Peter and the Papacy

Catholic Answers ^

[rwa265]

My reference was not to Matthew 16:18.

Jesus said in John 1:42: “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). Isn’t “rock” the English translation for Cephas?

[BipolarBob]

Sorry. Jesus gave the keys to Peter

He didn't give them to Peter alone. They all agreed he was the Christ. Peter was just the first to jump up and answer (as was his custom). So Jesus answered him right back directly. But addressed them all as well.

so Peter could open the Church Age at Pentecost.

Sorry, this doesn't pass the smell test. IF this were true then Jesus needed only ONE Apostle instead of twelve. Twelve is a symbol of completeness. Jesus had a habit of treating them all equally (even Judas).

[Mrs. Don-o]

You'll notice I was addressing the question about St. Peter passing on the authority of his ministry. That's the question I answered and documented. You're welcome.

I was not asked to evaluate Eusebius' opinion about the extent of Rome's jurisdiction. Go ahead and post Eusebius' full and unedited opinion (no cherry-picking!!) and I'll comment appropriately.

>:^}

(mischievous Catholic grin)

[BlueDragon]

You'll notice I was addressing the question about St. Peter passing on the authority of his ministry. That's the question I answered and documented. You're welcome

Documented from one line taken from Eusebius?

More games, Mrs. Don-O. It just more word games and information management.

Truth is being mangled (by Catholics) in support of erroneous sense that the early church recognized Peter as being top-most, and more particularly that such position was entirely inheritable, and would reside at Rome (alone).

I was not asked to evaluate Eusebius' opinion about the extent of Rome's jurisdiction.

You may do so now. And perhaps should wade through all of that...

Even that late in church history one won't find support for "papacy" as that is known by Rome.

The only thing left for the RC apologist is to cherry pick -- and ignore all which goes contrary to the image which is desired to be projected/protected.

It's called institutionalized intellectual dishonesty.

Go ahead and post Eusebius' full and unedited opinion (no cherry-picking!!) and I'll comment appropriately.

(mischievous Catholic grin)

That's example of how things have come to be. Everyone is forced to make the case, line by line and word by word -- while Romanists argue against the facts of the matter, (that there was no singular "pope" over the early Church).

[BlueDragon]

The Oxford Dictionary of Popes interprets Irenaeus as classifying Linus as the first bishop of Rome. J. N. D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 2005

All hail the bishop of Rome!

And the bishop of Alexandria, and the one at Antioch, Jerusalem, and every other bishop. Hail all.

Yeah, I know... that may slow or interrupt the "hail Mary(s)" a bit, but sacrifices must be made, eh?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"All hail the bishop of Rome!"

Thanks for my new tagline! :o)

[DungeonMaster]

Peter and the Papacy.

Tomorrow we'll talk about Joseph Smith and Prophecy.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Those who accuse me of ignorance will find that I cheerfully agree. I am more convinced of the surpassing scope and expanding horizons of my ignorance with every passing year.

Those who accuse me of intellectual dishonesty give me the opportunity to bear wrongs patiently. So, thanks.

[BlueDragon]

Those who accuse me of intellectual dishonesty give me the opportunity to bear wrongs patiently. So, thanks.

Spare me the martyr act.

It is not yourself who is necessarily "intellectually dishonest" as it is the institution itself for which you bring apology.

But thank for bearing what you have, cheerfully enough. Doing so has allowed myself to better explain what I had intended to convey.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks again.

[BlueDragon]

Using it as tagline ---

takes it out of context

rendering it as misleading information.

Typical, par for the course Romanist apologetic.

I ask that you remove it.

Don't quote me out of context, like that...

or go ahead -- it will be as monument to the intellectual dishonesty I was just talking about, but now at your own hand, not the fault of the institution.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, gosh. It's a joke, son.

I already removed it.

[BlueDragon]

I’m not your son.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Nobody said Jesus "needed only one Apostle." It's a wasted effort to refute something nobody said.

As for the question of whether Jesus symbolically gave the "Power of the Keys" to all the Apostles, or just to one (singular), you might want to check the Greek grammar.

#305

In "I give unto you the Keys..." the unto you is singular.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Check this out, my FRiend.

[BipolarBob]

In "I give unto you the Keys..." the unto you is singular.

There was a just one singular group.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Simply amazing.....

[Mrs. Don-o]

You do realize that in Greek the “you” to a group would be plural, right?

[BipolarBob]

So you concede Jesus gave all the Apostles the power symbolized by the Keys? Or are you wavering because Rome says otherwise?

[BipolarBob]

You do realize that in Greek the “you” to a group would be plural, right?

If they were being addressed as individuals, yes. As a unified group, no.