HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON ST. PETER AND THE "PRIMACY OF ROME"

From Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (1986) under Peter, St, Apostle (page 5-6)

"The papacy, through successive popes and councils, has always traced its origins and title-deeds to the unique commission reported to have been given by Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief of his Apostles, later to be martyred when organizing the earliest group of Christians at Rome....According to Matt 16:13-20, when Jesus asked the disciples whom they took him to be, Simon answered for them all that he was the Messiah, the Son of the living God; in reply Jesus pronounced him blessed because of this inspired insight, bestowed on him the Aramaic name Cephas (= 'rock'), rendered Peter in Greek, and declared that he would build his indestructible church on 'this rock', and would give him 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven' and the powers of 'binding and loosing' ....

"[In the first half of Acts]...Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church. It was he who presided over the choice of a successor to Judas (1:15-26), who explained to the crowd the meaning of Pentecost (2:14-40), who healed the lame beggar at the Temple (3:1-10), who pronounced sentence on Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11), and who opened the church to Gentiles by having Cornelius baptized without undergoing circumcision (10:9-48). He was to the fore in preaching, defending the new movement, working miracles of healing, and visiting newly established Christian communities...

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'Babylon' is a code-name for Rome, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."

So while even Protestant(non-Catholic) Christians agree upon the unique role of Peter among the Apostles, there is a difference between Primacy and what the Petrine office "evolved" into today: Papal Supremacy.

Thoughts?:D

Where Babylon is code-name for Rome

Sounds like something that SUPPORTS the conspiracy theorists claims that The RCC is Babylon. Have you ever followed that theory all the way through from beginning to end?
Much more connecting the dots than the leap from Peter to the Vatican.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottRC

Thoughts?:D

---

None whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Sounds like something that SUPPORTS the conspiracy theorists claims that The RCC is Babylon.

---

I have no clue what you are talking about... maybe you'd like to start ANOTHER thread so we don't get off topic here.

Thanks.

I'd be hard pressed to find many non-Catholics who agree with the primacy of Peter.

What do we see in the passage?

- Jesus was speaking to his disciples as a group
- The topic was "who is Jesus"
- Peter answered that he is the Messiah, son of the living God.
- Jesus does not immediately refer to Peter, but rather the fact that the revelation of the truth came from God the Father (further confirming that it is the statement of who He is that He is referring to)

The word Peter here is Petros, which means stone or a piece of a rock, and then Jesus refers to the "Rock" which is the revelation of who he is, and states that His church shall be built upon this revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The word "rock" here is Petra, which means rock, or a mass of rock. We do not build a building upon a piece of a rock or a stone, but rather upon a rock that is massive enough to provide a solid foundation. Jesus' choice of words made it clear which should be the foundation of His church. It is interesting to note the consistency of scripture in the use of these terms, Rock and stone. Throughout scripture, the Rock almost always refers to God (Father or Son):

Deut 32:4
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.
NKJV

2 Sam 22:47
47 "The LORD lives! Blessed be my Rock! Let God be exalted, The Rock of my salvation!
NKJV

Ps 18:46
46 The LORD lives! Blessed be my Rock! Let the God of my salvation be exalted.
NKJV

Ps 95:1
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
NKJV

Isa 17:10
10 Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation, And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold,
NKJV

1 Cor 10:4-5
For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
NKJV

We could also have quoted Deut 32:15, Deut 32:18, Deut 32:30-31, 2 Sam 23:3, Ps 28:1, Ps 42:9, Ps 144:1, Iss 44:8 and Hab 1:12. As for the stone, there is much less, but here is what we do find:

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

1 Peter 2:4-6
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
NKJV

So, we are stones, but there are references to Jesus as a stone as well, for example Romans 9:33, where He is referred to both as a Rock and a Stone. That is because he is the cornerstone:

Eph 2:19-22
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
NKJV

The cornerstone is in fact, a rock. So Jesus can be called a stone (cornerstone), but is more frequently called the Rock and even the reference to Him being a stone refers to a Rock (cornerstone). On the other hand, there is no reference in scripture anywhere of Peter being called a Rock. He is a stone, as we all are stones per 1 Peter 2:4-6. This may also be a reference to the fact that Jesus is both God (Rock) and man (stone), and is the sole person to hold such a distinction.

Jesus, as the Rock, is also the cornerstone, which is the most notable piece of the foundation, but the confession of Peter that Jesus is Christ is the foundation upon which the church will be built. We see this endorsed in scripture as well, later by Paul:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

So the foundation is Jesus, not Peter. A church built upon Jesus, and the revelation of the fact that he is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God is the church that will stand, not a church built upon a man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottRC

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'Babylon' is a code-name for Rome, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."

Thoughts?:D

---

For someone who knows the Bible and you do not know the significance of Babylon?
The Bible warns to depart FROM Babylon as it is the denomination of deception.

Here is what some of what some people believe connecting Babylon to the RCC.

Babylon the Great (Part 3): The Ecumenical Movement and the Church of Rome

Origin of Edom, Babylon, and Rome, or Christianity

Who is Mystery Babylon the Great? - Mother of Harlots

YouTube - Roman NWO inc.: Babylonian Isis Worshipping in Catholicism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

For someone who knows the Bible and you do not know the significance of Babylon?

---

Please show some manners and honor my request to stay on topic please...

You can start your own thread about Babylon if you'd like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottRC

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON ST. PETER AND THE "PRIMACY OF ROME"

From Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (1986) under Peter, St, Apostle (page 5-6)

"The papacy, through successive popes and councils, has always traced its origins and title-deeds to the unique commission reported to have been given by Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief of his Apostles, later to be martyred when organizing the earliest group of Christians at Rome....According to Matt 16:13-20, when Jesus asked the disciples whom they took him to be, Simon answered for them all that he was the Messiah, the Son of the living God; in reply Jesus pronounced him blessed because of this inspired insight, bestowed on him the Aramaic name Cephas (= 'rock'), rendered Peter in Greek, and declared that he would build his indestructible church on 'this rock', and would give him 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven' and the powers of 'binding and loosing' ....

"[In the first half of Acts]...Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church. It was he who presided over the choice of a successor to Judas (1:15-26), who explained to the crowd the meaning of Pentecost (2:14-40), who healed the lame beggar at the Temple (3:1-10), who pronounced sentence on Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11), and who opened the church to Gentiles by having Cornelius baptized without undergoing circumcision (10:9-48). He was to the fore in preaching, defending the new movement, working miracles of healing, and visiting newly established Christian communities...

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'Babylon' is a code-name for Rome, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."

So while even Protestant(non-Catholic) Christians agree upon the unique role of Peter among the Apostles, there is a difference between Primacy and what the Petrine office "evolved" into today: Papal Supremacy.

Thoughts?:D

---

Scott:

I need some help. The more I think about it, I can't see any distinction in the term, “Primacy” – as the distinct role of St. Peter, the Primacy of Rome, and the Papacy. Can you define the specifics of what may be required here?

Confused Hillbilly here,

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Scott:

I need some help. The more I think about it, I can't see any distinction in the term, “Primacy” – as the distinct role of St. Peter, the Primacy of Rome, and the Papacy. Can you define the specifics of what may be required here?

Confused Hillbilly here,

JoeT

---

Some good points. I have often told Roman Catholics that if they want to claim that the papacy is true and that Peter was the first pope, then they need to prove the following things:

1) That there was a single bishop of Rome.
2) That there was a single denomination composed of all churches.
3)That Rome had supreme authority over that denomination.
4) That the bishop of Rome had supreme authority over the church at Rome
5) And that Peter was that bishop.

Even among those groups that follow the lines of succession for hands on Ordination, and the teachings of the Church, The Orthodox, the Anglican, Episcoplan, and a few others. Most follow the idea of first among equals at most not that Peter was the absolute leader of the group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Even amoung those groups that follow the lines of succession for hands on Ordination, and the teachings of the Church, The Orthodox, the Anglican, Episcoplan, and a few others. Most follow the idea of first amoung equals at most not that Peter was the absolute leader of the group.

---

Agreed.

And all of these are of a Catholic background. Orthodox is Catholic. Anglican and Episcopalian have a strong catholic background, and it is debatable if they could be classed as protestant or non-Catholic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Even amoung those groups that follow the lines of succession for hands on Ordination, and the teachings of the Church, The Orthodox, the Anglican, Episcoplan, and a few others. Most follow the idea of first amoung equals at most not that Peter was the absolute leader of the group.

---

Fr_Chuck:

I suppose I was barking up the same tree. It seems to me that once the topic of “Primacy” is broached it all goes up for discussion. Personally, I can’t see how you would separate Peter’s deeds and role in Scripture, from the succession of Popes, to St. Peter’s office itself; as it were, from Rock to Cathedra.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Fr_Chuck:

I suppose I was barking up the same tree. It seems to me that once the topic of “Primacy” is broached it all goes up for discussion. Personally, I can't see how you would separate Peter's deeds and role in Scripture, from the succession of Popes, to St. Peter's office itself; as it were, from Rock to Cathedra.

JoeT

---

There is at least 300 years separation!

From the Orthodox perspective:

Now let us see what we can learn from the original account of the events in question:

(a) We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt. 16) when He asked His Disciples: “Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for the flesh and blood hath not revealed it into thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:13-18)

It is quite evident from these words of our Lord that He built His Church not upon Peter for then He would have clearly said, “Thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my Church,” but upon the rock of the true Faith which Peter confessed. Christ our Lord clearly said that His Church is built upon the truth which Peter declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Only through considerable distortion of the text can one draw the conclusion of the Roman Catholics, that Christ built the Church upon Peter.

(b) It is also clear from the Scriptures that St. Peter had no authority over the Apostles. In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul states that when he saw Peter was not thinking correctly, he corrected him in the presence of others, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11) Further down St. Paul elaborates by saying, “ . . . when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all) if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:14) On the basis of these words of St. Paul we may justly question, “Is there even a trace of recognition here of Peter’s authority to teach without the possibility of error?”

(c) Concerning the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony that it was not accomplished by St. Peter. It was established by Christians who settled in Rome. Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church. He mentioned this in his epistle to the Romans, “. . . from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation ... for which, cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey.” (Rom. 15:19-20, 22-23)

From this passage, therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that Peter was in Rome or that St. Peter had founded the Church there. On the contrary, he says that he feels obliged to preach the gospel where no other Apostle taught so that he would not build upon the foundation laid by another. Surely this is an explicit testimony that St. Peter was in no way connected with the foundation of the Church of Rome. Actually St. Peter served the Church for many years in Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.

(d) In conclusion it should be pointed out that the order of precedence given to the Apostolic Sees was determined exclusively by the political importance of various cities. The Bishop of Rome was recognized as first because Rome was capital of the empire. Originally, the Bishop of Constantinople was designated as second by the Second Ecumenical Council. Subsequently, when Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire and was referred to as New Rome, the Fourth Ecumenical Council proclaimed the Bishop of Constantinople equal in rank with the Bishop of Rome.

The Schism of the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox: 1054-1954

The following scripture points out the fallacy of the whole concept of the Pope, unless you can show how he is servant to all other ministers of the Gospel.

Matt 20:25-26
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
(KJV)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

The following scripture points out the fallacy of the whole concept of the Pope, unless you can show how he is servant to all other ministers of the Gospel.

---

He is... the proper title for the Pope is "Servant of the Servants of God"... but either way, one out of context verse can not disprove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottRC

He is.... the proper title for the Pope is "Servant of the Servants of God".... but either way, one out of context verse can not disprove anything.

---

This is but one title (another from the pagan Roman religion is Pontiff), and this title comes not from submission to God, but a political dispute:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pope St. Gregory I (pope from 590 to 604) was the first pope to use this title to refer to himself as Pope. The adoption of the title stemmed from a dispute with the Archbishop of Constantinople John the Faster who adopted the title "Ecumenical Patriarch": the humble title "Servant of the Servants of God" countervailed the other's claim of power and eminence against the Bishop of Rome (the Pope).
(Source: Servus Servorum Dei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

This is but one title (another from the pagan Roman religion is Pontiff), and this title comes not from submission to God, but a political dispute:

---

What does this have to do with Matt 20:25-26?

The question at hand is not a matter of "titles" but an explanation that the Pope is not the "master" of the Gospel, but its servant...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottRC

What does this have to do with Matt 20:25-26?

The question at hand is not a matter of "titles" but an explaination that the Pope is not the "master" of the Gospel, but its servant...

---

It demonstrates how the title that the pope gave himself is ironic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

It demonstrates how the title that the pope gave himself is ironic.

---

Any your reasoning for this is..