D
Dashi Toshii
Guest
"Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not even the "Infallible" Pope takes that position these days.
>
> The Bible clearly states that Peter is the rock that the church will be built on. The only thing
> that is clear is that Peter would have a part in founding the church. The Catholic Church
> eventually became corrupt after
the
> death of the first generation of apostles.While the were alive though,
Paul
> was clearly the supreme apostle and all of the others, including Peter, deferred to him.
>
> In any case, there are clearly Catholic traditions that not only are unsupported, but that are in
> direct conflict with the scriptures.
I don't think that anyone else here gives a **** about this but here is some more
information for you:
Peter becomes Head of the Apostles
In especially solemn fashion Christ accentuated Peter's precedence among the Apostles, when, after
Peter had recognized Him as the Messias, He promised that he would be head of His flock. Jesus was
then dwelling with His Apostles in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, engaged on His work of
salvation. As Christ's coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the
Messias, many different views concerning Him were current. While journeying along with His Apostles,
Jesus asks them: "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" The Apostles answered: "Some John the
Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets". Jesus said to them:
"But whom do you say that I am?" Simon said: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God". And Jesus
answering said to him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed
it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock],
and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou
shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,
it shall be loosed also in heaven". Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one
that he was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).
By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more
apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement
then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole
community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the
Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in
the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the
clearer when we remember that the words "bind" and "loose" are not metaphorical, but Jewish
juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the
Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ.
Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created
for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to
continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its
bishops. Entirely inconsistent and in itself untenable is the position of Protestants who (like
Schnitzer in recent times) assert that the primacy of the Roman bishops cannot be deduced from the
precedence which Peter held among the Apostles. Just as the essential activity of the Twelve
Apostles in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear with their deaths, so
surely did the Apostolic Primacy of Peter not completely vanish. As intended by Christ, it must have
continued its existence and development in a form appropriate to the ecclesiastical organism, just
as the office of the Apostles continued in an appropriate form. Objections have been raised against
the genuineness of the wording of the passage, but the unanimous testimony of the manuscripts, the
parallel passages in the other Gospels, and the fixed belief of pre-Constantine literature furnish
the surest proofs of the genuineness and untampered state of the text of Matthew (cf. "Stimmen aus
MariaLaach", I, 1896,129 sqq.; "Theologie und Glaube", II, 1910,842 sqq.).
Dashii
news:[email protected]...
> Not even the "Infallible" Pope takes that position these days.
>
> The Bible clearly states that Peter is the rock that the church will be built on. The only thing
> that is clear is that Peter would have a part in founding the church. The Catholic Church
> eventually became corrupt after
the
> death of the first generation of apostles.While the were alive though,
Paul
> was clearly the supreme apostle and all of the others, including Peter, deferred to him.
>
> In any case, there are clearly Catholic traditions that not only are unsupported, but that are in
> direct conflict with the scriptures.
I don't think that anyone else here gives a **** about this but here is some more
information for you:
Peter becomes Head of the Apostles
In especially solemn fashion Christ accentuated Peter's precedence among the Apostles, when, after
Peter had recognized Him as the Messias, He promised that he would be head of His flock. Jesus was
then dwelling with His Apostles in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, engaged on His work of
salvation. As Christ's coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the
Messias, many different views concerning Him were current. While journeying along with His Apostles,
Jesus asks them: "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" The Apostles answered: "Some John the
Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets". Jesus said to them:
"But whom do you say that I am?" Simon said: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God". And Jesus
answering said to him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed
it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock],
and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou
shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,
it shall be loosed also in heaven". Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one
that he was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).
By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more
apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement
then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole
community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the
Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in
the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the
clearer when we remember that the words "bind" and "loose" are not metaphorical, but Jewish
juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the
Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ.
Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created
for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to
continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its
bishops. Entirely inconsistent and in itself untenable is the position of Protestants who (like
Schnitzer in recent times) assert that the primacy of the Roman bishops cannot be deduced from the
precedence which Peter held among the Apostles. Just as the essential activity of the Twelve
Apostles in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear with their deaths, so
surely did the Apostolic Primacy of Peter not completely vanish. As intended by Christ, it must have
continued its existence and development in a form appropriate to the ecclesiastical organism, just
as the office of the Apostles continued in an appropriate form. Objections have been raised against
the genuineness of the wording of the passage, but the unanimous testimony of the manuscripts, the
parallel passages in the other Gospels, and the fixed belief of pre-Constantine literature furnish
the surest proofs of the genuineness and untampered state of the text of Matthew (cf. "Stimmen aus
MariaLaach", I, 1896,129 sqq.; "Theologie und Glaube", II, 1910,842 sqq.).
Dashii
