"Michael W. Martin" wrote: :In the verses just prior to the above, Peter makes the bold :proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living :God. This was no mere hyperbole from an impetuous Galilean :fisherman, but was a direct revelation to Peter from the Father. :Furthermore, since the rest of the apostles were present, :it is Peter that we see preaching Christ's divinity to the rest of :His followers and thus by extrapolation to the whole world. This extrapolation is characteristic of Catholic apologists in certain cases. However, the gist of their argument is the literal interpretation of (1) Peter's person as the denotatum of "rock", (2) restricting the authority to Peter, depriving the other apostles of the power of jurisdiction, etc., so this extrapolation method detracts from the consistency of the whole argument. Let me explain it. We see Peter preaching Jesus Christ as the Son of God. And a few lines later I see you write: :In Matt 16:19 we see that Christ Himself was to establish His :eternal Church, the earthly instrument of our salvation against :which the gates of Hell will not prevail. But Matt 16:18-19 also :shows us that Christ was to entrust to Peter, and Peter alone, :His full authority over His Church here on earth after His :Ascension into heaven. So, it's Peter who preaches to the other apostles and in a stretched way, to the whole world. Peter alone. Then are the other apostles dependent on Peter in preaching the Word of God to the whole world, or do they usurp the commission given primarily to Peter, for example Paul's preaching before he even met Peter? Is Paul a schismatic when he calls himself an apostle not called by men? Or is the Lord guilty of antipapal prejudice when He dared to call Peter through his brother Andrew? Second, of what does this dependence consist? For in official Roman Catholic doctrine the pope is Peter's successor, and the bishops are the successors of the other apostles. Can you show me a scripture testifying about Peter ordaining another apostle as the pope ordains bishops now? Acts 1 would be a hasty and wrong answer because of verse 26. For if Peter had the full authority to choose from Matthias and Joseph, why did they cast lots? Why didn't he use his supreme authority? :W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew writes: :[...] "The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not :detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. By no means. It just helps us learn the real meaning of "rock" and "keys". That is, His promise is not a blank cheque which anyone can fill in, (e.g. medieval popes) but is never divisible from the one who holds it. So rockship has no intrinsic value when occasionally Peter contradicts the rest of the Church, or even a minority opinion which is, nevertheless, more truthful than his viewpoint. In Galatians we see Paul rebuking Peter who was acting hypocritically together with the other Jews, so it seems that Paul was in minority. Yet he was right. This passage is blatantly diminished by Roman Catholics, who eventually come to Mr. Albright's conclusion. Furthermore they say: "Peter wasn't guilty of doctrinal error but oly in inconsistent behaviour." Now they should go on reading Gal 2 to the end of the chapter from which the opposite is clear. :Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been :of far less consequence. Not a real argument. When Peter is mentioned as the errant one nowhere is it understood as: "Beware of the error of such an important personality" but "Beware of errors". The fact of an error outweighs any authority. It's a complete hypocrisy which several popes claimed, namely that "if the supreme spiritual power deviates, then it is judged only by God." No. So to say, the truth is above Peter. And it is also possible that the Church (so not God in Heaven) corrects him. So Peter's rockship is not something to use as a means of making the opposing side shut up (as, alas, had been done very often), but a responsible commission which God planned as the way of establishing His Church. :Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation :stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, :but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince :of the Apostles. Prince of the Apostles? I see him mentioning himself as the apostle of Jesus Christ and the fellow-elder in his first letter, and a bondman of Jesus Christ in the second. Nothing like "prince". Jesus said "who wants to be the first among you, let him be your (plural!) servant". A title "Servant of God's servants" isn't enough if one's deeds show the opposite. And are you trying to make me believe this embrionic "ex cathedra" distinction stuff? That Peter's errors allow us conclude "yes, he erred, yet not as the Roman Pontiff, but only as a local presbyter or sg. like it"? No. Peter's error in Gal 2 shows us that truth is above all. And if the rock errs, we have to turn to the Rock for advice. :... Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. :The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly :sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the :house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. :In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority." Be careful, Isaiah 22:25 suggests that it's a temporary office! :Consider also Martin Luther. In 1530, years after he had left :the Church, For a point of information, it wasn't him who left the Church but a part of the Church which became estranged from God (see the 33th one of Luther's selected "errors" in Exsurge Domine) said anathema on him, which was a much more powerful weapon than it's now. So it's logical that he also burned that bull and the book of papal decrees. :he writes "Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? :Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are :indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I :left them on earth. Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key :case, his keys are my keys. I don't know this excerpt, but I seriously doubt that Luther intended to prove Peter's exclusive jurisdiction with this statement. I call your attention to the sentence "his tongue is my key case" - it seems obvious that Luther was speaking about Peter's preaching here. And if it's true then this alleged evidence works rather against jurisdictional interpretation of keys. Keys in this case are powerless without preaching the Word of God. Luther is probably deriving apostolic authority from the commission to preach and teach. :One of the greatest reformed Biblical scholars of this century, :Herman Liderboss,... says: "The words "on this rock," petra, :indeed, refer to Peter. Because of the revelation he had received :and the confession it had motivated in him, Peter was appointed :by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future Church." The argument usually following this, something like "Peter has a successor in his office", is neglected by this opinion. Yes, because it reflects the historicity of Peter's commission. Indeed it is praiseworthy that Evangelicals and others recognize what in fact was entrusted to Peter. But one can easily ascribe this recognition to the present decrease of the pope's direct government and punishing capability of the whole Christian world. Note that we Protestants can't accept the pope as Peter's successor and some of us understand it as an obligation to lessen Peter's (the apostle's) importance in building up the Church. It's indeed an error, but coming from the erroneous conclusion that the Catholics are right in asserting that the pope is the vicar of Peter or of Christ. I wish {those serious doctrinal and other errors of men who thought themselves to be the successors to Peter's office} had never happened. But it's a false interpretation to say that notwithstanding the governmental and doctrinal errors of papacy, it's clear that God established a so-called Apostolic See which is right in faith per definitionem, without any searching the truth. :Evangelical Protestant, German scholar Gerhardt Meier, in his "The :End of the Historical Critical Method" writes in his article "The :Church and the Gospel of Matthew" (pages 58 through 60), "Nowadays, :a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of :the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point :liberal and conservative theologians agree ... Matthew 16:18 ought :not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 :is the universal entity, namely the people of God. Or the primary local church at Jerusalem, which certainly constituted the whole church in the beginning... The rock is placed only once. Peter was the foundation (upholding element, pillar, etc.) of the Church until one man was enough for it. To other local churches the other apostles can also be mentioned as foundation, e.g. in Eph 2:20. :There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning :the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach :and to discipline, including even to absolve sins. Then the keys belong to the other apostles too, which weakens the papistical interpretation of the Peter's commission. :Gerhardt Meier goes on to say, "No, the church He's talking about is :the one, holy, Catholic Church, the universal church and the rock on :which it will be built is Peter, not Peter's confession and the keys :that Jesus gives to Peter are keys not only to teach but even to :absolve sins." Teaching and absolving sins was given to other apostles, too. Yet Peter was who opened the kingdom of heaven with his effective preaching. It's the function of a key. :Another Lutheran professor, a professor of scripture and theology :at Concordia Seminary in Hong Kong, Torg Forberg wrote an article :entitled, "Peter, High Priest of the New Covenant." It is utterly blasphemous. Despite what is below. :Forberg insists that Jesus is the ultimate High Priest in the New :Testament, but he says, "Peter is presented as some kind of :successor to the High Priest in tradition used by the final :redactorate, Matthew 16:13-19. The ultimate High Priest is Christ in heaven. He doesn't need any successor instead of Himself in the high priest's office, for we aren't baptized in his name, neither was Peter crucified for us (1Cor 1:12-13); neither did he ascend in Heaven (Heb 4:14). :Peter stands out as a kind of chief Rabbi who binds and looses in :the sense of declaring something to be forbidden or permitted. Binding and loosing are not his exclusive privilege. :Peter is looked upon as a counterpart to the High Priest. Why, I beg, why do we need this outright blasphemy? :He is the highest representative for the people of God." Yes. Peter <> the most important apostle of the primary mission, and it's not because he strove for it. :Lastly, the Interpreter's Bible writes, "The keys of the kingdom :would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and :with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- :apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles :the prerogatives of Jesus." There is sand between the wheels. Is it "post-apostolic Christianity" that "is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus? How then? Wasn't it Jesus to utter these words? Is the text of "tu es Petrus" just an ecclesiastical interpretation of Jesus' words? Did the Church make Peter a rock? :Yes, truly Jesus is the cornerstone [Acts 4:11] and the capstone of the :Church [Eph. 2:20], the Alpha and the Omega [Rev. 1:8] and THE ROCK. :However, just as Christ left behind a visible, earthly sign of His :continued redemptive activity, so too did He leave an earthly sign :of His primacy over the Church in the office of Peter. What a cute sophism! Jesus is the head of the Church even when He is in heaven, as Paul teaches. And he doesn't even mention the commitment to Peter between the means that unite us with our heavenly Head (1Cor 12, Eph 4). Peter is never called head. Christ is. Peter is not our king but Christ is. We are not Peter's bride but that of Christ. We don't pray to Peter but to Christ. Paul rebuked Peter. Who would rebuke Christ? The parallel is staggering. :This is seen in the verse following [Matt 16:19]. For in ALL of :Scripture, both the OT and NT, "keys" are only mentioned twice, :once in Matt 16:19 and then again in Rev. 1:18. Thus we see that :Christ holds all power and authority, and holds the keys of heaven :[Rev 1:18], but that it is to Peter that He has given temporal :power over the earthly, post-ascension Church. Let me pervert the Second Vatican Council's teaching according to my taste: "...but only together with the apostolic college, and never without it." It would even sound biblically. :There is simply no other reasonable way to interpret Matt 16:19 :in light of . Either one accepts the Christ has the keys and :hands them over to Peter, or one must deny the truth of one of :the Scriptural passages. And in the shade of my refutations of ? :There is indeed ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was :first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, :Peter headed the list [Matt. 10:14, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, :Acts 1:13]; What about 1Cor 3:22 or Gal 2:9? Famous exceptions? :sometimes it was only "Peter and his companions" [Luke 9:32]. Peter :was the one who generally spoke for the apostles [Matt. 18:21 , :Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:69], and he figured in many of the :most dramatic scenes [Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24, Mark 10:28]. :On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds :(Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing [Acts 3:6-7]. :And it was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were :to be baptized [Acts 10:46-48]. And he denied his Master three times, and he cut off Malchus' ear, and he was a co-hypocrite with hypocrites, and he called unclean what God had cleansed... He made mistakes, for he was a man. I don't deny his importance, yet I have to protest against the tendency to replace God with him, calling him "vicar". :Furthermore, a scan of the frequency of names in the NT reveals :that of the apostles, Peter is mentioned the most often. :[...] Thus the leadership role of Peter is quite clear I could respond in the same style, referring to the amount of scriptural verses written by Paul and Peter. According to this approach, Paul is the pope. : St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D., writes: [...] :we shall confound all those who, [...] assemble other than where :it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops :of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and :organized at Rome Sorry, it's false. The most ancient Church was founded at Jerusalem. :by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, (1) Isn't Peter's authority enough? Does the Church have two heads? (2) Did Paul <> the Church in Rome? Reading Romans 1:10-13, Acts 19:21, 23:11, 28:15, it's hardly believable. Ferenc Nemeth