Did Christ Really Appoint Peter As The Pope?

[Circle_Master]

I just want to know how you respond to this argument. I found it in a file on my computer I saved a while ago. Here ya go....

Did Christ Really Appoint Peter as the Pope?

Looking at the chronology in Matthew and Mark, we find the following facts:

Matthew 16:15-18 “. . . ‘Who do you say I am?’ . . Simon Peter answered, ‘ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.. . .’ ‘And I tell you that you are Peter,[1] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[2] will not overcome it.’[3]

1. [18] Peter means rock.

2. [18] Or hell

1. [18] Or not prove stronger than it

This is the verse that the Catholic Church says makes Peter the “rock,” or the foundation of the church. Protestants say that the “rock” is Peter’s “belief in Christ.” Christ is frequently referred to as the Rock or Cornerstone in the Bible. Protestants believe that this verse does not refer to Peter himself.

Mark 8:27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" 28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets." 29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ.[1] "

1. [29] Or Messiah. "The Christ" (Greek) and "the Messiah" (Hebrew) both mean "the Anointed One."

So we pick up in Mark’s account at the same point in time that supposedly made Peter the Pope in Matthew’s account. However let’s look at the following chronology in Mark as follows:

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

If Peter had been made the Pope, the disciples would not have been arguing over who was the greatest, or the leader of the group. This is further supported by the following verse:

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

For James and John to want to be the two top leaders and sit on both sides of Jesus in glory, it once again rules out the fact that Peter was number one, or the “Pope.”

Finally, in Galatians, Paul challenges Peter “to his face.” He would not have done this if Peter had been made the final authority in the church (the Pope).

Galatians 2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Bible Verses: © Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. All rights reserved.

[foundsheep]

When Paul challenges Peter he calls him Kephas. You seemed to have left that out.

[Circle_Master]

I did not write this, and really why does it matter.

[foundsheep]

"FEED MY SHEEP"

Let me see if you can find this one since you failed to include it.

[Circle_Master]

I asked you to respond to the verses, not to start throwing in more. because if you cannot account for these, it is obvious that you are misinterpretating other ones. Please stay to the topic so I can get some criticism here and not flames like your last post.

[foundsheep]

Matthew 16:15-18 “. . . ‘Who do you say I am?’ . . Simon Peter answered, ‘ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.. . .’ ‘And I tell you that you are Peter,[1] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[2] will not overcome it.’[3]

1. [18] Peter means rock.

2. [18] Or hell

1. [18] Or not prove stronger than it

First of all, I could use the whole bible if it applied to the situation. You are using a usual protestant argument of only using certain versus.

First lets get the whole passage on here:

15

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16

11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

17

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

19

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

First of all he singles out Peter when he uses his real name. The origanal was written in aramaic and the word actually used was Kephas. You are the rock and upon this rock I will build my church.

You say ya whatever ,that doesnt mean that but lets look at the clincher and why the church has the authority:

14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Are you saying he wasnt talking to Peter by the time he made that statement.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven

Did he say I will give you guys the keys or did he say YOU?

Dismissed! :loco:

[foundsheep]

15

8 9 10 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."

16

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."

17

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.

18

11 Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

[Katholikos]

Circle, you've got it backwards. The words from Mt 16:18 are not the basis for the Catholic belief that Peter was chosen by Christ as the head of the Church. Those words CONFIRM it, but the reality of the event -- Christ's action in appointing Peter to be his successor -- came first. Christ delegated His authority to Peter a long time before a single word of the New Testament was written.

And the Church founded by Christ upon Peter is the "household of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth," 1 Tim 3:15.

The Catholic Church is not based on the New Testament. Rather, the New Testament is based on the dynamic, living, teaching Church which Christ founded --the Catholic Church. That church you read about in the New Testament is not invisible -- it still exists. It was first called "Catholic" in or before 107 A.D. (see the full quote in my signature below).

The NT is the "family album" of the Catholic Church. It's a record of the spiritual journey of the Church at a particular time in its history -- when it was newly born.

Original Christianity was not based on the New Testament but on the teaching of the Catholic Church, which had been instructed by the Apostles. This Church is nearly 400 years older than the Bible. The idea that Christianity is based on the Bible dates only from the 16th century.

And, yes, Christ really did appoint Peter as the head of the Church. There is ample historical evidence apart from the NT.

JMJ Likos

[Circle_Master]

This time, please read what I write before spitting off your prewritten, and prethought spiels on Peter. This is the argument I would like a response to, not your own interpretation of the passage. Show me how indirect context allows the passage to mean Peter is the Pope.

Did Christ Really Appoint Peter as the Pope?

Looking at the chronology in Matthew and Mark, we find the following facts:

Matthew 16:15-18 “. . . ‘Who do you say I am?’ . . Simon Peter answered, ‘ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.. . .’ ‘And I tell you that you are Peter,[1] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[2] will not overcome it.’[3]

1. [18] Peter means rock.

2. [18] Or hell

1. [18] Or not prove stronger than it

This is the verse that the Catholic Church says makes Peter the “rock,” or the foundation of the church. Protestants say that the “rock” is Peter’s “belief in Christ.” Christ is frequently referred to as the Rock or Cornerstone in the Bible. Protestants believe that this verse does not refer to Peter himself.

Mark 8:27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" 28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets." 29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ.[1] "

1. [29] Or Messiah. "The Christ" (Greek) and "the Messiah" (Hebrew) both mean "the Anointed One."

So we pick up in Mark’s account at the same point in time that supposedly made Peter the Pope in Matthew’s account. However let’s look at the following chronology in Mark as follows:

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

If Peter had been made the Pope, the disciples would not have been arguing over who was the greatest, or the leader of the group. This is further supported by the following verse:

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

For James and John to want to be the two top leaders and sit on both sides of Jesus in glory, it once again rules out the fact that Peter was number one, or the “Pope.”

Finally, in Galatians, Paul challenges Peter “to his face.” He would not have done this if Peter had been made the final authority in the church (the Pope).

Galatians 2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Bible Verses: © Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. All rights reserved.

now please respond against THAT QUOTE and not whatever you think I may have said. And don't bother any 'Matthew was Aramaic first!' arguments. That is balony, and you were fed propaganda on that one. See --source-- if you want to read a bit about it. This isn't part of the debate anyway, so don't argue against this, show the flaws in the quote instead.

Edited December 28, 2003 by Circle_Master

[Katholikos]

Circle, arguing strictly from a biblical perspective (which is the wrong perspective, as I pointed out in my previous post), you (or those whom you quote) are assuming that Matthew sat down and wrote the Gospel that carries his name in the precise order in which it now exists. That's not the case.

From the Introduction to Matthew, written by the Protestant scholars who translated the Revised Standard Version:

"The accounts of Jesus' deeds and words, drawn from Christian sources both oral and written, are arranged in a generally biographical order . . . Within this natural framework, the accounts of what Jesus said or did are grouped by common subject matter. . . This Gospel is anonymous. The unknown Christian teacher who prepared it during the last third of the first century may have used as one of his sources a collection of Jesus' sayings that the Apostle Matthew is said to have made. In time, a title containing Matthew's name, and signifying Apostolic authority, came to identify the whole."

"To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" wrote John Henry Newman, an Anglican clergyman, in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in 1878. After he wrote this, Newman put down his pen, called a priest, and became a Catholic.

Peace be to you and to all,

JMJ Likos

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Im not sure what else you want Circle. I think they answered everything you needed in the first thread you created. I know you didnt like the answers, but it came straight from the Bible like you wanted.

You seem to want to cast out other parts of the Bible to prove your theory that Peter wasnt the Cheif Shephard.

If Peter had been made the Pope, the disciples would not have been arguing over who was the greatest, or the leader of the group. This is further supported by the following verse:

Im sure right after Jesus said "You are Peter (Cephas) and upon this Rock I will build My Church" Peter immediatly thought "Hey, Im the leader here" - in fact it was probably the opposite, Peter was humble and wished to follow in Christs place by being last, so that in the end he will become first. Notice it wasnt Peter debating the fact.

Plus half the stuff Jesus said to Peter and the Apostles didnt actually 'click' with them until after Jesus' Death and Resurrection. It was in the Upper Room that Christ gave them the Holy Spirit and gave them the Authority to Forgive Sins, through the Holy Spirit they were probably able to understand and remember everything Jesus had taught them. Then they were able to put two and two together.

Take the teaching of the Eucharist in John 6. The Apostles were troubled by this saying "This teaching is hard..", but they trusted in Christ and althought they didnt understand yet, they followed Him. They may have realized what Jesus meant in John 6 during the Last Supper, or maybe it was at the foot of the Cross, or It could of came to them in the upper room. But the point is. The Apostles didnt understand everything Jesus had told them right away. Which would explain why the two Apostles would of debated who was the greatest among them, they didnt put two and two together yet.

As for Paul rebuking Peter, yea so, because this happened it negates the "Feed My Sheep", "Tend My Sheep", "Feed My Sheep" order that Jesus gave Peter? Rebuking the Bishop of Rome is permissible if the Pope isnt talking on the Seat of Peter. Again, im not sure what good it would do to do this, but by doing this does in no way take away from the Authority of the Pope given by Christ.

God Bless,

CatholicAndFanatical

[Circle_Master]

thank you CatholicandFanatical!!! you are the first person to actually deal with what this was argued and not just start throwing out stuff for fun. I just want to give you props right now for actually thinking and reading it. I'll see about a response later.

Edited December 28, 2003 by Circle_Master

[dUSt]

I merged these topics so that there isn't two topics regarding the same argument.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

you had me fooled Dust, was thought my computer was wigging out..lol. have to lay off those Ibuprofens :crazy:

[Dave]

Regarding the quote from Galatians you provided . . .

This is a common misunderstanding among Protestants: the pope is supposed to free from sin, because he is infallible. This is a distortion. The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is only free from error when he makes pronouncements or decrees on matters of faith and morals. Let’s look at that passage in Galatians:

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy." (Gal. 2:11-13)

It is apparent that St. Peter’s error was one of practice, not one of decree or pronouncement. To that, any informed Catholic would reply that no pope is free from sin, and that any pope is capable of following bad practice. History confirms this without question. But Catholics never claim that a pope is impeccable, only infallible, and that, only when making a formal pronouncement, which he intends to be universally binding, on a matter of faith or morals, from the Chair of St. Peter. Notice how many conditions to infallibility there are! Remember, Moses was God’s chosen mouthpiece and "pope" to the Israelites, and yet he so offended God by his actions as to relinquish his inheritance of the Promised Land. The same is true of David, a man after God’s own heart and God’s chosen "pastor" of His flock, who committed the unspeakable crimes of adultery and murder! "Hardly fitting" for God’s chosen leaders? Yes, but then, their leadership was not invalidated because of it.

To say that St. Peter was "not infallible" also raises a question: if he wasn’t infallible, then how did he write two infallible epistles? Answer: because the Holy Spirit guided and protected him as he wrote. If this can be admitted as a possibility, then it can also be admitted as a possibility that the same Holy Spirit guided and protected him when he spoke on matters of faith and morals, in his preaching, at the Jerusalem Council, etc.

[Aloysius]

in that artical Circle posted, i'd like to point one thing out. it assumes that arguing about who is greatest equals arguing who is the leader. not so, for our leader is not necessarily the greatest amoung us. we have had some unholy leaders, the only thing about them is that they were unable to take the office of the rock and do anything against the will of the rock no matter how much they may have been tempted to. the Pope is not the greatest amoung us (err... although JPII may be up there lol, but we are not the ones to judge such things) he's just the one who, after much prayer, can speak in the chair of the Rock, which is the authoritative Petrine office empowered to be Rock by Jesus intimitely connected with Peter is such a way that Peter is identified by it.

"Thou art Peter, and upon this peter i will build my Church" He speaks to a man who has spoken what was revealed to him by the Heavenly Father. That office of teaching what the Heavenly Father wishes the Church to believe is a rock, and it is a rock because it is empowered by Jesus, and Simon is so connected with it that he is identified by the office he holds, PETER. For he is rock because he uses the power of Christ's instituted office of the Rock.

[ironmonk]

I asked you to respond to the verses, not to start throwing in more. because if you cannot account for these, it is obvious that you are misinterpretating other ones. Please stay to the topic so I can get some criticism here and not flames like your last post.

It is obvious that you must leave verses out in attempt to get your point accross.

If you truly seek to understand, why would you look at verses on a individual basis instead of looking all verses that include Peter?

Harmony of Scripture... without conflict... the Catholic Church... the One Faith... the City on a Mountain which cannot be hidden... the salt of the Earth... the Disciples of Christ... the teachers of the Word... the protectors of the Gospels... The Pillar and Foundation of Truth...

Nothing is finer than standing on the vantage ground of Truth.

You appear to come to attack, why? Is it because you must attack to make your own personal religion look "right"...

much like a school yard bully attacks the smart child to make himself look better, so must anti-Catholics attack the Church...

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Laudate_Dominum]

Did Christ Really Appoint Peter as the Pope?

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

If Peter had been made the Pope, the disciples would not have been arguing over who was the greatest, or the leader of the group. This is further supported by the following verse:

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

For James and John to want to be the two top leaders and sit on both sides of Jesus in glory, it once again rules out the fact that Peter was number one, or the “Pope.”

It seems perfectly legitimate that Christ could bestow a primacy on Simon, called Peter, and then the apostles would dispute among themselves about who is the greatest. After all James and John were given a title by Christ (sons of thunder) and were shown special privileges (e.g., they too were at the Transfiguration). Peter was certainly not the smartest or most educated of the Apostles and he was kind of a blunderer. Clearly the apostles did not understand fully the meaning of Peter's primacy until after the Resurrection but they understood it enough to be upset and quarrel amongst themselves. Perhaps Christ chose Peter to be his vicar partly because of the fact that he would not be the obvious choice by worldly standards, perhaps he would have been "the last" as it were. And to this day the Pope is called "the servant of the servants of God". The Papacy is primarily an office of service (if lived properly), I think our current Pope lives this out in a very profound way, he has given his whole life to the service of the Church and the world. I think Christ's words in these passages clarify that while a kind of primacy and authority was given to Peter, Christ's kingdom is not of this world and true shepherds of Christ's flock will be servants, not masters. The apostles often struggled with worldly mindedness and thinking Christ would establish a big earthly kingdom. Anyway, I think the first argument in that article is simplistic and is not solid. It assumes that the events of MT 16 were virtually meaningless when in fact I'd say it was those events that led to the dispute among the Apostles because it probably seemed unjust in their eyes that lowly Peter was being singled out in such a way.

The article also glosses over a lot of stuff and sets up a straw man of the Catholic position.

Matthew 16:15-18 “. . . ‘Who do you say I am?’ . . Simon Peter answered, ‘ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.. . .’ ‘And I tell you that you are Peter,[1] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[2] will not overcome it.’[3]

The clear bestowal of stewardship on Peter is not his new name, as this straw man argument would suggest, but the giving of the keys. Christ is the Messianic King; his is the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdoms. The Davidic Kings (as most kings in the world) had stewards, or vicars to whom the king would delegate authority and entrust the governing of the kingdom if he was away or sick or something. In Isaiah 22 we see the deposing of a steward and the bestowal of this role by David onto Eliakim. He gives him the keys of the house of David, which are a symbol of authority that was well known back in biblical times. The symbol of keys as the authority of dominion is seen in other places such as in Revelation with regard to Christ’s supreme dominion over everything. Anyway, Christ's words in Mt 16 parallel the giving of the kingly stewardship in the Old Testament and so this insight leads one to properly interpret the primacy of Peter. I do not have time to give a full exposition of the biblical foundations of Peter's primacy (there are good books out there), but be assured that this small article you found is far from a refutation.

Peace.

[Winchester]

I'm going for the Saul opposition, since it touches not on our doctrines concernig infallibility: Peter was saying one thing and acting in a different way. No official teaching issued by Peter on that matter is shown. Popes are not protected from wrong behaviour, only wrong official teaching.

Circle, are we going to get into a my scholars beat your scholars fusillade? Cephas, the Aramaic word for 'rock' is how Peter was adressed. Your source makes undocumented proclamations. What are the telltale signs of translation? Why would he "certainly" have stuck to the Hebrew rather that the Septuagint texts? For the "examples", could we have some "woodenly literal" translations of idioms common to Christ's message that would have "woodenly" appeared in the text? Were any idioms applicable to said passage? Lastly, let us look (as you so ask us) at the scholarly quote at the end:

"It remains linguistically improbable that the whole of Matthew was originally in Aramaic" (15).

the whole, Circle, the whole. In the Bibles I've read, Cephas is the word used by Christ. Christ, being apparently multilingual, could quite easily use one word and continue in another. That last quote itself derails the argument. "whole of Matthew"

Also, did the distinction between petra and petros exist in Christ's time? Would it have been proper for Christ to adress a male with a female word? "a" being a feminine ending in Greek? Doe this article really presume to tell us that we base our whole understanding of the primacy of Peter on one verse?

[Jake Huether]

Circle, you've got it backwards. The words from Mt 16:18 are not the basis for the Catholic belief that Peter was chosen by Christ as the head of the Church. Those words CONFIRM it, but the reality of the event -- Christ's action in appointing Peter to be his successor -- came first. Christ delegated His authority to Peter a long time before a single word of the New Testament was written.

And the Church founded by Christ upon Peter is the "household of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth," 1 Tim 3:15.

The Catholic Church is not based on the New Testament. Rather, the New Testament is based on the dynamic, living, teaching Church which Christ founded --the Catholic Church. That church you read about in the New Testament is not invisible -- it still exists. It was first called "Catholic" in or before 107 A.D. (see the full quote in my signature below).

The NT is the "family album" of the Catholic Church. It's a record of the spiritual journey of the Church at a particular time in its history -- when it was newly born.

Original Christianity was not based on the New Testament but on the teaching of the Catholic Church, which had been instructed by the Apostles. This Church is nearly 400 years older than the Bible. The idea that Christianity is based on the Bible dates only from the 16th century.

And, yes, Christ really did appoint Peter as the head of the Church. There is ample historical evidence apart from the NT.

JMJ Likos

Thanks Likos! I was going to respond with these exact words (well - not exact, you said it better).

You have to remember, Circle, that the Bible is a written record of Catholic History. Protestants got their hands on it and are trying to make ends meet on what they think it meant. Catholics know what it means because they LIVED that history!

Like Likos said, it confirms what the Catholics believed before! It doesn't define what Catholics believe. The Catholic's beliefs defined the NT.