THIS PAMPHLET IS INTENDED TO SHOW CATHOLICS THAT THE CATHOLIC FAITH HAS THE FULLNESS OF TRUTH.
Here is shown how the primacy of Peter, often used by Protestants to shake a Catholic’s faith, can best be defended. (The one who prepared this is merely a compiler, taking the writings of such Catholic apologists as Karl Keating, Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, Ludwig Ott, and others.)
Protestants claim that Peter never was the first pope, he didn’t have primacy over the other Apostles, he was just one among peers, he never received from Jesus any special assignment that Paul did not receive, and, in fact, Paul received more than Peter did.
The NO MENTIONS
(1) How come there’s no mention in Eph 4:11-12 about the papacy where Paul listed the offices of the Church?
(2) How come there’s no mention of the offices of “priest,” “cardinal,” and nun in Eph 4:11-12?
(3) How come there’s no mention of the position of pope, of the word “pope” anywhere in the Bible?
(4) How come there’s no mention of Peter beyond Acts 15? If Peter is the head, how come there’s no mention of this fact starting chapter 13 to 28 of Acts and the 14 Pauline epistles?
(5) How come there’s no mention in the Bible about Peter being in Rome if Peter were the bishop of Rome?
The ALLEGED “PARALLEL CHARGING”
The same responsibility and honor given to Peter were also given to Paul:
(1) The same alleged “charging.”
(2) The same binding and loosing.
(3) The same Power of the Keys
(4) The same AUTHORITY
The PAHABAAN
(1) Peter appeared only before the Sanhedrin and priests. Only Paul appeared before kings, governors, and the Roman emperor.
(2) Peter went so far only as Antioch, Paul all over the known civilized world thenPeter was the boss of only the Twelve, Paul the boss of Barnabas, Mark, Timothy, Silas, Titus, Priscilla, Aquila, Apollos, Lydia, Jason, Dionysius, Damaris, Titus Justus, Crispus, Sosthenes, Erastus, Gaius, Aristarchus, Epaproditus, etc.
(3) Peter converted only Cornelius, Paul converted the entire Gentile Christians.
(4) Peter merely “strengthened other believers,” Paul wrote the 14 epistles and traveled the whole of the civilized world then.
CONCLUSION:
Peter was never Pope. There’s no such thing such a papacy, everything is merely Catholic invention. Peter could not be the boss, why, even Paul scolded him!
Catholic:
Here are the Catholic answers. But before I give the Catholic answers, let me state that there is no truth to the Protestant claim that the Catholic claim on the primacy of Peter is hung around one Bible passage Mt 16:18. That’s not true. As readers will see in the foregoing, dozens of passages, both in the New Testament and in the Old Testament, are given.
The NO MENTIONS
First, let it be made very clear that, while there are no passages in the Bible which clearly state Peter was pope nor that he has been to Rome:
There are no passages in the Bible that explicitly deny the papacy, the priesthood, cardinals, and nuns.
There are no passages in the Bible that without any doubt state that Peter has never been pope.
There are no passages in the Bible that unequivocally state that Peter has never been to Rome.
Second, let me be VERY CLEAR, that everything in the Bible is true, and everything in the Bible has God as its author, and is, therefore, INERRANT.
Third, let one tiny detail, however, be made clear: AUTHORITY. The rejection by the Protestants of the primacy of Peter and the institution of the papacy hangs around THEIR INTERPRETATION of the passages in the Bible pertaining to the matter.
The Bible is not in error, however, the Protestants’ INTERPRETATION of the Bible is.
And by WHOSE authority am I saying this? By what infallible authority am I making this claim? By the Church which Jesus founded, the same CHURCH which the Bible says is the AUTHORITY on all matters concerning faith, morals, and discipline.
Mt 28:18-20, Jn 17:1-2, 6; Lk 22:29; Jn 20:21; Lk 10:16; Jn 5:43; Mt 28:18-20; Jn 17:8; Lk 22:29-30; Jn 20:21-23; Lk 10:16; and Jn 16:26 – ALL THESE speak of God the Father conferring AUTHORITY on his Son, with the Son conferring a LIKE (SIMILAR) authority on his Church, culminating in
Mt 18:15-18:
“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you , you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church, and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
The Bible is very explicit and unequivocal there: “Take it to the Church.” It didn’t say “Take out your Bibles and cite the relevant passages,” it says “Take it to the Church.”
If the Church says “Protestants” are wrong, then “Protestants” are wrong. Simple as that. AND THE CHURCH SAYS PROTESTANTS ARE WRONG. In a court of law, this would be the equivalent of the judge saying “CASE DISMISSED,” and banging his gavel.
But let me answer head-on the Protestants’ questions on the questions’ own merit:
“There’s no mention of “priest” in the Bible.”
Actually there is. (Credit: Ludwig Ott “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”) In the ancient Church, side by side with the Apostles, there appeared “presbyters,” who, according to their functions, are also called “bishops” or overseers (cf Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-2; Tit 1:5-7), deacons as incumbents of Church offices with hierarchical powers.
Philip the Deacon preaches and baptizes (Acts 8:5, 38;). The presbyters of Jerusalem decide conjointly with the Apostles on the problems raised for the Christian community by the obligations of the Old Testament law (Acts 15:22 ff).
These cooperators with the Apostles were elected by the community, but received their office and their power, not from the community, but from the Apostles (cf Acts 6:6)
(Credit: Navarre Bible) In many New Testament texts, the Greek terms “presbyteros” and “episcopos” mean the same, being used indiscriminately to designate pastors of local communities cf e.g.,Acts 11:30; 30:28) From the second century on, the terminology became fixed: “episcopoi” (bishops) have the fullness of the sacrament of Order and are responsible for local churches; “presbyteroi” (elders, later designated priests) carry out the priestly ministry as co-workers of the bishops. The Acts of the Apostles tell us that Paul and Barnabas ordained priests in the various churches of Asia Minor (cf Acts 14:23) to which St. Peter is now writing (1 Peter 1:1).
Protestants insist they should see the word “priest” first in the Bible before they accept it is Biblical. They see “elder” and “bishop,” but no “priest,” therefore, there are no priests. But look at John 20:23.
John 20:23
“If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
So who else can hear confession, and do the above, except priests?
Likewise, the prophet Malachi prophesied that a new sacrifice would be offered in every place. Do Protestants believe that until now the prophesy has not been fulfilled?
Malachi 1:10-11
“From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is a sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation.”
This is one little detail that Catholics should keep in mind, that Protestants will always say that if anything is not in the Bible, it is not something to be held by Christians. This, sadly, ignores what the Bible is and what it is not, and it places the Bible in a position where its import may actually be twisted to serve some alien purpose.
Here’s how Frank Sheed in his book “Death Into Life” says, “The Gospels give a selection of what Christ did and said, with each writer choosing the elements needed for the portrait he was drawing. The Epistles were for the most part written as the occasion arose—some point of doctrine was being misinterpreted perhaps. Thus one cannot argue from the silence of the New Testament that any particular doctrine was not being taught. Purgatory, for instance!”
“There’s no mention of the word “pope” in the Bible.
True, but that fact does NOT mean the office doesn’t exist. The word “Trinity” can nowhere be found in Scripture, but no one in his right mind would claim there’s no such thing. Likewise, the word “Homouosion” is not found in Scripture, but everyone believes that the Father and Son are consubstantial.
The Protestants’ insistence on actually seeing the word “pope” in the Bible for them to believe popes exist is strange, considering that they hung their salvation on “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fidei,” words NOT found in the Bible. The word “alone” which Protestants see everytime the word “faith” is mentioned in the Bible, is actually not there.
And the only time “alone” appeared in a Bible was the time Martin Luther brazenly inserted the word in his German translation of the Bible.
But let there be no mistake: Peter was “PRIMO INTER PARES,” first among equals, he had the primacy, he WAS the first Pope, for the following reasons:
Scripture is clear: The Church is hierarchical
The Church is hierarchical, this is clearly proven by a number of passages in the Bible which speak of a hierarchical Church
Rom 10:14-15
“How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent?”
“THEY ARE SENT.” Look closely at these words. They mean that someone is doing the sending, and the only reason the ones sent go is because they have been sent. These words also mean that one hallmark of the Church is that there are no private initiatives nor loose cannons here, everything starts with a central authority.
From the Father, we see authority conferred on the Son, and from the Son to the Church ( Mt 28:18-20, Jn 17:1-2, 6; Lk 22:29; Jn 20:21; Lk 10:16; Jn 5:43; Mt 28:18-20; Jn 17:8; Lk 22:29-30; Jn 20:21-23; Lk 10:16; and Jn 16:26; Mt 18:15-18).
No one can simply wake up one morning feeling the urge to preach, and go preach, and claim he, too, has been sent. He has to show his bona fides, and the only way to do that is to show his link to the Apostles. Needless to say, no Protestant denomination, not even one in the 33,000 that Protestantism has spawned, can claim this distinction.
Note that with this, the Protestants’ claim that the Church is an invisible entity comprising believers bound together by their common belief in Jesus Christ is UNBIBLICAL, it goes against Rom 10:14-15. The 33,000 denominations that they have become have each their own versions of the truth. Some denominations accept only water baptism while others don’t; Some accept abortion or divorce with remarrying while others don’t. If each pastor in each denomination “had been sent” how come each has a different version of the instructions from the same Holy Spirit?
1 John 4:6
This passage helps us recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood. It says
1 John 4:6 ”We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us.”
Now imagine a Baptist minister saying this. But then oopps, here comes an Evangelical saying a different thing, BOTH claiming they have the truth. But since they have different views, who HAS the truth?
Study the following passages, then tell me if they speak of some non-hierarchical, invisible Church, or one which is highly structured and hierarchical?
1 Peter 5:1-10.
Here, Peter exhorts the elders of the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia in Asia Minor to feed the flock. (As we have mentioned in Eze 34:23 and 2 Sam 5:27, “feed” refers more to governing and leading rather than providing food.)
Note that, although he refers to himself as one of them—a fellow priest—he distinguishes himself as a witness of the suffering of Jesus Christ, and a “partaker of the glory that is to be revealed” (possibly alluding to the Transfiguration cf Mt 17:1 ff; 2 Pet 1:16-18).
Read carefully Peter’s exhortations to the elders of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Are they the exhortations of one to his peers? If yes, Peter sounds here as extremely presumptuous, reminding the elders (priests) of their duties (v.2-3), reminding them to be role models (v.3), assuring them that, if they approach their responsibilities this way, they need never fear the Judgment (v.4), and concluding with a call to humility (v.5-11). No, this is not an exhortation from one to his peers, it is an exhortation from the superior to his subordinates.
Note, further, that God in v.4 is referred to as the “Chief Shepherd.” This jibes perfectly with what I have been saying here: God having other shepherds under him.
1 Peter 5:1-10
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
]
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you.”
1 Cor 12:5-6
“and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.”
Eph 4:8-13
“Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”
Acts 1:15-26
IN Acts 1, we see the early Church functioning much the same way it does now: issues are decided by one central authority whose pronouncements are carried out without question.
Acts 1:15-26
“And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
“Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
“For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
“Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
“And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles”
Scripture abounds with a number of indicators pointing to a central authority: the Pope
Now that we have shown that the Church IS hierarchical, let’s examine Scripture to see if there’s evidence to show that indeed, there is enough account in Scripture to show that the early Church indeed FUNCTIONED hierarchically.
(a) Peter’s words are the first recorded in the Upper Room before the Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
(b) Peter is the first to speak (and only one to speak as recorded), the first one to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14—36).
(c) Peter alone interpreted Psalms in the decision to let the position vacated by Judas be filled by a replacement, Matthias. Acts 1:20 “Let his bishopric someone else take,” Peter decided without calling for a vote or even a discussion.
(d) It was Peter who, without consulting anyone, made the decision to baptize the Gentile Cornelius and his household on the basis of Peter’s vision at Joppa. Isn’t it presumptuous or even reckless and irresponsible for Peter to make that strategic decision alone if he were not the boss?
(e) It was Peter who made the decision at the Council of Jerusalem that grace, not works of law, is required for salvation. The claim by Protestants that it was James, not Peter who made the decision from James’ statement “It is MY judgment” is clutching at straws.
First, it is only in Protestant bibles that the statement is rendered “It is MY judgment,” implying authority. The Catholic Vulgate renders it “Propter quod ego iudico. . .” which is rendered in the Catholic RSV Bible as “Therefore my judgment is. . .” which suggests James giving his concurrence, which just happens to coincide with Peter’s. Let you, readers, decide, which of the two views—the Protestants’ or the Catholics’—is closer to the intention of Luke.
Readers are invited to check out for themselves Acts15:6-29:
“The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And AFTER THERE HAD BEEN MUCH DEBATE, Peter rose and said to them, Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.
“AND ALL THE ASSEMBLY KEPT SILENCE. . .”
One has to have a good idea of the trouble the division caused – on whether Gentile Christians have to be circumcised to be Christians. One has to understand the vehemence of the Jewish hardliners associated with James, himself a very much-respected apostle being Jesus’ cousin and bishop of Jerusalem, citing as they must have the covenant God made with Abraham (cf Gen 17) and the notion that the Law, once made, is for all times.
Yet when Peter spoke, debate stopped, and the decision was promulgated ON THE SPOT
(Acts 15:13-29).
Even the Council of Jerusalem itself is proof that in the early Church is a hierarchy AND A PROCEDURE which everyone, even Paul and Barnabas, followed.
One has to know the “situation on the ground” then. The persecution of Christians following Stephen’s death actually hastened the spread of Christianity to the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians who fled Jerusalem settled in Gentile country, and there preached not only to fellow evacuee Jews but to Gentiles as well. In the process, many Gentiles were converted, raising the grisly prospect among Jewish Christians of a horde of uncircumcised Gentile Christians far outnumbering the Jewish Christians.
So parties of Jewish Christians called “Judaizers” went around Galatia and Antioch, then places where Paul taught, telling the Gentile Christians just the opposite of what Paul taught, which, take note, is what the Council of Jerusalem also decided: grace, not works of Law, is what’s required for salvation.
Paul and Barnabas took this matter up with the Jewish Christians, but they couldn’t resolve the matter among themselves. So guess what they did? Precisely what Mt 18:15-18 says: TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH.
(f) Even the Rebuke, which Protestants with barely concealed glee use to discredit the primacy of Peter, actually works to affirm Peter’s primacy.
Readers will know more in Gal 2:11, but in Antioch, as earlier narrated, Peter started avoiding sitting at tables with Gentile Christians every time the Judaizers were around.
This infuriated Paul, as Peter’s strange behavior belie his pronouncements at the Council of Jerusalem years earlier. And what would the other Christians think: that the decision has now been reversed? Indeed, isn’t Barnabas avoiding sitting at table with the Gentile Christians every time the Judaizers were around a foretaste of the damage Peter’s ambivalence could cause?
So Paul “withstood Peter to his face.”
Now Protestants could barely hide their glee: isn’t this abundantly enough to cast doubt on Peter’s alleged leadership of the Church? If Peter’s boss, how can an underling REBUKE him?
Rather than show Peter’s subordinate status, the Rebuke actually shows Peter’s headship. Had an ordinary person done what Peter did, would it have caused Paul to react the way he did? Most likely not. But Peter? That seemingly innocent move, coming as it does from the head of the Church could signal a strategic shift. That’s why Paul is correct in calling Peter’s attention to his error.
(g) Barnabas is Paul’s bosom body. It was Barnabas who brought Paul to the Apostles, Barnabas who was Paul’s partner in his journeys, Barnabas who picked up the almost lifeless body of Paul who was lynched by the crowd who earlier lionized Paul as a god for making a lame man walk.
Yet it was the same Barnabas who, when Peter started avoiding sitting at tables with Gentile Jews every time Judaizers were around, almost by reflex avoided sitting at table with Gentile Christians too.
Now, why EVER would Barnabas do that? Note that Barnabas was a highly respected man in the early Church. Articulate and yet of the most gentle and mild character (he was called “Son of Consolation” for the way he would always sympathize with others, consoling them). If put on a stage together with Peter, people would likely readily choose Barnabas. Why then, did Barnabas by reflex chose to side with Peter, not Paul?
The answer is simple: Peter was boss.
“There’s no mention of Peter after Acts 15.”
But of course! In Acts 12, we see that “Peter left for another place.” Why would Luke, the historian’s blood surging through his veins, and the physician’s cold analysis guiding his writing, miss out on such important detail – omitting any mention of Peter in Acts from chapter 13 to chapter 28?—UNLESS it’s really intended to be omitted?
And true enough, there’s a very good reason for Luke to. Remember that Peter, at the end of Acts 12, was a fugitive, he was just sprung from jail by an angel. Is it such a wonder then that Luke is silent on Peter or his whereabouts starting chapter 12 where we see that Peter “left for another place”?
Or, phrased another way, is the mere non-mention of Peter and his whereabouts starting chapter 13 of Acts enough to cancel out the clear manifestations of a Petrine primacy over the early Church?
Remember that the Gospels give a selection of what Christ did and said according to a certain priority the human author thinks consistent with his purpose. John, for instance, wanted to establish the divinity of Christ, and the things he wrote down in the Gospel of John are consistent with his objectives. Luke, on the other hand, wanted to write a historical account, so the things he included in Luke the Gospel follow this objective, each writer, in other words choosing the elements needed for the portrait he was drawing.
The Epistles were for the most part written as the occasion arose—some point of doctrine was being misinterpreted perhaps. Peter wanted to strengthen the elders in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bethyhnia, and the things he mentioned in 1 Peter are consistent with this objective. Paul wrote Romans and Galatians specifically to counter the threat to the truth posed by the Judaizers, This explains his vehemence in emphasizing faith over works of the Law, which the original Protestants twisted to suit their purpose.
Thus one cannot argue from the silence of the New Testament that any particular doctrine was not being taught.
On the other hand, there is abundant proof that, although there’s no mention of Peter in the latter half of Acts, Peter discharged duties consistent with being the top guy.
In Acts 1, we see Peter preaching the kingdom to the multitude at Pentecost, to “devout Jews from all nations”—the only one on record to do so.
In Acts 3., Peter preaches his second sermon in a speech aimed at showing the power of God made manifest through Jesus Christ in his making of a lame man walk, and urging the Jews to repent.
In Acts 4, we see Peter turning the tables on his accusers in the Sanhedrin, lambasting the Jewish Senate for putting Jesus Christ to death.
In Acts 5 we see Peter pronouncing the first anathema on the couple Ananias and Saphira, and heaven immediately confirms the sentence.
In Acts 8, we see Peter and John “preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans (Acts 8:25).
In Acts 10 and11, we see Peter taking into the Church, for the first time, Gentiles: Cornelius and his entire household. As usual, when Scripture goes against them, Protestants pooh-pooh the event, pointing out that this happened in Jewish territory.
It was Peter who alone interpreted Psalms and decreed “Let someone else take his bishopric,” paving the way for Matthias to take over Judas’ place.
It was Peter who gave the definitive last word on the “Council of Jerusalem debate.
There is, therefore, no basis to the Protestant objection about Peter not having the primacy over the other Apostles including Paul on the basis of his non-mention after Acts 12.
Besides, are we to construe the silence of the Bible about Peter or his whereabouts as a definitive proof that Peter couldn’t be the boss? Or phrased another way, should one be mentioned often in the Bible for him to be someone of importance? Still phrased another way, is frequency of mention in the Bible a guarantee of one’s importance?
I don’t think so. God the Father is hardly mentioned in Acts, the Blessed Virgin is not mentioned in Acts at all, yet are we to doubt their importance? . Are we to conclude that the Blessed Virgin, despite the announcement by an angel of her being full of God’s grace, is of little consequence simply because she is not mentioned in Acts?
The other Apostles are not mentioned in Acts. Are we to conclude then that they are no longer sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Lk 22:29-30)?
“There’s no mention of Peter ever being in Rome.”
In fact, there is. Holy Scripture contains a passage which supports Peter being in Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 says “The Church which is at Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark.”
“Babylon” is code for Rome, much as the fish symbol (icthos) was used as sort of shibboleth, a recognition signal. Why would Peter resort to code words? Acts 18:2 describes how the Roman emperor Claudius (A.D. 41- 54) ordered all Jews to leave Rome, necessitating secrecy.
And come to think of it, just GRANTING that Peter was never in Rome, does that automatically and by itself DISPROVE the papacy?
ALLEGED PARALLEL “CHARGING”
The same ALLEGED “charging”.
Protestants cite Rom 1:16, Mt 10:5-6, Acts 9:15-16, and Gal 2:7-10 as proof that Peter was never bishop of Rome, that he never became Pope, and that there’s no such thing as a papacy. According to the Protestants, Jesus clearly forbade the twelve Apostles including Peter to go to Gentile places. Peter and the Twelve to the Jews, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Luke, etc to the Gentiles. In the case of the Gentile Cornelius and his entire household whom Peter converted, this happened on Jewish territory, so this is not a violation of the strict division.
Rom 1:16 “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile”
Mt 10:5-6
Jesus sent out these twelve, instructing them as follows: “Do not go to Gentile regions and do not enter any Samaritan town. Go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.
Acts 9:15-16
But the Lord said to him (Ananias), “Go, for he (Paul) is a chosen instrument of mine to carry
my name to the Gentiles and kings and sons of Israel.”
Gal 2:7-10
But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles).
Rom 1:16, Mt 10:5-6, Acts 9:15-16, and Gal 2:7-10 are compelling reasons to believe the Protestant claim that Peter was never bishop of Rome, Peter was never Pope, and there’s no such thing as a papacy. Indeed, how could have Peter been bishop of Rome when Rome is Gentile country and he and the Twelve have been restricted to the Jewish campaign? Compelling reasons EXCEPT for the presence of certain passages in the Bible which say otherwise:
Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
Mt 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Mk 16:15
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mt 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Rom 10:18
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Col 1:23
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
.
Acts1:8, Mt 24:14, Mk 16:15, Mt 28:19, Rom 10:18 ALL seem very clear on one thing: the kingdom is to be preached by the Apostles, to all men, for all times.
By the apostles—this is clear.
To all men, not only to the Jews or to the Gentiles of the known world then, but to ALL men, which, of course, also includes women, gays, Blacks, Arabs, Asians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, witches, animists, Masons, saints, priests, monarchs, autistics, ALL.
For all times—not only to the people alive then, but also to all people still to be born, including human beings who will be born in future colonies in other planets or solar systems.
As if to make sure the meaning is no missed, Col 1:23: “to every creature which is under heaven.”
Now let’s take the passages cited by the Protestants one by one:
Rom 1:16 “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile”
Note that all this passage describes is a one-after-the-other sequence: to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles. It does NOT say “Peter and the twelve Apostles to the Jews ONLY, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy to the Gentiles ONLY. The word ”only,” which has to be there for the Protestant interpretation to be tenable, is NOT there. It’s there only in the minds of Protestants.
Mt 10:5-6
Jesus sent out these twelve, instructing them as follows: “Do not go to Gentile regions and do not enter any Samaritan town. Go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.
Here, Jesus instructs the twelve Apostles NOT to enter any Samaritan town. Obviously, Jesus must have LATER allowed the entry into Samaritan towns.
Proof?
Acts 8:5 “Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.” Jesus Christ allowed the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr. This led to the Jews scattering all over, making possible the preaching of God’s kingdom outside Judea for the first time. Now, if Jesus strictly wanted to RESTRICT Peter to the Jews, why would God allow the stoning of St. Stephen, which eventually led to Philip the Deacon to baptize Samaritans (Acts 8:5), which led to Peter and Paul preaching the kingdom to the non-Jew half-breed Samaritans for the first time (Acts 8:25)?
Acts 9:15-16
But the Lord said to him (Ananias), “Go, for he (Paul) is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name to the Gentiles and kings and sons of Israel.”
In the light of Acts 1:8, Mt 24:14, Mk 16:15, Mt 28:19, and Rom 10:18, we will have to conclude that yes, Paul is God’s chosen instrument to preach the kingdom to the Gentiles, yes, Paul is the chief preacher, yes the one who’s primarily responsible for the Gentile campaign, yes, the one who will give an account to God for the success or failure of the Gentile campaign, BUT NO, to say that Peter WAS NOT, MAY NOT, COULD NOT possibly be Pope is squeezing from this passage way too much meaning the passage is not equipped to give.
In the first place, we should ALWAYS bear in mind that the Church Jesus founded is marked by UNITY, among others:
Eph 4:3-6 “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all”
John 10:16 “and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”
What the Protestants seem to be saying is that there are two SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT campaigns: the one to the Jews headed by Peter, the other to the Gentiles headed by Paul. God commissioned Peter and gave him powers for his mission to the Jews, but God ALSO gave LIKE powers to Paul for his mission to the Gentiles.
That’s not how it is. Here’s the Catholic view:
The Jews are God’s chosen people. God offered his kingdom to the Jews first. The Jews, however, rejected the offer (see Mt 20:1-16). So God offered the kingdom to the Gentiles. This in fulfillment of Heb 10:1 “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves” and of Jer 31:31 “"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”
This explains God’s injunction in Rom 1:16 and Mt 10:5-6 for the Apostles “First to the Jews, then to the Gentiles.”
And it came to pass that God opened the doors to the Gentiles.In Acts 8:5, we see Philip the Deacon baptizing Jewish half-breed Samaritans. In Acts 8:25 we see Peter and John baptizing Samaritans in many Samaritan towns. In Acts 10 and 11, we see Peter taking in Gentiles for the first time: Cornelius and his entire household (which normally would include not only the members of his family, but all his slaves).
Note that in all of these, the whole effort retains its UNITY, we are NOT looking here at separate campaigns or independent undertakings, we are looking here at a collective effort of one flock under one shepherd toward one goal.
Yes, the kingdom now includes Gentiles, but it does not mean that the Jews, henceforth, will be set aside, excluded. No. In Romans chapters 9 to 11, Paul describes how God continues to fulfill his promises about the Jewish people by preserving a remnant of Jewish believers in Christ (Rom 11:1–5). This sets aside a special place for Israel, for no other people has a promise that there will always be a believing remnant. God also has future plans for the Jewish people: One day the Jewish people as a nation will return to Christ, and this will be one of the signs of the Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead (Rom 11:12, 15).
The Church, therefore, is a new Israel, comprising of Jews who believe in Jesus as the promised Messiah (Rom 9:6), and Gentiles who believe in the Messiah and so through baptism are spiritually circumcised (Col 2:11-12; Rom 2:26-29).
This is why St. Paul says in Eph 2:11-13, 19) “you Gentiles in the flesh. . were [once] separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel. . . But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near. . .So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints.”
ONE LORD, ONE BODY, ONE BAPTISM.
Gal 2:7-10
But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles).
We have to accept Gal 2:7-10 as saying what it clearly says: Paul having been entrusted with preaching the Gospel PRIMARILY to the Gentiles, as Peter having been entrusted with preaching the Gospel PRIMARILY to the Jews; however, in the light of Acts 8:5, Acts 1:8 et al, we also necessarily have to conclude that there is NOTHING EXCLUSIVE in these assignments, that is, while Paul’s primary responsibility and the project to which he should pour his attention, time, and effort is the Gentile campaign, there is no keeping him from preaching the Gospel to the Jews (indeed Acts 9:15-16 clearly allows Paul to carry God’s name to “kings and sons of Israel”), in the same way that, although Peter is primarily assigned to the Jewish campaign, Peter can also preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.
Indeed, that’s precisely what Peter does in 1 Peter 1:1. Here we see Peter writing to a number of Christian communities in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bethynia in Asia Minor, quite a number of these Christians converts from paganism, consoling and exhorting them to stand firm in the midst of difficulties posed by their pagan environment..
The question is why would Peter do that, given what Protestants claim is a strict Peter to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles dichotomy? The answer, of course, is as I have said: while Peter is charged with preaching he kingdom PRIMARILY to the Jews (Gal 2:7-10), there’s nothing exclusive in this arrangement, probably merely good division of labor. I mean if we have to insist on the Protestant view, we have to tear out 1 Peter 1:1.
Another proof is Acts 8:5 where we find Philip the Deacon preaching the Gospel to Samaria.after the injunction of Mt 10:5-6 for the Apostles NOT to enter any Samaritan town, and Acts 10 where God through an angel (in the case of Cornelius) and a vision (in the case of Peter) for the first time paved the entry into the Church of Gentiles (Cornelius and his entire household). If God, having assigned Peter to the Jews now has the first Gentiles enter the Church through Peter, are Protestants correct in INSISTING “No, Peter to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles”?
This PETER TO THE JEWS, PAUL TO THE GENTILES is, at best, a Protestant misinterpretation of Scripture, or, more likely, one done out of reflex action bias in favor of PROOF-TEXTING. For how else can you explain the Protestants’ seeing of Gal 2:7-10 AND NOT 1 Pet 1:1, Acts 8:5 or Acts 8:25, where we see Peter and John, strictly restricted by God to preach to non-Jews according to the Protestants, preaching to the half-breed Samaritans?
From all the above, we can, therefore, conclude that, while it’s true Peter and the other Apostles have been given the primary responsibility of preaching the Gospel to the Jews, in the same way that Paul has been given the primary responsibility to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, this does NOT necessarily preclude the possibility that God might have given Peter the primacy over all Apostles.
In other words, while all the aforementioned passages do NOT make Peter the first Pope, NEITHER do they make it impossible for Peter to be the first Pope. In fact, a curious thing is evident in 1 Pet 1:1: Peter comforts Christians in Asia Minor, Paul’s territory, without Paul complaining about the incursion. Why would Peter do that, and Paul allow that, UNLESS Paul had a local responsibility and Peter an OVERALL responsibility?
The same power of binding and loosing
In Mt 18:18, Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose. Later, after his Resurrection when he appeared before the Apostles, Jesus gave them a similar power (Jn 20:23).
The same Power of the Keys
It’s NOT TRUE, however, what the Protestants claim that Jesus gave the other Apostles the same Power of the Keys to the other Apostles. That’s baloney:
(1) In the first place, NOWHERE in Scripture does Jesus give a similar power to the Apostles as Mt 18:18 and Jn 20:23 show the giving of the power and binding to BOTH Peter and the other Apostles. I dare Protestants to show even just one passage in the Bible that shows Jesus giving the Power of the Keys to ANY OTHER.
(2) In the second place, Mt. 16:19 is quite clear: “I will give to thee [SINGULAR] the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Doubting Protestants could always check the Greek original.
(3) And finally, the Keys, as Isaiah 22 and Rev 1:18 clearly show, is the hallmark of AUTHORITY.
You will hear Protestants pooh-pooh the “keys to the kingdom” as a symbolic statement of Peter preaching the Gospel for the first time with an international kingdom. One Protestant would even claim that Peter’s preaching to the “international” audience at Pentecost fulfills once for all the Biblical injunction for the Apostles to preach the kingdom to all the ends of the earth, that this responsibility was fulfilled when Peter, through his sermon to devout Jews from all nations at Pentecost, opened the kingdom of God to the listeners when he preached salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
Silly. I mean, would any Protestant in his right mind claim that? And what about the billions of human beings who would come after the Pentecost crowd would have died, would they be deprived of the benefits the Power of the Keys bring, just because they have not been fortunate enough to have been born when Peter was around?
The Protestants pooh-poohing the Power of the Keys as the phrase means among Catholics could very well be well-founded, EXCEPT that there’s this entire chapter in Scripture—Isaiah 22 – which Jesus definitely knew about, and which he probably used so that the meaning of the “keys of heaven and earth” may not be lost to future human beings.
Let’s go deeper into Isaiah 22 (Credit: Scott Hahn). In v.19 it says “I [referring to the King] will thrust you [referring to the previous chamberlain of the royal household] from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah [the new chamberlain of the royal household], and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder they key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”
Now, what’s going on here? Hezekiah was, at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers. Now among cabinet ministers, there is one who’s chief, sort of a Prime Minister. Hezekiah, as king, had, as his “Prime Minister” before Shebna, who proved unworthy. So Shebna was expelled, and his departure left his office vacant. Hezekiah had Eliakim fill the vacated post.
Now, Eliakim is a minister in the royal cabinet, but now he is being promoted to the “Prime Minister’s” position. Proof? He is given what other ministers were not given: they keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David.
When Jesus is giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Jesus gives Peter the Prime Minister’s office.
Take this up with ANY Protestant, and he will pooh-pooh Isaiah 22. “Does Isaiah 22 mention the name of Peter?” one asked, in a very silly manner which betrays his fear that Isaiah 22 might be showing him the truth, Imagine, this Protestant has no qualms using Eph 6:1-12 to reference Eph 3:8-10, yet he absolutely refuses to even consider the possibility that Mt 18:18 might reference Isaiah 22. And this should be a lesson to gullible Catholics who are thinking of converting: no matter how knowledgeable your Protestant teacher is, he is not in any position to teach, for the simple reason that he is NOT in possession of the truth. It’s as simple as that.
The same authority.
Protestants would say: Peter was boss of the Twelve, but Paul was boss of Timothy, Silas, Titus, Barnabas, etc. Peter to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles
Nothing can be farther from the truth.
In the first place, let it be VERY CLEAR that it is God’s intention to have just ONE FLOCK, ONE SHEPHERD (John 10:16), rather than many flocks, many shepherds, meaning that, right from the start, this Protestant invention of TWO FLOCKS, TWO SHEPHERDS is WRONG. Why, even the very person the Protestants are touting as the second shepherd admonishes the faithful in Corinth for breaking up into a Paul clique, a Peter clique, a Barnabas clique, an Apollos clique, and a Christ clique (1 Cor 1:10-12), because according to Paul there’s only one, Christ, to whom all of them belong.
ONE FLOCK- Jesus Christ’s, ONE SHEPHERD- Jesus, through Peter, his prime shepherd. In the foregoing, let me show you how Peter is this one shepherd.
The Catholic argument will be on three fronts:
(1) Who is the “rock” in Mt. 16:18-20?
(2) The “feeding of the of the lambs” in Jn 21:15-17
(3) Jesus’ special prayers for Peter (Lk 22:31-32)
Who is the “rock” in Mt 16:18-2
The Protestant view:
Protestants will tell you it’s Jesus Christ, it’s Peter’s faith, it’s the body of believers-- anybody-- except Peter, for the following reasons:
(1) The “rock” that is referred to as the foundation of the Church is not a small rock (“petros”), but a big rock which is called “petra” in Greek.
(2) “Rock” refers only to Jesus Christ:
(a) Ephesians 2:19-22 - Who is the chief cornerstone [rock-foundation] here. Notice the plurality of apostles and prophets in verse 20 indicating that it is not only Peter referred here as foundation, and in verses 21 and 22 who is the ‘IN HIM” [singular] in both verses.
(b) Isaiah 28:16 – Who is the “stone”, “cornerstone” and sure “foundation” mentioned here?
(c) Matthew 16:18 – Who is referred here as the “rock”
(d) Romans 9:31-33 – Who is the “stumbling stone”, “stone” and “rock” and trusts in “Him” here.
(e) 1 Corinthians 3:10-11 – Who is the “foundation” here.
(f) 1 Peter 2:4-8 – Who is the “living stone”, “stone”
and “cornerstone”, “precious stone”, “capstone”, “rock” referred here?
(g) 1 Corinthians 10:4 – Who is the rock referred here?
(3) Simple English construction. If Jesus as the firs person is talking to Peter as the second person who do you think Jesus is referring to as “THIS”? Isn’t it Jesus? If the “rock” is Peter, shouldn’t Jesus have said “Peter, upon you I will build my Church”?
Do a literary critique. Identify the 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons in the conversation. Notice how “and” is used. Notice how adjective “this” is used. In verse 18 Jesus as first person talks to Peter as second person. The use of “this” points to first person as most proximate to it. The “rock” guarantees that the gates of Hades will not overcome it [Meaning, the church, not “you” meaning Peter]. It is only possible if the “rock” is a SUPER POWERFUL and so that cannot be Peter because five [5] verses later in verse 23, Jesus rebuke Peter calling him SATAN!!!. This indicates that Peter, human and sinful as he is cannot be the foundation of the church as referred to here.
THE CATHOLIC ANSWER
Let’s take the Protestant objections one by one.
The “rock” that is referred to as the foundation of the Church is not a small rock (“petros”), but a big rock which is called “petra” in Greek.
(Credit: Karl Keating verbatim) As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, “petros” and “petra” simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek “lithos” would have been used.
“Rock” refers only to Jesus Christ
As the following Bible passages clearly show: Ephesians 2:19-22, Isaiah 28:16, Romans 9:31-33, 1 Corinthians 3:10-11, 1 Peter 2:4-8, 1 Corinthians 10:4.
That’s right. But look at John 1:42 “Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).”
Now, let any Protestant claim that Jesus did NOT change Simon’s name to “Cephas.” Let any Protestant question that the word “Cephas” is nothing more than the transliteration of the Aramaic “Kepha” into Greek. Let any Protestant belie four passages in Corinthians and another four in Galatians which refer to Peter as “Cephas”: 1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 15:3-4, 3:5 and Gal 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:11-21.
Finally, let any Protestant contest the Catholic claim that “Kepha” means “rock.”
Now let me turn the tables on Protestants for a change. Why do Protestants insist that “rock” cannot refer to Peter when it was Jesus himself who changed Simon’s name to “rock”? Why do Protestants say nothing of Jn 1:42 et al? Is it because the Catholics they’ve been converting right and left do not ask the right questions?
Don’t these Catholics need to be informed of the arguments from BOTH sides?
And why do Protestants insist that “rock” refers EXCLUSIVELY to Jesus Christ? Don’t they know of Isaiah 51:1-2 where Abraham is also referred to as “rock”? If “rock” in Isaiah 51:1-2 refers to one other than God, and if Jesus himself calls Peter “rock” in Jn 1:42, why would Protestants insist the “rock” in Mt. 16:18 could not possibly be Peter because “rock” refers EXCLUSIVELY to Jesus?
There’s another thing I’d like to leave Protestants with. Protestants must know that there are certain personages in the Bible who had their names changed by God. And so we have Abram (Abraham), Sarai (Sarah), Jacob (Israel), Daniel (Balthazar), Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah (Shadrach Meshach, Abednego). This name change usually precedes the giving of an important commission by God. St. Peter is one such person whose name was changed. The name change in his case, however, is unique. Except for Abraham in Isaiah 51:1-2, NEVER before had someone been given a new name which till then referred only EXCLUSIVELY to God. Peter is the only one. He was given the new name “rock.” WHY?
Simple English construction.
According to the Protestants, if Jesus as the first person is talking to Peter as the second person, “THIS”? should necessarily refer toJesus If the “rock” is Peter, shouldn’t Jesus have said “Peter, upon you I will build my Church”?
Arguing around the English translation will get us nowhere because then the Protestant interpretation would only be as good as the Catholic’s. Let’s, therefore, go to the Greek, because that’s the surviving Matthew translation, and the Aramaic, because that’s the dialect Jesus and everyone in the New Testament spoke. (Aramaic is also the dialect in which the original Matthew Gospel was written by Matthew, as the records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea show, but Protestants wouldn’t accept anything outside the Bible, so I will not cite Eusebius).
The Protestants, however, would have to accept the claim that Jesus spoke in Aramaic because it’s Biblical. In Mt 27:46, Jesus groans from the Cross: “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani.” That isn’t Greek, that’s Aramaic.
So let’s go to the Aramaic. But before that, let’s have Mt 16:19 in Greek, to show where the disagreement lies. (Credit: Jack Kilmon)
KAGW DE SOI LEGW Hoti SU EI PETROS KAI EPI TAUTH TH PETRA
And I also to you say that you are Peter and on this ROCK
hOIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN
I will build my assembly.
It’s that use, unavoidable in Greek, of “petros” and “petra” that gives the Protestants something to hawk about, something which disappears when we use Aramaic:
attah KEFA hu we’al KEFA den ebnyeh qehali
you are a rock and on this rock I will build (from stone) my assembly.
In other words, Mt 16:18, as rendered in Greek, opens itself up to debate because of the peculiar Greek characteristic of the nouns having gender.
Peter’s name in Mt 16:18 is rendered by St. Matthew as “petros” and not “petra” because “petra” meaning “large rock” is feminine, and to call a man “petra” wiould not only be awkward, but funny, if not humiliating for him. But Aramaic, which is the spoken language of Jesus and everyone in the New Testament, has no such gender delineation, so what Jesus most likely said in Mt 16:18 is “You are KEFA, and on this KEFA I will build my Church.”
GREEK GRAMMAR
There’s another thing our readers should know. Protestants and Catholics can argue endlessly over countless points, but there’s at least one area in the Mt 16:19 issue which simply does NOT admit debate: the Greek grammar prevailing at the time Matthew was written in Greek.
Now, there’s this little Greek grammar rule which says that everytime the demonstrative pronoun ‘TAUTH” is used with the Greek word for "and," which is "KAI", the pronoun refers back to the immediately preceeding noun. Peter’s profession of faith and Jesus’ name are two verses earlier, so these could not be it. Guess what this nearest noun is.
You’re right. Peter.
The “feeding of the of the lambs” in Jn 21:15-17
More than the Protestants will ever realize, John 21:15 rates an import slightly lower than the Annunciation. In the Annunciation, heaven held its collective breath as St. Gabriel poses the question to Mary. Here, at the “Feeding of the Lambs,” heaven held its collective breath as Jesus poses the question to Peter, a question fraught with heavy implications and import: ““Simon, son of John, does thou care for me more than these others?”
Jesus has made a choice, yet his chosen will still have to accept the great responsibility. In Jn 21:15, Jesus is basically asking Peter: “Peter, do you love me more than all the other Apostles love me? Is your love greater than all the other Apostles’ love for me combined? Can I expect from you a higher devotion than all of them combined? Can I expect that you will sacrifice yourself for me more than they will, go where they won’t, do what they won’t?
When Peter answered affirmatively, Jesus then went through his three-fold question, and Peter’s commissioning.
It will help us understand Jn 21:15-17 if we keep in mind that the “Feed my lambs” here does not mean providing food for God’s people. The “feeding” here has more to do with leading, with governing, with shepherding, and has none to do with providing food.
Eze 34:23 “ And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.”
2 Sam 5:27: “ Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he who leddest out and broughtest in Israel; and the Lord said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.”
When Jesus commanded Peter to “feed “ his lambs, Jesus was commissioning Peter to shepherd his people. Jesus was giving Peter the charge of the Church.
Again, Protestants pooh-pooh Jn 21:15-17, saying the same commission was given to Paul.
When pressed for passages in Scripture in support of this claim, Protestants would point to the other half of Acts, from Acts 12 to 28, claiming “Look, it’s Paul, Barnabas, Titus, Timothy who are all over the remainder of Acts, Peter is never around; all you did was to concentrate on the Gospels and the first half of Acts’ of course, that’s all Peter’s show, but you must not forget it was Paul the rest of the way.”
So the question becomes: “Did Jesus commission Peter as his chief shepherd, or did Jesus commission Paul as well?”
The answer would have to be “It’s Peter alone.” PROOF?
Luke 22:31-32:
“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you [“humas,” PLURAL, meaning Peter and the other Apostles as well], that he may sift you [“sinisai,” again, PLURAL], as wheat, but I have prayed for thee [“sou,” SINGULAR], and when thou [“su,” SINGULAR] converted, strengthen thy brethren.”
Jesus said this to Peter in the presence of all the other Apostles, yet, the other Apostles did not complain. Isn’t it strange why the other Apostles would not grumble, after all, each one of them is in as real a danger as Peter is, why only Peter? This can only mean one thing. Peter, having the greater responsibility, needs more prayers than each of the others do.
Still Protestants would argue that all this happened in the Gospels, Paul’s time in Acts has not yet arrived.
Well, maybe. BUT THEN,
How many lambs belong to Jesus?
How many lambs did Jesus entrust to Peter?
Is there anything in the passage that suggests that not ALL lambs belong to Christ, that not ALL lambs were entrusted by Jesus to Peter?
If it was Jesus’ intention for Peter to take care of only a part of Jesus’ lambs, with the remainder to Paul, wouldn’t have Jesus said clearly so, instead of the sweeping “FEED MY LAMBS”?
John 10:16
ONE FLOCK, ONE SHEPHERD, remember? The Protestant invention of TWO FLOCKS, TWO SHEPHERDS is WRONG. Why, even the very person the Protestants are touting as the second shepherd admonishes the faithful in Corinth for breaking up into a Paul clique, a Peter clique, a Barnabas clique, an Apollos clique, and a Christ clique (1 Cor 1:10-12), because according to Paul there’s only one, Christ, to whom all of them belong.
Jesus’ special prayers for Peter (Lk 22:31-32)
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has claimed power over you all, so that he can sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for thee [SINGULAR] that thy faith may not fail; when after a while, thou hast come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren. (Lk 22:31-32)”
Jesus said this to Peter in the presence of all the other Apostles, yet, the other Apostles did not complain. Isn’t that strange why the other Apostles would not grumble, after all, each one of them is in as real danger as Peter is, why only Peter? This can only mean one thing. Peter, having the greater responsibility, needs more prayers than each of the others do.
THE PAHABAAN
One Protestant tract shows a comparison showing Peter’s resume’ on the one hand and Paul’s on the other hand.
• Peter appeared only before the Sanhedrin and priest. Only Paul appeared before kings, governors, and the Roman emperor.
• Peter went only so far as Antioch, Paul all over the known civilized world then.
• Peter was the boss of only the Twelve, Paul the boss of Barnabas, Mark, Timothy, Silas, Titus, Priscilla, Aquila, Apollos, Lydia, Jason, Dionysius, Damaris, Titus Justus, Crispus, Sosthenes, Erastus, Gaius, Aristarchus, Epaproditus, etc.
• Peter converted only Cornelius, Paul converted the entire Gentile Christians.
• Peter merely “strengthened other believers,” Paul wrote the 14 epistles and travelled the whole of the civilized world then.
I find this infantile, but just to leave no question unanswered, here is the Catholic reply:
• Peter’s name is mentioned in the Bible 195 times, 65 times more than all the other Apostles COMBINED. (Abp Fulton J. Sheen “Life of Christ”)
• Everytime the names of the Apostles are listed (except for Gal 2:9), Peter’s name appears first. (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13) As for Gal 2:9 exception, it’s simply due to protocol. Even today, the bishop of the diocese the Pope visits is named ahead of the Pope.
• Peter is the recipient of a special blessing from Jesus (Mt 16:17).
• Peter is the one outsiders seek who want to say something to Jesus (Mt 17:24-27)
• Peter is the first to whom the risen Lord appears (1 Cor 15:5; Lk 24:34; Mt 16:7). John actually got to the tomb first, but notice how he stopped to let Peter go in first.
• Peter is the most important Apostle in the Jerusalem community (Acts 2:14-36; 4:8-12; 5:3-16; 10:9-48; 12:3-17) .
• Peter is a great missionary of the early Christian community to Jews (Lk 5:1-11; Jn 21; Acts 10; 1 Cor 1:12; 1 Cor 1:5; Gal 2:7), AND TO THE GENTILES (1 Pet 1:1).
• Peter is a shepherd chosen by Jesus to feed his sheep (Jn 21:15-17).
• Peter is the principal presbyter (priest) (1 Pet 5:1).
• To Peter was granted special revelations and visions (Acts 5:1-11; Acts 10:9-16; Acts 12:7-9; 2 Pet 1:16-18).
• Peter is a confessor (Mt 16:16), and guardian of the true faith (2 Pet 1:20-21; 2 Pet 3:15-16)
• Peter is the only one to confess the divinity of Jesus Christ (Mt 14:33).
• Peter is the only Apostle to whom a blessing is given (Mt 13:16-17).
• Peter is the only one to receive a special revelation (Mt 13:11; Mt 13:16-17).
Now let’s take a closer look at the Protestant claims:
Peter appeared only before the Sanhedrin and priests. Only Paul appeared before kings, governors, and the Roman emperor.
True, but Paul appeared before Antonius Felix, governor of Caesarea, and to the Roman emperor as a prisoner, not as a dignitary. Jewish Christians were after Paul, literally hunting him down and pressing trumped-up charges against him in the Sanhedrin. It got to the point that 40 hitmen vowed they would not have food nor drink till they’ve killed Paul, so Paul, for security reasons, had to be moved to Caesarea under heavy guard: 200 foot soldiers, Syrian and Arabian archers, 200 spearmen, and 70 horses
Peter went only so far as Antioch, Paul all over the known civilized world then.
By this standard, Jesus should be one inconsequential fellow: he hadn’t ventured farther than 100 miles from his hometown Nazareth.
Peter was the boss of only the Twelve, Paul the boss of Barnabas, Mark, Timothy, Silas, Titus, Priscilla, Aquila, Apollos, Lydia, Jason, Dionysius, Damaris, Titus Justus, Crispus, Sosthenes, Erastus, Gaius, Aristarchus, Epaproditus, etc.
Granting that it’s only the other eleven Apostles that Peter is boss to, and not the whole Church, but look up Lk 22:29-30 to see what kind of subordinates the Eleven are: even while they’re still alive, Jesus was already telling them they’d be sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.
Peter merely “strengthened other believers,” Paul wrote the 14 epistles and travelled the whole of the civilized world then.
As a result of Peter’s strengthening the “other believers,” billions of human beings have been turned to Christ for 2,000 uninterrupted years.
Peter converted only Cornelius, Paul converted the entire Gentile Christians.
Paul might converted millions more than Peter did, yet it remains: Peter is the boss.
This pamphlet has been compiled by Abraham v. Llera 09177070520 abrahamvllera@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment