

John 4:1  ¶When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2  (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

Yes, Jesus baptizes, but not with water (as did/do His disciples in His name), He baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

And he always does this AFTER salvation, but sometimes before WATER baptism — hence the contention that the Bible doesn’t teach salvation by baptism, but baptism as an outward symbol and public testimony of the inward work that has already taken place.

[srweaver]

Thanks for answering for BenKenobi, and getting back to the Catholic talking points.

You actually make some good points here about the finished work of Christ on the cross and His once for all sacrifice.

Thank you.

But then you lapse back into the Mass and the mystery...

Oh well.

[pgyanke]

...neither the article you posted, nor your subsequent arguments have done anything to establish the primacy of Peter or Rome in Jesus’ church.

I can help. What do we know of Jesus's Kingship? We know that He is the Son of David and King forever of an everlasting dynasty. Therefore, we can look back to the administration of the Davidic kingdom for some answers...

Isaiah 22:19 "I will depose you from your office, and I will pull you down from your station. 20 "Then it will come about in that day, that I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your tunic and tie your sash securely about him. I will entrust him with your authority, and he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

22 "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, when he opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open. 23 "I will drive him like a peg in a firm place, and he will become a throne of glory to his father's house.

This scene shows us the symbolism of the keys and their authority. Certainly, you can see why Christ chose the language He did... to convey the meaning contained here. The key of the house of David was entrusted to the Prime Minister... and that is the role of the Pope in the Church. He is one minister among peers but given a special role and office for the administration of the Kingdom. To whom was this special authority given by Christ in Scripture?

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

[pgyanke]

Yes, Jesus baptizes, but not with water (as did/do His disciples in His name), He baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

And he always does this AFTER salvation, but sometimes before WATER baptism — hence the contention that the Bible doesn’t teach salvation by baptism, but baptism as an outward symbol and public testimony of the inward work that has already taken place.

I'm showing you Biblical citations... would you mind showing the same courtesy? I'd like to see your references.

[pgyanke]

There is none so blind as one who will not see.

God bless you. Good night.

[pgyanke]

I'll point out one more thing before bed...

Many places in Scripture Christ says that He is the vine or He is the door or another metaphor to describe Who He is and our relationship with Him. There is only one place that He says this thing is Me... and that is the bread and wine offered for our salvation. Considering our God created all that is by the power of His Word... I'll take it on faith that Our Lord can change the reality of the Eucharist by the power of His. And I'll also take it on faith that when we repeat His Words down through history as He commanded, the mystery continues as He promised.

[BenKenobi]

Why is it ‘lapse’ back? Do you not believe he is bodily present?