Where Did Peter Ever Claim to be the First Pope?

December 2, 2011

Sonya: Do you know of any evidence of Peter claiming to be the first “pope”?

Bread From Heaven:Peter never claimed “to be the first pope” as such. Jesus proclaimed him as such in

Mt. 16:19 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose

Mt 18:18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

but he only gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom. This promise finds its explanation in Isaiah 22, in which “the key of the house of David” is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda. Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church.

Even Protestant scholars will acknowledge that Peter seemed have been designated with more authority that the other apostles by Jesus and based on NT evidence. But then they will contend that this authority was not passed on to another via apostolic succession. But I ask, why would Jesus designate an authoritative leader for His Church that would only last for the remainder of Peter’s short life? If the Church needed leadership in the first century, where many knew Jesus personally and knew the apostles and those who were taught by them, why would later generations not need this same authority and sure guide to the truth?

Luke 22:31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

We see this verse also as indicating a special office for Peter in having responsibility to strengthen the other apostles.

John 21:15-1715 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

Here is the well known passage of Jesus reinstating Peter after his betrayal. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confers upon Peter the office of Shepherd of the Church. Of course the other apostles were also shepherds. But He does not specifically confer this office on the others.

But in every list of the apostles, except one, Peter is first. And when Peter and John race to the empty tomb, John beats him there, but waits until Peter arrives and then enters after him. I know these are not the kind of proofs you would like to see but these are the scriptural indications of Peter’s primacy. Matt 16 is the main proof.

But we also have in Acts 15 the first Church Council: A dispute arose between Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity regarding the necessity of circumcision. So, Paul and Barnabas are sent to Jerusalem to have the dispute settled. This is the first council of the Church. It is discussed with much passion. Finally, Peter stood up and proclaimed his decision that circumcision was not necessary. End of discussion.

No wonder all were silent. This was astounding!!! Peter, had decreed that the ancient Mosaic law of circumcision was no longer binding, removed the dietary laws of the Old Covenant. But no one challenged him. Why? Because everyone knew Jesus had appointed him as the chief of the apostles.

Then Paul and Barnabas related what signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles. Then, after this James, takes the decision of Peter and makes it specific and gives detail regarding how it is to be followed by the Church.

We know from Church History that St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and as Acts 21:15-25 describes, he was concerned for Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who felt their ancient customs threatened by the great number of Gentile converts. This background explains why St. James made the later remarks at the council and asked Gentiles to respect certain Jewish practices.

This is exactly how things are still done today. Bishops will request minor changes to Church law that are necessary for the culture they are shepherding. There are differences between cultures and what works in Rome may not correlate to Africa, for instance.

There is nothing in Scripture alone that explicitly authorizes Peter to do this. There are implications but nothing clear and unequivocal. That is because the Christians in the infant Church were NOT Sola Scriptura. But the Jews were.

Paul submits his teaching to him and the other apostles in Jerusalem in

Galations 2:1-2 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

Then of course there is historical evidence. Which I guess you will reject since it is not in scripture just like I did when I was first presented with this evidence. But I was hot on the trail of Pope Honorius and papal FALLIBILITY.

Honorius was declared a heretic by a later Pope. In my reading, as the Church and heretics battled over the current heresy (I can’t remember which one it was) I noticed a very curious thing. The heretics were all making attempts to get the approval of the Bishop of Rome and no other Bishop. This indicated to me that they knew that if they could get the stamp of approval for their beliefs from this bishop,they would triumph over those where calling them heretics. It was even more convincing to me b/c I stumbled on it and was not even looking for historical evidence of Papal primacy.

In Corinth, the people deposed their Church leaders, and some appealed to the Bishop of Rome, despite the fact that St. John was still living and closer to Corinth than Rome. We have Pope Clement’s response

Sonya: ” or any proof of linus being his successor?

Bread From Heaven: Linus was Peter’s successor according St. Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Against Heresies III.3.3; and Eusebius, Church HistoryCh 6). His object, as we have already seen, was to establish the orthodoxy of the traditional doctrine, as opposed to heretical novelties, by showing that the bishop was the natural inheritor of the Apostolic teaching. He gives us the names alone, not the length of the various episcopates.


Worth Revisiting: Development and negation: the struggle continues

May 7, 2011

Development and negation: the struggle continues


The latest installment in my “Development and Negation” series was about slavery. More specifically, the question was whether the development of Magisterial teaching on the moral status of slavery negates any previously taught doctrine that meets the Church’s own criteria for irreformability. My answer was, of course, no—as it has been in every case where dissenters of the right or the left charge the Magisterium with discrediting itself by contradicting itself over time. What I shall do here is illustrate the significance of the general topic by presenting what happened to the debate over the slavery question.
The critic against whom I have lately defended the Magisterium was theologian Joseph O’Leary, an unreconstructed prog of a kind all too familiar on ostensibly Catholic theology faculties. The original target of his criticisms was Avery Cardinal Dulles, who had addressed the slavery issue among others in his article “Development or Reversal?” In criticizing my own position on the slavery issue, which accords with Dulles’, O’Leary repeats a charge he has made in almost every debate he and I have had in the past: “Liccione has devoted huge intellectual effort to proving that the Church has never reversed its official teaching on any point of morality.” As anybody who reads my series can verify for themselves, however, that is not what I have devoted effort to proving. I have openly acknowledged cases in which Church authorities have reversed their application of moral principles to specific moral questions, such as how heretics may be punished, whether borrowers may ever be charged for loans beyond the principal, and when the death penalty can be justified. What I have instead sought to show is that no moral tenet taught by the Church in such wise as to meet her own criteria for irreformability has thereby been repudiated. Tenets that do meet such criteria are, to be sure, sometimes wrongly applied; others take time to be recognized and formulated for what they are. That is why development and refinement in Catholic moral teaching are both possible and necessary. But my thesis has been that such development and refinement do not entail negation of any tenet taught in the past with the Church’s full authority. Tenets so taught are infallibly taught and are thus “irreformable,” meaning “not to be contradicted.” So the Church does not contradict or negate them. What’s happened in my debate with O’Leary well illustrates the importance of that point.

In his last comment here on my slavery post, O’Leary proceeds in characteristic fashion by throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. I had claimed, as an aside, that magisterial support in the Middle Ages for the physical punishment of heretics—such as the papal bull Ad Extirpanda—did not meet the Church’s own criteria for irreformability. I have made that claim before, and I’ve made it because AE’s subject matter was not any irreformable moral tenet, but rather a prudential judgment on the specific, very time-bound question whether the good of the body politic requires that heretics be physically coerced into confessing their heresies. Those who exercise magisterial authority, including popes, can be wrong about that without logically discrediting their own claims to teach infallibly, and thus irreformably, about “faith and morals” under certain conditions. In this case medieval ecclesiastics, including St. Thomas Aquinas, were wrong about the socio-political importance and necessity of torturing heretics. I’ve explained why before, but I don’t want to distract readers any further by getting into that again. Here, rather, is what O’Leary says in response to my claim that “Ad Extirpanda does not satisfy the Church’s own criteria for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium”:


Do you refer to the papal teaching office or the universal teaching office of bishops, which is usually what people mean when they talk of the ordinary magisterium? As far as I know there are only 2 candidates for infallibility of the former, namely the dogmas of 1854 and 1950. I tend to follow G. Hallett SJ in thinking the claim of infallibility to be meaningless (thus neither true nor false), The infallibility of bishops is a Bellarminian thesis unwisely embraced, without disucssion, by the bishops at Vatican II and ruthless exploited since then to claim infallibility for Vaticanist doctrines on contraception, women’s ordination etc., at the very time as any autonomous teaching authority of bishops is beiing undercut.

Let’s leave aside the rather elementary point that the “ordinary” magisterium of the Church is not to be contrasted with the “papal” magisterium but rather with the “extraordinary” magisterium. Either the pope or the bishops can and do exercise either magisterium (though the bishops can only do so legitimately in communion with the pope). It’s bad enough that O’Leary, an ostensibly Catholic theologian, has missed that. But he’s actually suggesting that the dogma of papal infallibility is “meaningless” and asserting that the doctrine of the infallibility of bishops, authoritatively taught in Lumen Gentium 25, is “a Bellarminian thesis unwisely embraced, without disucssion [sic], by the bishops at Vatican II.” Again, let’s leave aside the irony that a theologian who signs himself “Spirit of Vatican II” is rejecting a very important ecclesiological doctrine authoritatively taught by the Fathers of Vatican II. O’Leary is out to end the game before it starts.

If the dogma of papal infallibility is “meaningless” and the infallibility of the bishops, as explained in LG §25, a mere thesis “unwisely embraced,” then the question whether the Church’s development of doctrine has ever negated an irreformably taught doctrine cannot be usefully debated. Before that question can be usefully debated, there must be some agreement among the participants both that there are infallibly taught doctrines and that there are consistently applicable criteria for identifying doctrines as such. For reasons I’ve given, the class of “infallible” doctrines is co-extensive with that of “irreformable” ones. Among Catholic theologians who care about teaching with and in the name of the Church, such agreement holds in substance, if not always at the margins. But between me and O’Leary, it does not hold in any sense at all. So, we do not even agree on the premises of the discussion. Perhaps that is why O’Leary consistently misrepresents what I aim to do.

The only useful strategy for the O’Learys of the world—and their name is legion—would be to argue that the historic development of Catholic doctrine precludes any doctrine of magisterial infallibility (ordinary or extraordinary, papal or episcopal) that could be (a) meaningful, (b) useful, and (c) definitively held. If there is no such doctrine of infallibility, then the question which tenets count as irreformable is purely a matter of opinion, and my “development and negation” project is not worth pursuing. That is roughly the tack Hans Küng took in his once-celebrated book Infallible? An Inquiry. A debate about his argumentative strategy is worth having because it can be settled by facts and logic. As I read Küng’s book and researched his sources three decades ago, my debate with him was gradually settled. I concluded his case was not compelling on either historical or logical grounds. More important, I soon realized that if he were right, then the claims of the Catholic Magisterium to be preserved from error under certain conditions are so much hot air. In that case, there would be no compelling reason to remain in full communion with Rome, other than to undermine her claims from within.

That, I suspect, is the real point of the O’Learys of the world.

FROM TWO YEARS AGO: Ronald Weinland Interview with James Whale (April 10, 2008) « Is It Really The End?

April 10, 2010

Ronald Weinland Interview with James Whale (April 10, 2008) « Is It Really The End?  Wrote two years ago:

Ronald Weinland Interview with James Whale (April 10, 2008)

April 12, 2008 · No Comments

First thing, can we all agree that James Whale’s jingle is quite good? Of course we can!

He are the key points from Ronald Weinland’s latest interview that he gave to James Whale of talkSport in the UK this past Thursday, April 10th:

  • Second witness of Revelation will be announced April 17; he mentioned he’d do it in the sermon (which I assume will be on the 19th) and on his website (which I assume can be on the 17th itself)
  • Again he stated the first trumpet of Revelation will be blown this coming April 17 (Thursday) and it will unfold over a period of 45 to 90 days (June/July)
  • The second trumpet will leave no doubt in any ones mind because it will involve nuclear devices detonating in ports but not on land (third trumpet will involve nuclear devices in cities)
  • The interval of 45 to 90 days between the first and second trumpets will be depend on people’s response/repentance
  • Fifth trumpet will start the last revival of the European Union, which will be 10 nations merging with Germany as the power base (note: the UK will be suffering along side the USA/Canada and will not be part of the revived EU); they will attack the USA to prevent them from retaliating (on who?); the EU attacks because they will feel obligated to intervene
  • A year and a month and a day later Russia and China will come together to start the first phase of the final war that leads to Armageddon (this must be the sixth trumpet)
  • Sixth trumpet brings Russia and China together to destroy a third of the earth
  • As one of the two end time witnesses in Revelation, Ronald declares that the Pope/Catholic Church, as the religious power, will finally kill him three and a half days before Christ returns
  • Starting this coming April 17, the Pope/Catholic Church will become increasingly irritated at Ronald as he begins to speak out
  • The Pope will be given some kind of special power on April 17 when he is in Washington D.C.

Personal Notes:

  • Ronald reveals more openly the role of the Pope/Catholic Church in his prophecy
  • He goes more indepth about the role of the EU/China/Russia than he normally does
  • He stated that if by mid June it is not very clear that things are happening the way he predicts it will then he’ll no longer preach/be a prophet; however, this is a shorter period than the 45 to 90 days says the first trumpet will last for, but this is consitent with his last interview where he states that if by Pentacost (June 8th) its not obvious he step down
  • When pressed by James, Ronald stated we’d see something in the news on Thursday, but he normally states it is the start of a process; Was this just a mistake on his Ron’s part? Or did he mean he’d release something?
  • Interestingly, he seems to indicate that the first tradgedy will be only in the USA and its primary allies (Canada/UK/Austrailia); however, I thought the first trumpet covers the entire planet?

If you’d like to listen to the interview yourself then just go to:

Ronald Weinland is a minister in the Church of God PKG. He has authored two end-times related books and claims to be one of the two witnesses of Revelation. For more information please visit his website.

  • So two years later… How is this panning out?
  • Did the Pope get special powers on April 17, 2008?
  • Did the Pope/Catholic Church become increasing agistated by Ronald?
  • Was there an attack by port in the last two years?
  • An attack on land 45-90 days later?
  • Russia & China got together one year, one month and one day after that?

I post dated this post two years… 

I also kept contributing to my retirement account.

4 Years Ago Today

April 19, 2009

Time flies!

Worth Revisiting One Year Later: “Peter, Rock of Ages”

April 18, 2009

“Need I mention that the Catholic Church long antedated the US government, and there will be a pope long after there is no US president?” rhetroically asks Lew Rockwell — Pope and President. Mr. Rockwell then quotes this remarkable piece of rheortic from “the great 19th century classical-liberal (and Protestant) historian, Thomas Babington Macaulay:”

    There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.

My jaw dropped when I first came across and pondered that phrase “before the Saxon had set foot on Britain” a few years ago.

SOURCE: http://orientem.blogspot.com/2008/04/peter-rock-of-ages.html

Happy Birthday

April 16, 2009

Ratzinger & Ratzinger.
See: “When your little brother is Pope”

Hitler’s Pope: The BIG LIE

August 18, 2008

Q. Why didn’t the Catholic Church help the Jews who were being murdered by Hitler?

A. The Catholic Church and Pope Pius absolutely DID help the Jews and many other people persecuted by Hitler. The Jewish ambassador and author, Pinchas Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews, estimates that Pope Pius, through the Catholic Church saved 600,000 -860,000 Jews during WWII by ordering everyone to throw open the doors of the monasteries and convents to the Jews. The Vatican also held and sheltered thousands of Jews and others.

At first, priests, bishops, and the Pope spoke out against Hitler. And what do you think Hitler did?

Back down?

Out of respect for the Church?

Change his ways?

Repent? And go to confession?


Fear public opinion?

NO! NOT AT ALL. We know in our minds and hearts the character of Hitler and the SS. And we would expect that he would punish this kind of criticism–harshly. And that is exactly what he did. More innocent Jews and Catholics were murdered immediately after public criticism. In fact, the Jewish convert, Saint Edith Stein, was rounded up with other baptized Jews and executed in one of these reprisals.

Therefore, everyone, including the Pope saved the lives of all the people they could—-secretly. To do otherwise would have been to endanger more innocent lives.

Ironically, the very lack of public statements by Pope Pius XII are now being used to condemn him for inaction. So he would have been damned if he did and damned if he didn’t–Can you imagine the outcry if he had selfishly and self righteously raged against Hitler over and over, in spite of the fact, that reprisals took even more innocent lives? The Pope would have been bitterly condemned by everyone! This would have actually been the result IF he had done what armchair critics think he should have done.

Instead of that, he prudently chose to save all the lives he could save quietly and secretly. And so, he is damned for not speaking out. At the end of the war everyone, including the Jews, praised Pope Pius XII for all that he had done.

But today, sixty years later he is judged in popular opinion to have been cold and uncaring, even in league with Hitler. Nonsense!

If you are confused by conflicting information let me tell you a true story.

The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zollie, converted to the Catholic Church after the war. Not during the war, in order to save himself from the Nazi’s, but after the war. He, his wife, and daughter entered the Catholic Church. And do you know what name he chose for his baptismal name?

Eugenio…. not one of the most well known and popular of saint names….

Do you know what the baptismal name of Pope Pius XII was?


Can anyone actually believe that this Rabbi not only converted to the Catholic Church but chose the pope’s own name for his own, at baptism, knowing Pope Pius did nothing?!!! It stretches credulity to believe that the Chief Rabbi of Rome, during World War II, who absolutely knew what the Pope did or did not do for his people, would do such a thing in spite of a do-nothing pope. Rather it speaks to just the opposite conclusion. Pope Pius’ exemplary and heroic behavior during such chaotic and murderous times greatly impressed the Rabbi. This culminated in his final conversion. And he did choose the name Eugenio in honor of the Pope.

If you would like to read the beautiful story of his conversion you can see it here. Or read his book Why I Became a Catholic by Israel Zollie.