I just cited 1St.Peter 5:13. Oagan Rome was called Babylon by the early Christians and St.Peter was writing from that city. Also St.Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans in 58AD. In it he says that he does not want to preach the Gospel where Christ is already known because he would not build on "another man's foundation."

Yet in Romans 1:8, he writes to a Church already founded "whose faith was spoken of throughout the whole world."  later on he declares that he himself had not yet visited Rome, but he had hoped to do so when he had later set out ot visit Spain.

Therefore, Rome in short, was another man's foundation....The Romans knew well enough whom he meant...who then was the other man? The evidence from the writings of the Chruch Fathers and even some later Protestant historians tell that there had been a founder of this Chruch in Rome whom St.Paul was well acquainted and all Tradition says it's St. Peter.

If St.Peter was not in Rome isn't it strange that there is not a prominent writer of all the days before the 15th century who can be quoted to substantiate this false claim made by Wycliff, Luther and Calvin?  You got to get with the program KFC, even modern Protestant scholarship has refuted their false claims about St.Peter not being in Rome.

One was a German theologian, Adolph von Harnack, who wrote, "The martyrdom of peter in Rome was contested for controversial purposes, first by Protestant afterwards by higher critical prejudice...but that the position must be erroneous must be clear to any investigator who does not shut his eyes to the truth. The entire array of critical arguments with which Bauer combated the old tradition is today considered worthless.

It is well understood that in the early Church there was controversy over whether Gentiles who accepted Christ should be required to live according to Jewish law. This was a sensitive issue. Paul, in this instance, simply "rebuked" or "checked" Peter for pulling back from the table.

Just because someone is the leader doesn't mean they are always right. And when they are wrong, it is the proper role for subordinates to "keep them honest." There are many instances of dissent and debate in the early church. To understand the early Church, we have to remember that the Apostles, though guided by the Holy Spirit, were still human and capable of mistakes. But this instance, in my opinion, is a very minor mistake, where Peter, struggling with the delicate, sensitive balance among Jewish and Gentile Christians, hesitated to share a meal with the Gentiles, which was forbidden by Jewish law. 

In fact, I'm very glad you pointed out the "Incident at Antioch" because it naturally follows to mention the "Council of Jerusalem" that likely happened soon after that event, where the issue of whether Gentiles should be circumcized was discussed among the Apostles. Here it is clearly seen that Paul sought the decision of the Church leadership on this question:

"Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question." (Acts 15:2).

In the description of the  "Council of Jerusalem" that folows, it is quite clear that Peter presided over the Council, just as the Pope has presided over Ecumenical Councils for nearly 2000 years:

" The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, 'My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.' "

"The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them." (Acts 15:6-12) 

By the way, there are several hints even in Galatians to Paul seeing Peter as a leader in the Church. First, in Galatians 1:17, Paul mentions that he went to Jerusalem to "confer with" Peter. This doesn't necessarily mean that Paul saw Peter as a superior, but it hints at it. Second, in Galatians 2:8, Paul points out that Jesus entrusted the Apostleship of the circumcision (the Jews) to Peter. All of the Apostles and early Christians were Jews, including Paul! Therefore, according to Paul himself, Peter held the Apostleship over Paul.

By the way, what "5 major doctrines" do you refer to?

 KFC, sadly, I'm beginning to think that even if we quoted 100 instances in Scripture of Christ establishing his Church upon Peter and giving the key to Peter, you would still respond "No, there is no evidence in scripture of this at all." But for the sake the Truth, I will try once again...

This is one of many of the Scriptural bases, in addition to Church tradition and a plethora of early Christian writers, from the time of Christ's cruicifixion to the First Concil of Nicaea in 325 A.D., for the primacy of Peter and his successors in Rome as leaders of the universal Church. Personally, it is the most clear of all the Scriptural bases, as it comes directly from the mouth of Christ. The words are worth repeating again:

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

If Peter was not the rock that Christ was referring to here, then why did Jesus not just call him Simon. Could Jesus not be any more clear than actually calling Simon "ROCK"? Do you really think He just went around changing people's names at random? If so, consult the Old Testament when God changed several prophets names for very explicit reasons (Abram-->Abraham; SaraiàSarah Jacob-->Israel . Names of people and places have very important meanings throughout the Bible.

I’m not saying that you, KFC, subscribe to these particular arguments, but I must point out that I have seen the arguments made by Protestants about Matthew using "Petros" instead of "petra." I can only laugh at these ridiculous, futile challenges to Christ's words, whose Truth strikes right down to the bedrock. Can't we give St. Matthew an inch of poetic license here in translating the words of Jesus from Aramaic to Greek? Jesus didn't say "Petros" after all. We all agree he would have said these words in Aramaic, so he would have used the word "Kepha," which Paul also uses for Simon (Peter).

I really find these arguments about “petros” vs. “petra” extremely ridiculous. We’re talking about symbolism here! Just as well as we know that Peter is not literally “a rock,” Jesus is not saying that the Church literally IS Peter. He’s saying that Peter symbolizes and represents the Church. Christ is indeed the rock, the foundation of all of our faith, and Jesus left us with Peter to represent and protect that faith after Jesus rose from this world. Of course the Church starts with Jesus, as the head, but Jesus very clearly gave Peter a very special role to play in the body of the Church, or else he never would have said to Peter things like “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Jesus was not there to try and catch us up on the difference between “petros” on “petra”…if your argument against the role of Peter in the Church is based on that, then I really question your judgment to interpret any part of the Bible!

I even found one of these so-called “petros/petra” refutations of the Church’s teaching on Matthew 16:18 that cited St. Augustine in support of their argument. I looked up the full text of the work from St. Augustine that was cited. It was immediately clear to anyone with two or three brain cells that St. Augustine was clearly of the opinion that Peter held the chief Apostleship in the Church. I think one of my favorite quotes from St. Augustine is now “Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1)

There is, by the way, a second reference to Christ making this explicit name change for Simon again in John 1:42.

There is no doubt that Paul was a prolific scriptural author and a great and saintly Apostle. But do you really think the fact that Peter wrote two books and Paul wrote 13 is a valid argument against Peter being the leader of the Church? Let’s see, how many books did Jesus write?

Again, quantity proves nothing. But didn’t you, KFC, say previously that you not interested in anything that happened after the death of Christ? Why would you bring up how many times Paul is mentioned compared to Peter after the resurrection?

The first statement is simply not true. Although he was undoubtedly one of the “pillars” of the early Church, James the Just (not James the Greater) certainly not the leader of it. He was the bishop of Jerusalem after Peter had left there. Eusebius wrote that Clement of Alexandria stated in the late second century: “For they say that Peter and James (the Greater) and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."

St. John Chrysostom wrote as early as the fourth century: “If anyone should say, 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that he [Christ] made Peter the teacher not of that See, but of the world.”

Regarding the Council of Jerusalem, I don’t think you can say definitively based on Acts 15 alone whether Peter was definitely the leader or James. Both Peter and James stated their opinions. Peter was the first to speak, and James agreed with Peter’s opinion. This issue of “papal primacy” simply didn’t arise because all of the Apostles present were in agreement. The meeting concerned a disagreement between some Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and the delegation of Paul, Barnabas, and Titus over whether Gentiles should be circumcised. James would be expected to lean towards the opinion of the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, since he was a very strict observer of Jewish law. But after Peter stated his opinion against requiring circumcision, James stated the same opinion.

Based on the entirety of the Scriptures and on well-documented early Church history, it is reasonable to surmise that had James disagreed with Peter’s opinion, Peter’s opinion would have stuck. In my opinion, it’s still clear that Peter “presided” over the Council of Jerusalem based on the fact that he spoke first and after he spoke, everyone else agreed with him…but I wouldn’t count it among the most definitive instances of papal primacy because that issue simply didn’t arise. The earliest, clear example I know of where the issue of papal primacy arose was at the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Oh, and by the way...you're all pawns.  You know...just in case anyone was entertaining the idea that religion or politics as an institution actually cared about them...uh no...you're just pawns.  Put in a dollar to the collection plate, pawn.   Put in a dollar for the Presidential Reelection fund, pawn.  Put in a dollar, pawn.  Go ahead, pawn, what are you waiting for?  Salvation is a dollar away!

Your title is a tad misleading.

The thing is that I never gave this much thought until just now. See, I thought Obama already left.

Either way, politics is faith, regardless of whether people like it or not, and you can see it in a person's actions.

For instance, the religious tend to be against gay marriage, abortion, all that stuff, and are called "Conservatives".

The lay members tend to not really give a crap about it, and, hey, they'd wanna do it too if they wanted to. We call them "Liberals".

Yes, I will delete comments, such as the two disruptive and offensive posts you made, that do nothing but clutter up a post. Several people have taken quite a bit of time to discuss honestly an important issue concerning faith, and your snide remarks are unappreciated. I will NOT delete comments that I simply disagree with, as long as it is clear that the writer is being respectful and has put honest thought into his or her post.

KFC POSTS #22

Can't be...for Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

2St.Peter 3:16 states that in St.Paul's epistles there are 'certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest (distort) as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

And then there is Acts. 8:26-40 and the account of the deacon, Philip and the Ethopian eunuch. Philip learns that the eunuch is reading from Isaias and asks him if he knows what he's reading. He replies , How can I unless someone shows me. This statement verifies that the Bible is not sufficient in itself to interpret itself. Just as the eunuch needed an authority, ( Philip) to insruct him properly to understand what the Bible says, so do we.

If the Bible were to interpret itself, then the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaias.   

I arrived home last night from a business trip (all my previous posts were written during this trip), and almost immediately I began consulting my small library of books on Church teaching and history. In my opinion, no source, beyond the Bible, is better than the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. It is amazing how logical and well-referenced the Catechism is.

As I read through the sections on Peter, I was amazed how much the Church affirms pieces of both sides of the argument that has been discussed here. Certainly, the Catechism affirms that Peter was first among the Apostles, and it gives ample Scriptural evidence of this. It points out, as was said previous, that Christ is the "living stone." It is because of Peter's faith that Christ comissioned him as the rock of His Church.

After reading though the Cathesism's teaching on Peter, I turned to the sections of the Church. I was struck particularly by the section on "wounds to unity." It pointed out that from the very beginning, "there arose certain rifts." It goes on to say that "in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body--here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism--do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virture, however, there also are hamony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers."

What struck me is--yes, there are divisions among us and differences among our interpretations of the Bible--but let us not lose sight of the fact that we are all Brothers in Christ. I thought about our discussions and what they are accomplishing and what we might accomplish together. I prayed on it.

After praying and coming to peace of mind, I decided to make a proposal to you all: Let's commit to each other to continue our discussions openly and respectfully, but also to pray together for unity in the Church. If you all are interested, we could propose a time of the day that we join together in prayer, it could be as little as five minutes. What do you think?