are Papist's good debators?

[ex cathedra]

lets reverse things  bible Protestants  and Catholics who reject the papists papacy  !

it would be interesting to see if the bible people  could debate in favor of these papal teachings .

and if the Papists ONLY  could debate against them . and lets see who is the better debators the  bible Catholics and Protestants or the Papist's for the papacy sake alone  when one has to debate things they dont agree with.

The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII says this:
To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.vii

And speaking about the same document, Father A. Pereira said this:
It is quite certain that Popes have never disapproved or rejected this title "Lord God the Pope" for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome by Gregory XIII.viii



and more papal doctrine you could also use

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Articles-TotalOnslaught-ThePopeIsGodOnThisEarth.html

[desertknight]

are Papist's good debators?...lets reverse things  bible Protestants  and Catholics who reject the papists papacy  !

I don't know if we are good debaters, but we speak and write better English.    

And as for the, " "Lord God the Pope",  and -http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Articles-TotalOnslaught-ThePopeIsGodOnThisEarth.html, hogwash....

Here-http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/lutheran-forum/jesus-christ-church-is-built-on-peter-the-rock%27s-solid-confession-that-jesus-is/msg734594/#msg734594

[mclees8]

are Papist's good debators?...lets reverse things  bible Protestants  and Catholics who reject the papists papacy  !

I don't know if we are good debaters, but we speak and write better English.    

And as for the, " "Lord God the Pope",  and -http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Articles-TotalOnslaught-ThePopeIsGodOnThisEarth.html, hogwash....

Here-http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/lutheran-forum/jesus-christ-church-is-built-on-peter-the-rock%27s-solid-confession-that-jesus-is/msg734594/#msg734594

You still sound condescenting to me Night

Is hogwash just a standard response. How about bolderdash 

[winsome]

"Lord God The Pope"

In January 1837 there was a debate On The Roman Catholic Religion between Alexander Campbell of Bethany, Virginia and Bishop John B Purcell , Bishop of Cincinnati. This was a long debate spread over 7 days and 5 hours per day, and it was written up and published. The book runs to 360 pages. It consisted of a series of moderated exchanges between the two participants, and each used many scripture quotes and detailed citations from other sources in making and defending their position. I point this out to show that the participants came well prepared for a long and detailed debate.

In his opening address Mr Campbell made the claim: He [the Pope] is sometimes called Lord God, the Pope

In his response the Bishop had this to say: ...and the pope when he corresponds with the bishops does not assume these proud titles, but addresses them as and elder BROTHER. We do not call him "Lord God, the Pope

[desertknight]

You still sound condescenting to me Night

Is hogwash just a standard response. How about bolderdash

I don't know if it's condescending of not, but when it is hogwash, or yes, balderdash, then I certainly will call it what it is.  And what is that?  Well, when someone posts a charge about the Catholic Church that is clearly untrue, not as a matter of opinion, but just because they think the charge effective.  Saying something like, "Catholic Popes think they are God".....hogwash.  It is not simply my opinion that that is not Catholic belief...it is not Catholic belief.  I challenged the author of that post to please post a Catholic source stating that is Catholic doctrine, and of course he couldn't.  No wonder.  It's a nutty charge.  The Church neither believes nor teaches any such thing.  Never has.  Any Catholic would think it nuts.   I even think the author knows this, but re-cycles the lie anyway.

This is the cause of any condescension and what drives us nuts.  If people want to argue against Catholic belief, why do they not stick to what we actually believe, what we actually teach and practice?  Why just make stuff up or re-cycle what other bigots have?  If you can't find a source within the Catholic catechism or actual Catholic teaching for something, well, that's a pretty good bet that you are dealing with something that is just made up bigotry and not actual Catholic doctrine.  I would never think to accuse Baptist of worshiping little green men without providing an actual Baptist source that verifies that that is what they in fact believe.  I have disagreements with Baptist doctrine, but it is based on what they actually state they believe, not what some anti-Baptist bigot says they do.

[farouk]

Roman Catholics may well be good debaters, for all I know.

But that is not the point.

You can win arguments in debate, but the rationally convinced can still remain in their sins in unbelief before God.

We need to repent and believe in a Biblical manner, according to a faith in Christ proclaimed, not debated.

[desertknight]

Roman Catholics may well be good debaters, for all I know.

But that is not the point.

You can win arguments in debate, but the rationally convinced can still remain in their sins in unbelief before God.

We need to repent and believe in a Biblical manner, according to a faith in Christ proclaimed, not debated.

That may be, farouk, but it is completely pointless to debate anything if someone is simply going to "make up" what the other person's faith is all about.  To state something that is utterly absurd to a Catholic, that we believe the Pope claims to be God, and then act as if that is what is true when it clearly isn't, well, that's either extreme bigotry or just plain nuts.  I would never do anything like that regarding someone else's faith.  The charge that was made is not just someone's interpretation of something....it is an outright lie.  Nuts.  Completely at odds with Catholic doctrine and teaching.

[farouk]

d:

Roman Catholics may well be good debaters, for all I know.

But that is not the point.

You can win arguments in debate, but the rationally convinced can still remain in their sins in unbelief before God.

We need to repent and believe in a Biblical manner, according to a faith in Christ proclaimed, not debated.

That may be, farouk, but it is completely pointless to debate anything if someone is simply going to "make up" what the other person's faith is all about.  To state something that is utterly absurd to a Catholic, that we believe the Pope claims to be God, and then act as if that is what is true when it clearly isn't, well, that's either extreme bigotry or just plain nuts.  I would never do anything like that regarding someone else's faith.  The charge that was made is not just someone's interpretation of something....it is an outright lie.  Nuts.  Completely at odds with Catholic doctrine and teaching.

Umm, I think you must be referring to something someone else may have said.

Because I can't seem to relate your response to anything I wrote lately.

[desertknight]

d:

Roman Catholics may well be good debaters, for all I know.

But that is not the point.

You can win arguments in debate, but the rationally convinced can still remain in their sins in unbelief before God.

We need to repent and believe in a Biblical manner, according to a faith in Christ proclaimed, not debated.

That may be, farouk, but it is completely pointless to debate anything if someone is simply going to "make up" what the other person's faith is all about.  To state something that is utterly absurd to a Catholic, that we believe the Pope claims to be God, and then act as if that is what is true when it clearly isn't, well, that's either extreme bigotry or just plain nuts.  I would never do anything like that regarding someone else's faith.  The charge that was made is not just someone's interpretation of something....it is an outright lie.  Nuts.  Completely at odds with Catholic doctrine and teaching.

Umm, I think you must be referring to something someone else may have said.

Because I can't seem to relate your response to anything I wrote lately.

Oh,yes.  Nothing you said at all.  You have to go back to the top of this thread and to the other thread that it is linked to, to get it.  Wasn't saying anything about any statement you made.  I just thought you were commenting on the original topic.

[Selene]

I don't know if it's condescending of not, but when it is hogwash, or yes, balderdash, then I certainly will call it what it is.  And what is that?  Well, when someone posts a charge about the Catholic Church that is clearly untrue, not as a matter of opinion, but just because they think the charge effective.  Saying something like, "Catholic Popes think they are God".....hogwash.  It is not simply my opinion that that is not Catholic belief...it is not Catholic belief.  I challenged the author of that post to please post a Catholic source stating that is Catholic doctrine, and of course he couldn't.  No wonder.  It's a nutty charge.  The Church neither believes nor teaches any such thing.  Never has.  Any Catholic would think it nuts.   I even think the author knows this, but re-cycles the lie anyway.

This is the cause of any condescension and what drives us nuts.  If people want to argue against Catholic belief, why do they not stick to what we actually believe, what we actually teach and practice?  Why just make stuff up or re-cycle what other bigots have?  If you can't find a source within the Catholic catechism or actual Catholic teaching for something, well, that's a pretty good bet that you are dealing with something that is just made up bigotry and not actual Catholic doctrine.  I would never think to accuse Baptist of worshiping little green men without providing an actual Baptist source that verifies that that is what they in fact believe.  I have disagreements with Baptist doctrine, but it is based on what they actually state they believe, not what some anti-Baptist bigot says they do.

I agree.   

[mclees8]

I don't know if it's condescending of not, but when it is hogwash, or yes, balderdash, then I certainly will call it what it is.  And what is that?  Well, when someone posts a charge about the Catholic Church that is clearly untrue, not as a matter of opinion, but just because they think the charge effective.  Saying something like, "Catholic Popes think they are God".....hogwash.  It is not simply my opinion that that is not Catholic belief...it is not Catholic belief.  I challenged the author of that post to please post a Catholic source stating that is Catholic doctrine, and of course he couldn't.  No wonder.  It's a nutty charge.  The Church neither believes nor teaches any such thing.  Never has.  Any Catholic would think it nuts.   I even think the author knows this, but re-cycles the lie anyway.

This is the cause of any condescension and what drives us nuts.  If people want to argue against Catholic belief, why do they not stick to what we actually believe, what we actually teach and practice?  Why just make stuff up or re-cycle what other bigots have?  If you can't find a source within the Catholic catechism or actual Catholic teaching for something, well, that's a pretty good bet that you are dealing with something that is just made up bigotry and not actual Catholic doctrine.  I would never think to accuse Baptist of worshiping little green men without providing an actual Baptist source that verifies that that is what they in fact believe.  I have disagreements with Baptist doctrine, but it is based on what they actually state they believe, not what some anti-Baptist bigot says they do.

I agree.   

Well I never heard about this calling the pope Lord God the Pope. But is you ask me when you say of Him Holy Father you are calling him God. Okay I know what it is that you say it is. Still I would not call him Holy Father. But perhaps this man was making his statement from this. 

When ever i picture the pope on his throne in all his grand araye and think of someone bowing at his feet saying holy father or you r eminance I only have a feeling of ilk. I can only see Peter as common as we and never letting himself be exalted before men. He would say as the angels would say Stand up I am not the exalted one . But you wont find that in your Catechism and yes it is my opinion but not my opinion alone.  thank you.

God bless

   

[Charles Sloan]

Saying something like, "Catholic Popes think they are God".....hogwash.  It is not simply my opinion that that is not Catholic belief...it is not Catholic belief.  I challenged the author of that post to please post a Catholic source stating that is Catholic doctrine, and of course he couldn't.  No wonder.  It's a nutty charge.  The Church neither believes nor teaches any such thing.  Never has.  Any Catholic would think it nuts. 

Look into the meaning of the word "Vicar".

[desertknight]

Saying something like, "Catholic Popes think they are God".....hogwash.  It is not simply my opinion that that is not Catholic belief...it is not Catholic belief.  I challenged the author of that post to please post a Catholic source stating that is Catholic doctrine, and of course he couldn't.  No wonder.  It's a nutty charge.  The Church neither believes nor teaches any such thing.  Never has.  Any Catholic would think it nuts.

Look into the meaning of the word "Vicar".

"As the Father has sent Me, I also send you."  John 20:21

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."  Luke 10:16

It was all covered right here...

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/lutheran-forum/jesus-christ-church-is-built-on-peter-the-rock%27s-solid-confession-that-jesus-is/msg734594/#msg734594

[Charles Sloan]

I guess then that would make all Christians "Vicars of Christ", I can agree with that.

[mclees8]

I guess then that would make all Christians "Vicars of Christ", I can agree with that.

Amen Charles !

[desertknight]

In a sense, we all are.  We are called to be ambassadors for Christ and we all hold the royal priesthood of believers.  That is Catholic doctrine, but Christ also clearly established an organized leadership in His Church, in fact after He was baptized, that was the very first act of His ministry on earth.  He went out and appointed 12 otherwise ordinary men, sinners all, and ordained them as Apostles to act and speak in His name.  He gave them immense authority and they in turn appointed others and passed that authority down to them, ordaining them into office as Bishops and Presbyters.  These were clearly distinct from the rest of the ecclesia and the NT is clear that they are Christ's stand ins, His vicars, in their role as pastors of their respective flocks.

[Bon Voyage]

If one is reviling Catholics, is it a papist smear?

[Charles Sloan]

In a sense, we all are.  We are called to be ambassadors for Christ and we all hold the royal priesthood of believers.  That is Catholic doctrine, but Christ also clearly established an organized leadership in His Church, in fact after He was baptized, that was the very first act of His ministry on earth.  He went out and appointed 12 otherwise ordinary men, sinners all, and ordained them as Apostles to act and speak in His name.  He gave them immense authority and they in turn appointed others and passed that authority down to them, ordaining them into office as Bishops and Presbyters.  These were clearly distinct from the rest of the ecclesia and the NT is clear that they are Christ's stand ins, His vicars, in their role as pastors of their respective flocks.

The Apostles were indeed elevated by Christ to carry out his purpose, but according to my study of Scripture I cannot determine that any of the Apostles were placed in authority over the rest. Paul did have very clear significance apart from the other Apostles, mostly by the extent of his mission and abundance of revelation. I also agree that the overseers were also ordained by the Holy Spirit (Act 20:28) had a special responsibility and qualification that can be found in other letters like 1Timothy and Titus. But in all of these details I have never seen any indication of there being any "super" pastor except in 1Pe 2:21-25.

[desertknight]

The Apostles were indeed elevated by Christ to carry out his purpose, but according to my study of Scripture I cannot determine that any of the Apostles were placed in authority over the rest. Paul did have very clear significance apart from the other Apostles, mostly by the extent of his mission and abundance of revelation. I also agree that the overseers were also ordained by the Holy Spirit (Act 20:28) had a special responsibility and qualification that can be found in other letters like 1Timothy and Titus. But in all of these details I have never seen any indication of there being any "super" pastor except in 1Pe 2:21-25.

I'm not sure what a "super" pastor is, but scripture is quite clear about Bishop's, Presbyters and Deacons.  Those are still the only three ordained ministries we Catholics have.  As to no Apostle being elevated over the others, it boggles the mind how one can read Matt. 16:17-19 and not read that Simeon Bar Jonah is singled out by Christ, his name changed by Him to "rock" and then told, "and upon this rock I will build my Church."  Selena & Winsome cover it pretty well here...

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/was-peter-the-rock-that-the-church-was-built-on/msg735011/#msg735011

It's also important to understand that the Holy Spirit does indeed call one to the ministry, but it is the Church, the legitimate and validly ordained authorities of the Church, that must ordain one into the Presbyteriate by the imposition of hands, and only then does one have the authority of the Apostles.  Case in point, even Paul, chosen by Christ Himself, went to the Apostles and was ordained by the imposition of their hands. (Acts 13:2-3).

There is not one single example in the New Testament of any Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon being constituted other than by someone possessing Apostolic authority, and there is not one example of any being legitimately constituted other than by the Apostles or an "overseer", Bishop, that they ordained...

Acts 14:23 "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

1 Tim. 4:14  "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

Tit. 1:5  "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

2 Tim 1:6  "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands."

1 Tim. 5:22  "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins. Keep yourself pure."

Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."

Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."



Oh, and BTW, Have a Very Merry Christmas, brother!!!  

[Charles Sloan]

I'm not sure what a "super" pastor is, but scripture is quite clear about Bishop's, Presbyters and Deacons.

What I mean by a "super" pastor is a pope that rules over all the church, there is no example of that in Scripture other than 1Pe 2:21-25.

As to no Apostle being elevated over the others, it boggles the mind how one can read Matt. 16:17-19 and not read that Simeon Bar Jonah is singled out by Christ, his name changed by Him to "rock" and then told, "and upon this rock I will build my Church."  Selena & Winsome cover it pretty well here...

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/was-peter-the-rock-that-the-church-was-built-on/msg735011/#msg735011

If you look further down in this thread you will find my response.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/was-peter-the-rock-that-the-church-was-built-on/msg735358/#msg735358

It's also important to understand that the Holy Spirit does indeed call one to the ministry, but it is the Church, the legitimate and validly ordained authorities of the Church, that must ordain one into the Presbyteriate by the imposition of hands, and only then does one have the authority of the Apostles.  Case in point, even Paul, chosen by Christ Himself, went to the Apostles and was ordained by the imposition of their hands. (Acts 13:2-3).

Paul did not seek out the other Apostles but immediately preached the Gospel, which was his mission. (Gal 1:16-19, Act 9:20)

There is not one single example in the New Testament of any Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon being constituted other than by someone possessing Apostolic authority, and there is not one example of any being legitimately constituted other than by the Apostles or an "overseer", Bishop, that they ordained...

I agree that there are many examples of ordinations of elders in the New Testament, but nowhere is there recorded that these elders and deacons can only be ordained by someone with apostolic authority. I understand that catholic bishops and deacons are ordained by men claiming apostolic authority through succession (another discussion entirely), but according to Act 20:28 it is God who makes elders not men.

[desertknight]

What I mean by a "super" pastor is a pope that rules over all the church, there is no example of that in Scripture other than 1Pe 2:21-25.

I'm afraid we won't get very far as I read, and Selene & Winsome both catalogued, at least a half dozen passages of the NT that clearly show Peter as the head of the Apostles.  How can Matt. 16 be read any differently?  What do you think Christ meant by telling him that He would build His Church upon him?  It is Peter who Christ commands three times specifically to, "feed my sheep".  Peter who speaks for the Apostles and Peter who is listed often as not only first, but separate, as in "Peter and the other Apostles".

If you look further down in this thread you will find my response.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/was-peter-the-rock-that-the-church-was-built-on/msg735358/#msg735358

Well, first, I'm not sure you got that it was a comedy bit from Monty Python at the begining there, LoL, Um, Winsome was just having a bit of fun, he didn't really expect a criticism of Roman claims to road building.  As to your other comments, Paul certainly was prominent, but Paul never was the spokesman or portrayed in any way as the leader of the Apostles in the way that Peter clearly is, in fact Paul wrote somewhat defensively that he was just as qualified, undoubtedly due to his having never known Christ in the flesh and having been a former persecutor of Christians.  That Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him "Satan" is a perfect example of the fact that these men who Christ gave immense authority to and who He entrusted with his Church, were just ordinary sinners who put theirs on one leg at a time like the rest of us.  When the charge of some awful medieval Pope is raised as proof that the Catholic Church can't possibly be "the" Church, I usually point out that exact passage and say, "See, even the guy our Lord chose first could disappoint and sin."  Popes and parishioners, the Church herself, is not expected to be perfect, just faithful.  As to your "Keys of the Kingdom" reference, I don't think you understand that the "Keys" are a reference not to one's individual salvation.  They are a reference to the "Keys" of the Jewish priesthood of the OT, specifically to King David and his House and their power to bind and loose in God's name as ref. in Judges 3:25, Isaiah 22:22.

Paul did not seek out the other Apostles but immediately preached the Gospel, which was his mission. (Gal 1:16-19, Act 9:20)

Oh, certainly, but one need not be ordained to preach the Gospel.  I would venture that most Catholic preachers today who travel about spreading the Word are lay preachers, not ordained.  When Paul took on the role of Bishop, in appointing Presbyters and assigning other Bishops, such as Timothy and Silas, he was ordained by the others beforehand in the passage of Scripture that I quoted.

I agree that there are many examples of ordinations of elders in the New Testament, but nowhere is there recorded that these elders and deacons can only be ordained by someone with apostolic authority. I understand that catholic bishops and deacons are ordained by men claiming apostolic authority through succession (another discussion entirely), but according to Act 20:28 it is God who makes elders not men.

Actually there is not one, single, solitary, example anywhere in the NT of anyone being a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, who is NOT ordained by a valid human authority through the imposition of hands.  God certainly is responsible for the calling of an elder, but why did Paul give clear instruction to Timothy and Silas to appoint elders for various cities if only God does it without Christ's designated authorities having the power to make that so, the power to convey that authority, through the imposition of their hands?  In every instance in the NT where anyone is clearly identified as a Bishop or Presbyter, it is through the ordination by others with that authority.  Why do you think Paul said...

2 Tim 1:6  "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God  that you have through the imposition of my hands."

1 Tim.  4:14  "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

Obviously Paul states clearly that the "gifts", powers of the Bishop/Presbyter is confered by the presbyterial authority.

Why does Acts 14:23 clearly state...

"They appointed presbyters, five for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Those scriptural passages are a perfect description of both the doctrine and the sacrament of ordination in the Catholic Church.

[Charles Sloan]

I'm afraid we won't get very far as I read, and Selene & Winsome both catalogued, at least a half dozen passages of the NT that clearly show Peter as the head of the Apostles.  How can Matt. 16 be read any differently?  What do you think Christ meant by telling him that He would build His Church upon him?  It is Peter who Christ commands three times specifically to, "feed my sheep".  Peter who speaks for the Apostles and Peter who is listed often as not only first, but separate, as in "Peter and the other Apostles".

Honestly, I don't expect for this to go very far. Our doctrinal beliefs and differences are so vast only a miracle could make this profitable. My hopes are more for the readers and perhaps for God to soften the hearts of you and other roman catholics who I believe to be in grievous doctrinal error. Matthew 16 is a perfect example of the doctrinal inconsistencies that permeate the roman catholic sect. While I agree with a literal view of nearly every passage of Scripture, I am sensitive to context and meaning of the verse. While you will lead me and others to believe that Jesus was literally establishing Peter as the foundation of his church, you will disregard the following verse 23 where Jesus directly addresses Peter as Satan himself. Following this interpretation to its logical end would only lead to the conclusion that this church literally founded upon a man is literally built upon Satan.

However, I am not altogether sure I disagree with this conclusion.

Well, first, I'm not sure you got that it was a comedy bit from Monty Python at the begining there, LoL, Um, Winsome was just having a bit of fun, he didn't really expect a criticism of Roman claims to road building.

You will have to forgive my ignorance to the Monty Python reference, I prefered Black Adder.

As to your other comments, Paul certainly was prominent, but Paul never was the spokesman or portrayed in any way as the leader of the Apostles in the way that Peter clearly is, in fact Paul wrote somewhat defensively that he was just as qualified, undoubtedly due to his having never known Christ in the flesh and having been a former persecutor of Christians.

There is nowhere that Peter is clearly depicted as the leader of the Apostles. While I agree that Paul wrote sometimes defensibly, I believe this may have been due partly to the not being a witness to the resurrection of Christ prior to the ascension. Although this maybe partly in response to things written in a letter he was responding to in his epistle. Either way, it is neither here nor there, nor does this prove Peters preeminence. Given the whole of Acts, I believe Peter plays a pretty insignificant role beyond Paul's conversion.

That Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him "Satan" is a perfect example of the fact that these men who Christ gave immense authority to and who He entrusted with his Church, were just ordinary sinners who put theirs on one leg at a time like the rest of us.  When the charge of some awful medieval Pope is raised as proof that the Catholic Church can't possibly be "the" Church, I usually point out that exact passage and say, "See, even the guy our Lord chose first could disappoint and sin."  Popes and parishioners, the Church herself, is not expected to be perfect, just faithful.

I find your reduction of verse 23 of Matthew 16 utterly predictable contrasting your staunch defense that verse 18 should be interpreted strictly to mean Peter is the chief cornerstone. Even though if this was the case, it would be the only place Jesus himself isn't called the cornerstone (Job 38:6, Psa 118:22, Isa 28:16, Jer 51:26, Mat 21:42, Mar 12:10, Luk 20:17, By Peter himself in Act 4:11 and again in 1Pe 2:6-7, Eph 2:20),  the rock (Mat 7:24, Luk 6:48, Rom 9:33, 1Cr 10:4, again by Peter in 1Pe 2:8), the foundation (1Cr 3:11).

As to your "Keys of the Kingdom" reference, I don't think you understand that the "Keys" are a reference not to one's individual salvation.  They are a reference to the "Keys" of the Jewish priesthood of the OT, specifically to King David and his House and their power to bind and loose in God's name as ref. in Judges 3:25, Isaiah 22:22

No you are right, I didn't understand that the keys of the Kingdom related to Judges 3:25. Let me just post that passage:

Jdg 3:25 And they tarried till they were ashamed: and, behold, he opened not the doors of the parlour; therefore they took a key, and opened [them]: and, behold, their lord [was] fallen down dead on the earth.

Again you were right, I was absolutely clueless that the keys to Eglon's parlor were related to the keys of the Kingdom of God mentioned in Mat 16:19. However I am familiar with the roman catholic practice of plucking unrelated and obscure Old Testament verses to support their claims. Although, I admit I laughed when I read this one, since I can't find even the remotest relation this passage has to the topic, and I think I would be hard pressed to find a credible commentator that would either.

However, Isaiah 22:22 reads:

And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Which sounds conspicuously similar to Rev 3:7 which also reads:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

We all know Jesus is addressing the church in Philadelphia in Rev 3, not Peter. Plus neither of the passage mentions the "Kingdom of God" at all.

Actually there is not one, single, solitary, example anywhere in the NT of anyone being a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, who is NOT ordained by a valid human authority through the imposition of hands.  God certainly is responsible for the calling of an elder, but why did Paul give clear instruction to Timothy and Silas to appoint elders for various cities if only God does it without Christ's designated authorities having the power to make that so, the power to convey that authority, through the imposition of their hands?  In every instance in the NT where anyone is clearly identified as a Bishop or Presbyter, it is through the ordination by others with that authority.  Why do you think Paul said...

I think we are getting sidetracked with this portion of the discussion, I already agreed that the Apostles and disciples ordained elders. You are preaching to the choir on this subject. My original contention was the ordination of popes which act as head bishops, pastors, elders or what have you; which is not found in Scripture. There is only one reference to a great shepherd who is over all, and that is found in 1Pe 2:21-25; by Peter himself no less.

So the ordination of elders is not in disagreement, its the idea of a high "priest" other that Christ that is.

[desertknight]

I appreciate your answers, Charles, and I thought I would simplify things a bit in order to get to the heart of it.

1.  What exactly do those who deny Petrine Primacy believe Matt. 16:17-19 to be saying?  The reason why we Catholics and others who believe in Peter's primacy are suspicious of it's critics is that they never seem to state what they hold the meaning of that event to be.  The rock/pebble argument gets put up, but that is clearly without foundation as has been demonstrated.  Then it is that it refers to Peter's faith, which disappears when those critics are informed that Catholics also believe it is Peter's faith that is the original reference and that simply has no bearing on the action of Christ, "and upon this rock I will build my Church" that takes place.  This is what we do not get.  What exactly does, "Thou art Peter ("rock"), and upon this rock I will build my Church", mean to the critic?  

Now you have referenced that Christ admonished Peter and called him "devil".  True enough, but you seem to be saying that this somehow negates Matt. 16, yes?  How?  That would certainly require extensive explanation then as to why Christ continued to view Peter as the chief Apostle, or as an Apostle at all I should say.  Why did Christ single him out specifically and tell him to "feed my sheep" three times?  Why is Peter so frequently mentioned separately or first with the other Apostles, (Luke 9:32, Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69)?  Why did Peter continue to act with such prominence in the Book of Acts if he is this devil? (Acts 15).

2.  As to your cornerstone argument, I don't imagine we have any disagreement, but I'm wondering why you aren't persuaded by your own words?

Even though if this was the case, it would be the only place Jesus himself isn't called the cornerstone

... Exactly!  That IS the case!  Peter is the only other person that is called the cornerstone of the Church!  Christ, and only Christ is the true foundation.  That is without question and it needs pointing out that we Catholics hold Peter, as well as all the saints in deep esteem, but he is but mortal man. That Peter was designated by Christ specifically to "feed His sheep" and to be the rock on which His Church is built is Christ demonstrating that His Church is to be real and visible here on earth, headed by men, all of whom are sinful just as the unlikely person of this rough fisherman was.  Scripture teaches us in several places that Christ considers His ministers to be His "vicars", His stand-ins.  What they say and do as ministers are to be considered to come from Christ's own mouth.  The Chief Bishops of the Church, the Popes, are Christ the King's Regents who's mission is that of Peter.  I am often amused at some of the things I hear non-Catholics argue in this regard, like, "But the Bible says that Peter was argued with by Paul" or that Peter was opposed by this or that person.  I wonder how they think the Church works?  I think it would shock most to know what heated debates happen between the Pope and his bishops.  The Pope, as Peter, is just a man, nothing more, his office is as chief Bishop, nothing more, but just as Peter was, it is he who acts as chief of the collegial body of Bishops and spokesman for the whole Church.

[mclees8]

... Exactly!  That IS the case!  Peter is the only other person that is called the cornerstone of the Church!  Christ, and only Christ is the true foundation.  That is without question and it needs pointing out that we Catholics hold Peter, as well as all the saints in deep esteem, but he is but mortal man. That Peter was designated by Christ specifically to "feed His sheep" and to be the rock on which His Church is built is Christ demonstrating that His Church is to be real and visible here on earth, headed by men, all of whom are sinful just as the unlikely person of this rough fisherman was.  Scripture teaches us in several places that Christ considers His ministers to be His "vicars", His stand-ins.  What they say and do as ministers are to be considered to come from Christ's own mouth.  The Chief Bishops of the Church, the Popes, are Christ the King's Regents who's mission is that of Peter.  I am often amused at some of the things I hear non-Catholics argue in this regard, like, "But the Bible says that Peter was argued with by Paul" or that Peter was opposed by this or that person.  I wonder how they think the Church works?  I think it would shock most to know what heated debates happen between the Pope and his bishops.  The Pope, as Peter, is just a man, nothing more, his office is as chief Bishop, nothing more, but just as Peter was, it is he who acts as chief of the collegial body of Bishops and spokesman for the whole Church.



Mike
Clearly this is the only thrust you have, that of the authority issue. as i hav e stated before it is this dogmatic  over emphasis that makes this issue suspect. I don't argue your authority claim even though i can not agree. One thing you said here jumpt out at me.
The Chief Bishops of the Church, the Popes, are Christ the King's Regents who's mission is that of Peter.

You know i can't aregue from a facts and proofs platform which is what you would like, but only one of good old common sense analysis based on what I know and see.

Are the popes really Christ's. regents who mission is of Peter?  Or did they fall away from that. What was Peters mission? Was it not the same as Christs mission and the same for all his disciples. It was the gospel of Christ,s salvation was it not?
This was the mission from day one. Of course there was the need for some order in the church, a code of conduct with leadership, but it existed from the start long before any papacy. Was it the mission of Christ or Peter to become a political charged church. I see no evidence of that.  Was it Christ,s mission to lie their way into office and power. Yes something still stinks. Christs regents, or their own lust for power. and using every little piece of scripture to secure that position. drumming it over and over again a study drumbeat. Yet two and two don't add up here.

God bless

[Charles Sloan]

1.  What exactly do those who deny Petrine Primacy believe Matt. 16:17-19 to be saying?

Here's a nice article explaining it.

http://www.thercg.org/questions/p184.a.html

2.  As to your cornerstone argument, I don't imagine we have any disagreement, but I'm wondering why you aren't persuaded by your own words?

Because Peter is not the foundation of the church.

[desertknight]

1.  What exactly do those who deny Petrine Primacy believe Matt. 16:17-19 to be saying?

Here's a nice article explaining it.

http://www.thercg.org/questions/p184.a.html

I [pointing to Himself] will build My church

[mclees8]

1.  What exactly do those who deny Petrine Primacy believe Matt. 16:17-19 to be saying?

Here's a nice article explaining it.

http://www.thercg.org/questions/p184.a.html

I [pointing to Himself] will build My church

[Charles Sloan]

"Thou art (now) Kepha, rock, and upon this Kepha, rock I will build my Church!"

Let me just point out that the Greek of this passage differs from what you are saying.

16:18  κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος (Petros) καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ (petra) οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς

Now, I am no Greek grammarian or even a Bible scholar. But I can see that these two words are different and have different meanings, one meaning a small stone or pebble while the other means a large cliff or ledge.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4074&t=KJV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4073&t=KJV

When you look at these links, scroll down an notice that "Petros" always is used for "Peter", while "petra" never references Peter (outside of your lopsided interpretation) but is always describing either Jesus as the stone of stumbling and cornerstone or mountains and large rocks.

Now like I said I am no Greek grammarian or Bible scholar, but I do know enough about Scripture to allow it to interpret itself. And in this case its clear that Jesus was not making Peter the chief cornerstone or the foundation of the church. However, he did award the apostles and subsequently the disciples the keys to the Kingdom of God which is clearly the Gospel as demonstrated in Mat 28:18-19.

[desertknight]

"Thou art (now) Kepha, rock, and upon this Kepha, rock I will build my Church!"

Let me just point out that the Greek of this passage differs from what you are saying.

16:18  κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος (Petros) καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ (petra) οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς

Now, I am no Greek grammarian or even a Bible scholar. But I can see that these two words are different and have different meanings, one meaning a small stone or pebble while the other means a large cliff or ledge.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4074&t=KJV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4073&t=KJV

When you look at these links, scroll down an notice that "Petros" always is used for "Peter", while "petra" never references Peter (outside of your lopsided interpretation) but is always describing either Jesus as the stone of stumbling and cornerstone or mountains and large rocks.

Now like I said I am no Greek grammarian or Bible scholar, but I do know enough about Scripture to allow it to interpret itself. And in this case its clear that Jesus was not making Peter the chief cornerstone or the foundation of the church. However, he did award the apostles and subsequently the disciples the keys to the Kingdom of God which is clearly the Gospel as demonstrated in Mat 28:18-19.

That is a familiar argument and one that has been put to rest for several reasons...

1.  The language that Jesus spoke, as the oldest texts of the NT indicate, was Aramaic, not Greek.  There is no distinction possible in Aramaic in the context of that sentence.  

2.  The Greek distinction between petros and petra did exist in Attic Greek, but not the Koine Greek that the NT was written in and used in the Empire at the time and even if it had, in the context of this sentence, it refers to masculine, i.e., "o" for Peter, as opposed to a feminine root word ending, "a", that you can still see in the use of the same word in say, Spanish for example.  The root word for "rock" in Spanish is the same Greek word, piedra.  It's ending is feminine.  When that word is used to call someone Peter, it turns into "Pedro", exactly as was done by the NT writers.  The word for "large rock" or "corner stone" that would have been used in the Greek of that time, BTW, would have been from the root word, lithos.

3.  Even if all the objections to 1 & 2 had any merit, it still does not change the inescapable meaning of Christ's words in Matt. 16.  Small pebble that Peter's faith may have been, Christ still stated clearly that it was sufficient in this simple fisherman to act as His chief shepherd and regent of His Church on earth.  There is just no getting around the language of those passages and their obvious meaning.  

This was asked and answered, BTW, with links, by me earlier.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/was-peter-the-rock-that-the-church-was-built-on/msg735871/#msg735871

[Tantor]

Then produce an ancient aramaic bible to prove your point?...

I'm not interested in coulda shoulda woulda's.

[desertknight]

Then produce an ancient aramaic bible to prove your point?...

I didn't say that the NT was written in Aramaic.  I said that the evidence from the NT text that we have clearly demonstrates that Christ spoke in Aramaic, which would have been the only logical language to converse in in Palestine among fellow Jews, at that time.  If you click on the link I provided it gives ample evidence of that fact and I know of no serious Biblical scholar, non-Catholic included, who doubts it.

It isn't a "coulda', woulda', shoulda', ".

A nice non-Catholic source for you...

"Though these gospels were written originally in Greek, at several points Jesus' words are given in Aramaic, for example: "Talitha cum"  (Mark 5:41, "Little girl, get up!"); "Abba" (Mark 14:36. "Father"); "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?" (Mark 15:34, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). In these cases the actual Aramaic words of Jesus were remembered and passed on even by Greek-speaking Christians." 

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesuslanguage.htm

[Tantor]

Then produce an ancient aramaic bible to prove your point?...

I didn't say that the NT was written in Aramaic.  I said that the evidence from the NT text that we have clearly demonstrates that Christ spoke in Aramaic, which would have been the only logical language to converse in in Palestine among fellow Jews, at that time.  If you click on the link I provided it gives ample evidence of that fact and I know of no serious Biblical scholar, non-Catholic included, who doubts it.

It isn't a "coulda', woulda', shoulda', ".

A nice non-Catholic source for you...

"Though these gospels were written originally in Greek, at several points Jesus' words are given in Aramaic, for example: "Talitha orgasm"  (Mark 5:41, "Little girl, get up!"); "Abba" (Mark 14:36. "Father"); "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?" (Mark 15:34, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). In these cases the actual Aramaic words of Jesus were remembered and passed on even by Greek-speaking Christians."

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesuslanguage.htm

So you are then saying that the Holy Spirit used a poor choice of words?

Anyhow, what you are saying is just human conjecture and not fact... so it's pretty irrevalent to those that believe the bible.

[Charles Sloan]

That is a familiar argument and one that has been put to rest for several reasons...

1.  The language that Jesus spoke, as the oldest texts of the NT indicate, was Aramaic, not Greek.  There is no distinction possible in Aramaic in the context of that sentence. 

2.  The Greek distinction between petros and petra did exist in Attic Greek, but not the Koine Greek that the NT was written in and used in the Empire at the time and even if it had, in the context of this sentence, it refers to masculine, i.e., "o" for Peter, as opposed to a feminine root word ending, "a", that you can still see in the use of the same word in say, Spanish for example.  The root word for "rock" in Spanish is the same Greek word, piedra.  It's ending is feminine.  When that word is used to call someone Peter, it turns into "Pedro", exactly as was done by the NT writers.  The word for "large rock" or "corner stone" that would have been used in the Greek of that time, BTW, would have been from the root word, lithos.

3.  Even if all the objections to 1 & 2 had any merit, it still does not change the inescapable meaning of Christ's words in Matt. 16.  Small pebble that Peter's faith may have been, Christ still stated clearly that it was sufficient in this simple fisherman to act as His chief shepherd and regent of His Church on earth.  There is just no getting around the language of those passages and their obvious meaning. 

This was asked and answered, BTW, with links, by me earlier.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/was-peter-the-rock-that-the-church-was-built-on/msg735871/#msg735871

desertknight,

The Bible is written in Koine Greek so appealing to non-existent texts doesn't help your case. Your obfuscation about dilectic differences is a non sequitur since the fact remains the same that the meanings of these two words are different and not used interchangeably in Scripture, neither before nor after Mat 16:18. Plus your final defense is to stomp your foot and reassert your interpretation without even acknowledging the facts presented to you. The only defense I have seen is repeated denial mixed with baseless assertions, which does little to convince me.

In response to the topic title, I would have to say not in my experience.

[Ryan2010]

I've been reading this thread for a few days now.  I'm an inquirer at an Orthodox Church (OCA) and as was discussed earlier, found it quite impossible to deny that the Apostles Ordained bishops and these bishops ordained others and that an unbroken line of succession is important.  Once you get past the pluralism and dualism and false ecumenism so rampant in a broad survey of protestantism which seems to be held together by the doctrine of sola scripture - and once you get past the fact that there truly is Traditions of Men and Traditions of God (which is clearly stated and spoken of in scripture) most people start to wonder what exactly these traditions are.  

So lately I've been, that I might have a clear conscience, looking at Papal Supremacy and the doctrine that followed much later - Papal Infallibility.  

There seems to be different approaches to Tradition in both the West and in the East.  The East has seen the scriptures pertaining to Peter as the rock as follows:  

-- The Head of the Church is not the Bible, but Christ. Eph. 4:18, Gal. 5:22, etc. The Chief Cornerstone of the Church is not the Written Word but Christ, the Word Incarnate. [Eph. 2:20] Christ is the foundation, together with the prophets and apostles [Eph. 2:20, I Cor. 3;11] Not the Bible, nor yet the pope, but faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God is the rock upon which the Church is built. [St. Mt. 16:16-18]

*

-- The Scriptural basis for this is largely from the text: "Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church." The Roman teaching is that this invested St. Peter with infallible authority. The majority of church fathers had not accepted this teaching! A Roman Catholic Scholar, Launoy (1603-1678), collected the teachings of the church fathers on this passage. Of 85 fathers, 17 said Rock meant Peter, 44 that Rock meant the faith Peter had just confessed, 16 for Rock meaning Christ Himself, and 8 for Rock meaning all of the apostles. Moreover, when had the pope spoken infallibly? Estimates differed and no pope gave an infallible answer to the question. It is, for example, debatable whether the recent pronouncement by John Paul II concerning women's ordination is or is not an infallible pronouncement. Granted, the pope was "first among equals" and that, from time to time, disputes were voluntarily submitted to him for resolution—but that did not make for infallibility!

*

--  Largely in recognition of this and other challenges to Papism, since the Second Vatican Council Roman Catholic theologians have studiously avoided characterizing the Pope with such exaggerated terms as "the voice of God on earth," as they were wont to do in bygone days. Yet, astonishingly enough, in their efforts to make the doctrine of Papal supremacy more palatable to Orthodox and Protestants, they have tended, of late, to emphasize the Popes alleged "sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum," as the Latin Vulgate renders the original Greek of II Corinthians 11:28, "he merimna pason ton ekklesion" or "the care of all the Churches." That this statement is from the mouth of St. Paul, describing his own duties, and not a statement by St. Peter, hardly reinforces the notion of Petrine primacy on which the doctrine of Papal supremacy rests. Indeed, if one were to take it as literally as the Papists take Christs statement to St. Peter with regard to his Apostolic prerogatives in the Church, he would of necessity have to attribute to St. Paul the primacy which Roman Catholics give to the former.

In his homily on this Epistle, St. John Chrysostomos expounds on the nature of St. Pauls care for the Churches. He says that this was the heaviest of the burdens with which St. Paul wrestled in his Apostolic ministry: "...His soul too was distracted, and his thoughts divided. For even if nothing from without had assailed him; yet the war within was enough, those waves on waves, that sleet of cares, that war of thoughts." St. John adds that, though it is difficult enough for one to look after a single house, St. Paul had "the care not of a single house, but of cities and peoples and nations and of the whole world" (Homily 12, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 395). Several Roman Catholic exegetes, in keeping with their misunderstanding of Christs words about the ministry of St. Peter, have misunderstood this all-embracing pastoral care with which St. Paul, as the Apostle to the Nations, was naturally entrusted as an institutional prerogative. In so doing, however, they once more compromise their own arguments. For, if St. Paul was given such care of all the Churches, then primacy in the Church would logically belong, again, not to St. Peter, but to St. Paul and, by implication, to his successors. Clearly, however, St. Paul was not speaking, in the passage under consideration, of an institutional prerogative, as St. John Chrysostomos points out, but of a burden imposed on him by the nature of his ministry.

With regard to the other verse which you cite, St. Theophylact of Ochrid points out that the words, "I will give unto thee,""...were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles," since Christ also said, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted." (The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew [House Springs, MO: Chrysostom Press, 1994], p. 141.) The second verse to which St. Theophylact refers is St. John 20:23. As the translator rightly observes, the verb "remit" is in the second person plural, and thus refers not to St. Peter alone, but to all of the Apostles. As for the "controversial verse" (St. Matthew 16:18), St. Theophylact, following St. John Chrysostomos and the overwhelming consensus of both Greek and Latin Fathers, interprets the words "this rock" to denote St. Peters confession of faith in the Divinity of Christ, and not the Apostles person. Any other interpretation would, of course, violate the Christocentric nature of the Church and the rather clear Scriptural affirmation that "Christ is the head of the Church" (Ephesians 5:23) and the "head of the Body" (Colossians 1:18).

Let us note, also, that the honor which the Orthodox Church has bestowed on both St. Peter and St. Paul, that is, the title of Protokoryphaioi, i.e., "leaders" or "chiefs" of the Apostles, gives us some insight into what the distinctions between the Disciples of Christ actually mean. They describe functions, responsibilities, cares, and rôles; they do not, however, refer to special privileges, prerogatives, or authority. For, in the final analysis, despite these distinctions, all of the Apostles were equal, just as all of the Bishops of the Orthodox Church—who are their successors—, whether they be simple Bishops or Patriarchs or Œcumenical Patriarchs, are absolute equals. This fact helps to explain both the passage which you cite from II Corinthians and the Gospel passages which Papists have wholly unjustifiably used to support the doctrine of Papal supremacy.


--

I guess my reason for replying here is that there are not a few early Church Fathers and pre-schism Popes even that seem to contradict what seems to come later as "Papal Supremacy" (as post-schism Rome believes it).  

The other problem I have with the Papal Supremacy interpretation and it's application is that it diminishes the successors of the Bishops that the Apostles ordained while increasing the authority and reach of Peter's successors.  Because St. Peter could not excommunicate St. Paul and vice versa.  However, unlike Peter, Peter's successor seems to have more reach than St. Peter himself because now he can excommunicate any of the Apostles successors.  

I can certainly see where St. Peter had authority but to the degree with which Rome seems to give to St. Peter, it makes following passage and incidents throughout history seem almost impossible and yet they are/exist.

Galatians 2:11
[ Paul Opposes Peter ] When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

historical example:  One of the Popes in the 8th century (by signature) anathematized anyone that would later add or take away from the creed which later was, in fact, added to, by a Pope.  


Now, which Pope is in the wrong/considered supreme/infallible?  

These aren't easy questions, but as always, there's always more to the story.  So I will continue to seek.


God bless

[desertknight]

The Bible is written in Koine Greek so appealing to non-existent texts doesn't help your case. Your obfuscation about dilectic differences is a non sequitur since the fact remains the same that the meanings of these two words are different and not used interchangeably in Scripture, neither before nor after Mat 16:18. Plus your final defense is to stomp your foot and reassert your interpretation without even acknowledging the facts presented to you. The only defense I have seen is repeated denial mixed with baseless assertions, which does little to convince me.

In response to the topic title, I would have to say not in my experience.

1.  Well, then you must admit to the proven fact that Koine Greek made no distinction that you assert regarding petra/petros.  Attic Greek did, (and then only to some extent), but the NT was not written in Attic Greek.  Further, distinction of not, in the context of the sentence it makes no difference.  It is being used as a masculine/feminine ending and nothing more.

2.  It is not my case that Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic, it is the case of the vast majority of Biblical scholars.  That is not some Catholic "take" on it.  For hundreds of years biblical scholars and theologians have asserted that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic as that would have been the logical language for Him to have spoken and the NT text regarding what He spoke is in fact, not conjecture, but Aramaic.  Peter's name in even the earliest Protestant editions of the Bible, was footnoted as Kephas, the Aramaic name he would have had.  The original 17th century KJV linked it directly.

3.  You keep side-stepping the even greater problem that the words of Matt. 16 simply have no coherent meaning if they do not refer to Peter.  No matter how you contort the wording it would force the words to mean that Peter was a poor choice and oh, btw, here are the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, here is your power to bind in Heaven what you, (Peter) do on earth.  It renders Mat. 16 into ungrammatical nonsense.