A friend's refutation of my Papacy tract.

[goldenchild17]

I really respect this guy and we are usually able to discuss things well. He wrote something in refutation to my Biblical Papact thing on my website. I don't really know how to answer it all.... My stuff will be in quotation boxes. Sometimes it seems he is not even reading and responding to the stuff I wrote.

____________________________________________________________________

Here is my response to your thread on the Biblical basis for the Papacy. I am researching and working on the one on the early church, though that will be harder, as I am not very familiar with the ECF. I appreciate the time you are putting into this and pray that the Body of Christ may be strengthened through our charitable discussion. I recall our lengthy conversation over the Virgin Mary and hope this discussion can take the same tone and provide the same benefit to both of us.

[quote]In discussing Peter's role as pope, the earthly representative of Christ in this world, I like to start in Matthew 16. Starting in verse 13,

"When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter said in reply, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus said to him in reply, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'"

In the first part of this passage Jesus poses a question to all of His disciples. He asks them who they think He is. It is Simon Peter that speaks up and answers for all of them "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." This is one of many times that Peter is seen speaking for all of the disciples(see Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28 and Mark 11:21).

Jesus then praises Peter's answer saying that it was the Father who had revealed this to him. But even more interesting is that Jesus calls Simon 'son of Jonah.' We read in John 1:42 "Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter)." Jonah is a variation of the name "John". But why does Jesus say this? Why does He use this variation when at other times He calls Peter the "son of John"? Well, first we look to Matthew 12:40 "Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." Here Scripture is showing that Jonah was a symbol of Jesus. Jonah is a type of Jesus. Why is this significant? Jesus called Simon Peter the "Son of Jonah". Essentially what Jesus is doing is calling Peter His son. Here Jesus shows the unique relationship between Himself and Peter, almost that of a father and son.[/quote]

Actually, this isn’t true. The Greek in both John 1:42 and Matthew 12:40 is “iwna”, which is “Jona”. I haven’t studied enough Greek to know why this exact form is in both verses, but it definitely does not carry the connotation you are suggesting.


[quote]This is important because of another connection: David and his son Solomon. David is another type, another symbol of Jesus. It was David's plan to build this temple, 1 Chronicles 28:2, "King David rose to his feet and said: 'Hear me, my brethren and my people. It was my purpose to build a house of repose myself for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, the footstool for the feet of our God; and I was preparing to build it." But David did not finish this task. He left it to his son Solomon, 1 Chronicles 28:20, "Then David said to his son Solomon: 'Be firm and steadfast; go to work without fear or discouragement, for the LORD God, my God, is with you. He will not fail you or abandon you before you have completed all the work for the service of the house of the LORD.'" All throughout 1 Chronicles 28 we see David giving out every little detail about how he wanted this temple to be built. The temple was eventually finished by Solomon, built up in Jerusalem upon rock, as we see in 2 Chronicles 3:1 "Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, which had been pointed out to his father David, on the spot which David had selected, the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite."

What does this have to do with Peter? We know that David is a type of Christ. We know that Jonah is a type of Christ, this was discussed a bit earlier. Jesus called Simon, "son of Jonah". So, in a symbolic sense we see that Simon Peter is the son of Christ. King David got everything started in the building of the temple, collected funds and materials, gave out directions, but left the completion to his son. So did Jesus get everything rolling for the building of the Church, but left it's completion to His spiritual son, Peter. The Church doesn't get onto it's feet until the book of Acts. It wasn't until after Christ ascended that the Holy Spirit descended onto the disciples and they started their preaching and having councils.[/quote]

Not only is this based on a faulty appeal to “son of Jona”, but it also is a misunderstanding of the typology of Solomon. Yes, Christ was the anti-type of David, but He also was of Solomon. Christ was the son to come, who would build the temple. The promises to David regarding Solomon apply to Christ, not Peter.


[quote]Next, from our first passage Matthew 16:13-19, we look at this line. "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." What Jesus is doing is calling Peter the "Rock" on which the Church is going to be built. Many opponents of Catholicism like to look at the original Greek of this sentence. In the original Greek Christ calls Peter "Petros" which means "little rock", and calls the "rock" upon which the Church is to be built "Petra" or "large rock". Some people believe this means that Jesus is contrasting Peter and the "rock" that the Church will be built upon. There are three major flaws to this argument. 1. "Petros" is a masculine word, while "Petra" is a feminine word. It would very silly for Jesus to use a feminine word in regards to Peter. 2. If Jesus was truly trying to call Peter a "small rock, or pebble" then He would undoubtedly have used the Greek word "lithos", which also means "small rock or pebble" but is not gender specific. 3. Jesus did not speak Greek on a daily basis with His local companions. He, as did all the Palestinian Jews at the time, spoke Aramaic. This discourse that took place between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 is in Aramaic. In Aramaic the name Jesus gives Peter is "Kephas". "Kephas" means rock, so the passage should read "you are 'rock' and upon this 'rock' I will build my Church" No contrast here. How do we know that this is the word Jesus meant to use? John 1:42 says "Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas'" (which is translated Peter)." (see also 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 9:5, 1 Corinthians 15:5, Galatians 2:9, 11, 14). Clearly Peter's name was "Kephas" and therefore, is the "rock" upon which Jesus meant to build the Church.[/quote]

You have a misunderstanding here regarding gender in Greek. When a word is masculine, it doesn’t mean it refers to a “masculine” object in the sense you are suggesting. It is just a declension of nouns with different grammatical endings. There is no “girly” or “manly” connotation to feminine and masculine words.

Now, regarding the fact that Christ spoke Aramaic; your point here is immaterial. The fact that the writer of the gospel clearly uses two different words, with two different connotations, is unavoidable.

I have no problem necessarily with claiming that the Church was built on Peter, as a representative of the apostles, or even on Peter himself. However, this is a long way from proving the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy.


[quote]The next part of Matt. 16 says "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Here is where Jesus promises to give Peter the earthly authority to guide the Church. The keys that Jesus gives Peter are very important. This part of the passage is drawn from Isaiah 22:22 "I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family". These keys are a symbol of authority. The one who held these keys was the Prime Minister, so to speak, of the kingdom. This position existed all throughout the kingdom of David. It was passed on from one man to another, as is seen in Isaiah 22:19-21 "I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah." Jesus parallels this passage from Isaiah, He gives the keys of authority to Peter. Jesus means for this office to be passed on from one man to another just as the position in Isaiah was. This significance of the keys is shown again in Revelation 3:7.

This discourse with Peter is a promise, Jesus promises to give this authority to Peter at some other time. We remember that Peter denied Jesus three times, this is recorded in John 18:16-17, 25-27, "But Peter stood at the gate outside. So the other disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest, went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in. Then the maid who was the gatekeeper said to Peter, 'You are not one of this man's disciples, are you?' He said, 'I am not.' Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire that they had made, because it was cold, and were warming themselves. Peter was also standing there keeping warm. . . . Now Simon Peter was standing there keeping warm. And they said to him, 'You are not one of his disciples, are you?' He denied it and said, 'I am not.' One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the one whose ear Peter had cut off, said, 'Didn't I see you in the garden with him?' Again Peter denied it. And immediately the pickle crowed." Keep this in mind.

Now we go to John 21:15-17 where the actual delegation of power takes place. "'When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' (Jesus) said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'" Here they are surrounding a fire, just as Peter did in the courtyard(see John 18:18). In this passage Jesus asks Peter three times the same question, "do you love me". Jesus asks Peter this question three times just as Peter denied Jesus three times. Jesus is forgiving Peter for each time he denied Jesus. After each question, "do you love me" , Jesus gives Peter a task, "Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep" . This is where Jesus fulfills His promise to make Peter the leader of the Church on earth. He's not giving the Church to Peter, but simply telling him to feed her, to nourish her, to tend to her while He is away.
Now we go to the book of Acts where the real action takes place. It is here that we see Peter take on his role and play it out to it's fullest. First, in Acts 1:15-26 Peter oversees the election of the apostle who would replace Judas(who is dead at this point from suicide), gives the first sermon after Pentecost inActs 2:14, receives the first converts to Christianity in Acts 2:41, performs the first miracle in Acts 3:6-7, inflicts the first punishment in Acts 5:1-11 and excommunicates the first person Simon the magician in Acts 8:21. He is also the first to bring a person back to life in Acts 9:36-41. Clearly, Peter has taken on the role of leader in the early Church.

But one event that I really want to talk about is in Acts 10:9-16, "The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime. He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all the earth's four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. A voice said to him, 'Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.' But Peter said, 'Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.' The voice spoke to him again, a second time, 'What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.' This happened three times, and then the object was taken up into the sky." Here Peter receives a dream. In this dream Peter is asked to eat what is considered to be "unclean" to the Jewish faith. So, Peter says that he would not eat it as it is unclean. The vision tells him "what God has made clean, you are not to call profane". This happens three times and Peter does not know what it means. After this dream Peter meets and talks with a gentile man named Cornelius. In Acts 10:27-28 it says "While he conversed with him, he went in and found many people gathered together and said to them, 'You know that it is unlawful for a Jewish man to associate with, or visit, a Gentile, but God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean." In this passage Peter makes known what was revealed to him in his dream. In his dream, Peter was given a revelation that know one else was given. Peter was told that we are not to call any person "unclean". He goes on in Acts 10:34-35 to proclaim aloud the revelation that was given to him, "Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, 'In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him." Then in verses 46-48 he enforces this by inviting all, not only the Jewish people, to be baptized, "Then Peter responded, 'Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?' He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

What takes place in all this is the same thing that happens with the Pope. The Holy Spirit reveals some truth to the Pope and the Pope declares it to all the Church.[/quote]

All this proves is that Peter had a prominent role in the Church and that the keys of the kingdom are passed to the Church leadership, as they represent Christ, the Husband and King, in their duties. This does not prove the infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra, or that this position of prominence was somehow passed down to every bishop of Rome.


[quote]The last thing I want to talk about is Acts 15. In this chapter there is much disagreement over whether or not the gentile Christians are required to follow the Mosaic law just as the Jews had to. Some people said that they had to be circumcised, "But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.'" (Acts 15:5). Others disagreed. So the leaders of the Church got together and discussed this issue, "The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter." (Verse 6). There was much debate among them until Peter spoke. When he spoke all fell silent and listened, "After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, 'My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.' The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.'" (verses 7-12). Then James delivered the closing statement. But it was when Peter spoke that the people gathered there fell silent. Before he spoke, there was much debate, this ended when he spoke up. This was the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem and it was presided over by the first Pope, St. Peter. It is evident from Scripture Jesus intended for their to be this office of the Papacy. It's also clear that Peter, from the very birth of the Church, exercised his authority to it's fullest extent.[/quote]

Again, this passage does not prove the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papacy. All we see here is a possible prominence of Peter. There is no evidence of it being so by virtue of Peter being the bishop of Rome, nor any evidence of his office being carried on in the office of bishop of Rome.


[quote]Here are a couple more things I would like to add as I finish up this discussion. Peter is always listed at the head of the apostles(Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) while Judas is listed last. I don't think that's a coincidence. The apostles are sometimes referred to as "Peter and his companions" or "Peter and the other apostles"(Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7, Acts 2:37). This shows that Peter is clearly the head of the apostles. Next, Peter's name is mentioned 191 times in Scripture. This is more than all the other apostles combined. Again, no coincidence.[/quote]

Again, this does not come even close to proving what you want it to prove. The most you can get out of this is a certain prominence in Peter himself. Nothing here is spoken of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papacy. I see nothing about the infallibility of the bishop of Rome when speaking ex cathedra.

[cmotherofpirl]

Use the Gospel of binding and loosing, and the Letter of Clement who wrote authoritatively as the Bishop of Rome in about 96 AD. [I forget the date , but St John was still alive]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 8 2004, 08:18 PM'] Use the Gospel of binding and loosing, and the Letter of Clement who wrote authoritatively as the Bishop of Rome in about 96 AD. [I forget the date , but St John was still alive] [/quote]
Yeah, I love it that the early Christians went to St. Clement instead of St. John, a first hand witness, just to get the authoritative answer. That really should prove it, if only there weren't hard hearts.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

St. John died in the year 100 AD. And Clement of Rome wrote the letter to the Corinthians in 95-96 AD.

Totus Tuus,
Andy

[goldenchild17]

I think I can deal with most of it. But it these in particular...

[quote]Actually, this isn’t true. The Greek in both John 1:42 and Matthew 12:40 is “iwna”, which is “Jona”. I haven’t studied enough Greek to know why this exact form is in both verses, but it definitely does not carry the connotation you are suggesting.[/quote]

and

[quote]Not only is this based on a faulty appeal to “son of Jona”, but it also is a misunderstanding of the typology of Solomon. Yes, Christ was the anti-type of David, but He also was of Solomon. Christ was the son to come, who would build the temple. The promises to David regarding Solomon apply to Christ, not Peter.[/quote]

Was I going out on a limb with this Jonah=Jesus, Son of Jonah=Peter connection? I originally got the idea from "Philadelphia Catholic in King James Court". So, I thought it might be legitimate...

[cmotherofpirl]

There is noting wrong with your thinking. There can be multiple typologies in one pericope.
Remember Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, all we have is a translation in Greek.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 9 2004, 05:40 AM'] There is noting wrong with your thinking. There can be multiple typologies in one pericope.
Remember Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, all we have is a translation in Greek. [/quote]
you used the word "pericope".........i'm impressed

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Nov 9 2004, 02:44 AM'] Was I going out on a limb with this Jonah=Jesus, Son of Jonah=Peter connection? I originally got the idea from "Philadelphia Catholic in King James Court". So, I thought it might be legitimate... [/quote]
well, personally, i wouldn't have gone there, just b/c its so hard to prove.

[goldenchild17]

I guess I shouldn't have gone there. When I read it though it just seemed to click for me. But you're right it's not all that clear.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Nov 9 2004, 04:17 PM'] you used the word "pericope".........i'm impressed [/quote]
I was using the word before you were born

Golden there is nothing wrong with where you are going, keep thinking about it. Sometimes each bit seems flimsy when viewed seperately, but all together can prove a point.

[goldenchild17]

That's kind of how I was looking at it. I would never have considered the connection between Peter=Son of Jonah, Jesus=Jonah in relation to David and Solomon if I didn't have all that info from the book of Acts. I fully understand that something in and of itself cannot always prove something but when drawn into the big picture it just seems to add perfectly fitting pieces.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]THE KEYS GIVEN TO PETER ARE NOT THOSE IN ISAIAH 22

Though Matthew is similar to the passage in Isaiah, it is not a direct parallel as is the Isaiah passage with the passage in Rev, which is exact wording. If , indeed, it is the " keys of the house of David", when did/does Christ reclaim them from Peter?? What He gives to the disciples is affirmation that Peters words "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" are indeed the " keys to the kingdom of Heaven". Yes, the keys to the kingdom of heaven are a symbol of authority, but look down to Matthew 18 to see to whom Jesus gave this authority. Christ clearly shows here that the granting of the authority to bind and loosen was given to all the disciples, not just to Peter. Nowhere between the giving of this authority in vs 16, and the disciples question and Christ's answer is any further granting of this authority given, so it stands to reason that it was given once, to all of them, in vs 16.

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2 Then He called a child to Him and had him stand among them. 3 "I assure you," He said, "unless you are converted and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child--this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Its obvious that the disciples did not take Jesus words in vs 16 to have been giving Peter any greater authority or they would have had no reason to ask Him this question. They still wanted to know which among them was greatest. Jesus corrected them and showed them their error, that if they would be great , they must become humble as a child.

15 "If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. 17 If he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. 18 I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven. 19 Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."


Jesus is giving them assurance that what He said in vs 16 He meant. It was given to all of them, as is shown here, not just to Peter.[/quote]



also [quote]Pope Clement I
"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

I looked from the epistle and just couldn't find this reference. Is it to chapters 58-59, 63? If so, it didn't have a 63, and 58-59 had no such passages.[/quote]
I looked and the quotes don't seem to match the reference...





Just some things I was questioned on.

Edited November 11, 2004 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

If anybody's got any suggestions I'll need to write back to this person tonight...

[phatcatholic]

[quote]Though Matthew is similar to the passage in Isaiah, it is not a direct parallel as is the Isaiah passage with the passage in Rev, which is exact wording. If , indeed, it is the " keys of the house of David", when did/does Christ reclaim them from Peter??[/quote]
your opponent has misunderstood the parallel. "exact working" is not necessary to establish a parallel between two passages. a biblical parallel usually exists between the objects involved and the message, not necessarily the wording.

i find the parallel between Isaiah and Matthew to be quite clear. in Isaiah we have a king giving the keys of the kingdom to his steward while the king is gone. the king maintains his authority over the kingdom, it is just that the steward represents this authority in his absense. as such, the steward shall open and none shall shut, he will shut and none shall open. likewise, we have Jesus, the King, giving the keys to Peter. it is only logical that he would appoint a steward for his church, for Jesus will not be with them much longer. also, Jesus does not need to "reclaim them from Peter" b/c He still maintains His authority over the Church. Peter, his steward and his Rock will represent his authority on earth. the parallel between "opening and shutting" and "binding and loosing" is rather striking as well. in both cases, either acceptance to or rejection of the kingdom is given.


[quote]What He gives to the disciples is affirmation that Peters words "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" are indeed the " keys to the kingdom of Heaven". Yes, the keys to the kingdom of heaven are a symbol of authority, but look down to Matthew 18 to see to whom Jesus gave this authority. Christ clearly shows here that the granting of the authority to bind and loosen was given to all the disciples, not just to Peter. Nowhere between the giving of this authority in vs 16, and the disciples question and Christ's answer is any further granting of this authority given, so it stands to reason that it was given once, to all of them, in vs 16.[/quote]
it wasn't given once to all of them. it was given first to Peter (Mat 16:19), and only afterwards to the apostles as well (Mat 18:18). plus, no one is denying that authority is likewise given to the apostles. afterall, from them comes the authority of the bishops that we have today. however, in Mat 16 he is talking solely to Peter, and this after calling him the Rock and giving him the keys. this coupled w/ the pre-eminence that Peter always held among the apostles (he is always mentioned first, and often times the others aren't listed at all) affirms the fact that Peter's authority was a special kind.


[quote]1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2 Then He called a child to Him and had him stand among them. 3 "I assure you," He said, "unless you are converted and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child--this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Its obvious that the disciples did not take Jesus words in vs 16 to have been giving Peter any greater authority or they would have had no reason to ask Him this question. They still wanted to know which among them was greatest. Jesus corrected them and showed them their error, that if they would be great , they must become humble as a child.[/quote]
this argument too fails. for one, catholics have never claimed that the authority given to Peter makes him the greatest in heaven. the status of their souls in heaven has nothing to do w/ Peter's position as the visible head of the Church, and i honestly don't see how their question to Jesus shows that they did not recognize Peter's authority.

secondly, if the words of Jesus about humility discount the authority of Peter, then would they not discount the authority of the apostles as well? but, ur opponent has already admitted that Jesus gave authority to all of them.

finally, one can be a leader and still be humble. it is up to him to prove otherwise. one of the official titles of the pope is "servant of the servants of God." Peter, the first pope, calls himself a servant in 2 Pet 1:1.

[quote]15 "If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. 17 If he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. 18 I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven. 19 Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."


Jesus is giving them assurance that what He said in vs 16 He meant. It was given to all of them, as is shown here, not just to Peter.[/quote]
again, no one is denying that Jesus gave authority to all the apostles. but, he gave it to Peter first and foremost. i see the negative as yet to be proven.


these articles will also be of help to u:
[b]Peter: The First Pope[/b]
--[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm"]St. Peter: Prince of the Apostles[/url]
--Was Peter the First Pope?: Parts [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=635"][b]One[/b][/url] and [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=687"][b]Two[/b][/url]
--[url="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2964/21stSunday-a.html"]"I Will Build My Church"[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp"]Did Jesus Really Make Peter Pope?[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/97ws/saun970626.htm"]Was Peter the First Pope?[/url]
--[url="http://www.aboutcatholics.com/viewpage.php?story=18"]Proof and Reason for the Office of the Pope[/url]

[b]Peter is "The Rock"[/b]
--[url="http://www.netacc.net/%7Emafg/peter01.htm"]Exegesis of [b]Mat 16:18-19[/b][/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp"]Peter the Rock[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ170.HTM"]The Metaphor of Peter as "Rock"[/url]
--[url="http://catholicoutlook.com/rock2.html"]Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter Is the Rock[/url]
--[url="http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/nutsandbolts.html"]The "Pebbles" Argument Goes Down[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/Documents/RockPeterOrConfession.doc"]Is Peter the Rock, or Is the Rock only His Confession of Faith?[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2882"]The Rock of the New Testament[/url]
--[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/peter.html"]An Exchange on Peter, the Papacy and Succession ([b]Mat 16:18-19[/b])[/url]
--[url="http://www.aboutcatholics.com/viewpage.php?story=17"]The Origin of the Papacy[/url]

[b]Peter and "The Keys"[/b]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp"]Peter's Successors[/url]
--[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm"]Power of the Keys[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicapologetics.net/cloud5.htm"]The Keys of the Kingdom[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3977"]Passing on the Keys[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/Documents/PegOfIsaiah22.doc"]The Peg in [b]Isaiah 22[/b] and Petrine Succession[/url]

[b]Primacy of Peter Among the Apostles[/b]
--[url="http://www.netacc.net/%7Emafg/peter02.htm"]The Pre-eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp"]Peter's Primacy[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ301.HTM"]Is St. Paul Superior to St. Peter?[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PETER.TXT"]Peter's Primacy[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ353.HTM"]Refutation of the [i]Reductio ad Absurdum[/i] Argument for a "Pauline Papacy"[/url]
--[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/rhodes.html"]Reasoning from the Scriptures[/url] ([b]note:[/b] see Section II, [i]Was the Apostle Peter a Supreme Pontiff?[/i])


sorry i didn't get to this sooner

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Cure of Ars]

This is what I thought Son of Jonah was referring too.

[quote]
The symbol of the dove: the Holy Spirit. When Jesus said to Peter "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah (son of John)" this was significant because the name "Jonah" comes from the Hebrew for "dove." Peter is "son of the Dove" — in a special way, his ministry will be guided by the Holy Spirit, though he is an imperfect sinner, ever in need of God's mercy — the same is true for all his successors. [/quote]

[url="http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:bpu73_M8VtQJ:www.catholiceducation.org/articles/lesson_plans/lp0002.html+peter+jonah+dove+son&hl=en&ie=UTF-8"]http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:bpu73_M...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url]