Replies

"I was quoting from the Roman Catholic NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE. Are you saying that their translation is misleading?"

First, the New Jerusalem Bible is not the "Roman Catholic" Bible. The translation that is found on the Vatican website is the New American Standard Bible. The New Jerusalem Bible isn't intentionally misleading, it is simply flawed. The word used by James, translated as "judgment" by the New American Standard, the RSV, and the Douay Rheims and "sentence" in the King James Version is krino (κρίνω). The word has many idiomatic meanings including to prefer, to opine, and to choose. One has to contextually interpret it. If your context is to diminish Peter you will see krino and think verdict. The Church sees it otherwise.

"The question is what was the MAIN work of either one at the start of their ministries?"

I can't recall anyone ever arguing that on these threads, including you. The Protestant argument is always that St. Paul was THE Apostle to the gentiles and therefore St. Peter copuld not have been. That is a specious argument.

All of the Apostles were tasked to preach the Gospel to all of the nations of the world. All struggled with that, yet all preached to gentiles. St. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians. According to Hippolytus and Eusebius, St. Bartholomew preached in India. St. James preached in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal). St. Matthew preached in Parthia which is near modern day Tehran. St. Peter was the first to preach to Gentiles in Caesarea. His travels are well documented in Acts and was martyred in Rome, where he was its first bishop. (Note: St. Peter is always listed first for a reason). St. Philip preached in Phrygia and Eastern Turkey. St. Jude preached to , preached to the people of Edessa, and to all Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). St. Thomas covered considerable ground having preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians. He was martyred in Calamene in India.

"The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal:"

All bishops are equals, the Bishop of Rome is first among equals. Will you give equal consideration to the Early Church Fathers who attest to the fact that St. Peter was the first pope?

"Abbe Guettee, p. 174."

Vladimir Guttee is a discredited 19th century former Catholic priest. The work you cited is on the Index of Forbidden Books because it is completely false and heretical. (Before anyone begins shrieking that this is another example of Catholic censorship a "Forbidden Book" does not mean that it is to be burned and made completely unavailable, it is a way of labeling it for what it contains. It is the the Catholic equivalent of Free Republic's Jack Chick policy) When you resort to citing sources like this you lose all credibility.

RE: The New Jerusalem Bible

The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) is a Roman Catholic translation of the Bible published in 1985 by Darton, Longman & Todd and Les Editions du Cerf, and edited by the Reverend Henry Wansbrough OSB, MA (Oxon), STL (Fribourg), LSS (Rome), a monk of Ampleforth Abbey and a biblical scholar.

You write as if the translators have sinister motives in translating the Bible just because you don’t like the way this specific passage was translated.

Are you a mind reader? Do you know who the translators are?

My context is NOT to diminish Peter, but to put him in his rightful place. If someone is other than who he really is, then all talk of trying to diminish him is rubbish.

He is what he is and I am simply reading what scriptures describe him as.

In the council of Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas were sent to the meeting to speak to the apostles and presbyters (v2) - no distinctions were made among the apostles. If Peter was the head, why doesn’t it say they went to confer with “the Pope, the apostles, and the presbyters”? Surely an important position would have been emphasized... but I see no such thing.

Peter did not speak first. There had been long debate before he spoke (v7). And his speech did not settle the issue. People kept silent after he spoke only so they could listen to other speakers (v12)! The final course of action was suggested by James (v13,19ff). And the whole procedure was directed by the Holy Spirit (v28), which led all apostles as we have already shown.

There is more very interesting evidence in the eighth chapter. Philip the evangelist had been preaching the
gospel in Samaria, and God had wonderfully blessed.

In the fourteenth and fifteenth verses we read: “When
the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.” (I’m using your favorite NASB)

How plain it is from this narrative that there was in the church at Jerusalem an authority greater than either
Peter’s or John’s.

This authority was in “the apostles which were at Jerusalem.” It is a true axiom that the sender is greater than the sent, and Peter acknowledged this authority in going down to Samaria.

Would it not be inconceivable that the cardinals of the Roman Church would send the pope on some mission? And
would any pope allow himself to be sent?

Yet, here you are insisting that Peter has higher authority that the rest of the apostles.

Please understand, this in no way diminishes Peter. I already said many times that Peter is first in many things. But I DO NOT FIND ANY PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE THAT SUGGESTS HE WAS ABOVE ALL OTHER APOSTLES.

It does however, question YOUR INSISTENCE that these passage proves that he was Pope. It does no such thing.

RE: I can’t recall anyone ever arguing that on these threads, including you. The Protestant argument is always that St. Paul was THE Apostle to the gentiles and therefore St. Peter copuld not have been. That is a specious argument.

Hey, you’re dealing with me. I speak for myself, I don’t speak for anybody else.

I quote Paul when he says what he said. So please deal directly with what I said and not others ( I do not speak for them and they are very well capable of explaining what they themselves meant ).

As for all mention of other Apostles preaching and being martyred everywhere, I am not sure what your point is... I want to know how that shows that Peter is Pope. I’m not getting your point in bringing this up.

RE: All bishops are equals, the Bishop of Rome is first among equals.

Where in scripture does it tell us that the Bishop of Rome is first among equals?

If this is so important a doctrine, I would expect it to be codified in scripture and Peter himself to tell us that. Where in Scripture does it tell us?

RE: Will you give equal consideration to the Early Church Fathers who attest to the fact that St. Peter was the first pope?

More than the church fathers, I will give HIGHER CONSIDERATION to what scriptures teach.

I give greater weight to what Scriptures say and Paul CLEARLY STATES he is NOT inferior to ANY eminent apostle ( See the passage I just presented in his letter to Corinth).

Your term — First Among Equals is NOT a scriptural term. I will acknowledge that it is a term that is historically used BUT NOT BY THE EARLY FIRST CENTURY CHURCH.

Historically, The Bishop of Rome was considered by many to be the first among equals, mainly because the governing of the Roman Empire was centered in Rome.

THAT’s ALL THERE IS TO IT. And that came MUCH LATER. The modern notion of the papacy gradually developed due to various historical circumstances, BUT IT WAS NOT SO IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

Early on, the Bishop of Rome was never considered the PONTIFEX MAXIMUS of the entire church of Christ scattered all over the world.

In fact, Significantly, the Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451, granted Constantinople equal status with Rome, because of its status as the new capital of the Empire.

RE: Will you give equal consideration to the Early Church Fathers who attest to the fact that St. Peter was the first pope?

Can you quote for me a church father BEFORE the 3rd century BC who tells us that the Bishop of Rome had authority and jurisdiction over all other churches?

If Peter’s position was so important for everyone, in the following lists, he is NOT named first: Gal. 2:9; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; John 1:44.

Does this prove the people listed before Peter had authority over him? Being first in a list does not prove one is a Pope.

The lists where Peter is named first clearly state the office to which he was appointed - like other men, he was chosen to be an apostle (Luke 6:13-16; Matt. 10:2ff). If Peter was chosen to the office of Pope, a VERY IMPORTANT POSITION, why is this never stated anywhere?

And if you can, please explain this to me — when Peter was writing his last two epistles, where did he address himself as Bishop of Rome?

RE: Vladimir Guttee is a discredited 19th century former Catholic priest.

Sure you dislike him because of what he wrote. The question is this — DID HE WRITE THE TRUTH OR IS IT FALSEHOOD?

You have to establish first that this particular passage he wrote is wrong. Where have you done that other than to rant against him?