Catholics: How can you claim that St. Paul is part of the Catholic Church with St. Peter as the first Pope?

Question

-
It is crystal clear here, as St. Paul wrote to the Galatians:
“I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” -Galatians 1:11-17

St. Paul was Saul of Tarsus, zealously persecuting Christians. (Acts 7:58-8:3)
Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. (Acts 9)
“Immediately”, St. Paul went and preached the Gospel. (Acts 9:20)

And as he himself testified in the Galatians verse above:
He preached a Gospel that was not according to man.
He did not receive it from man.
He was not taught it by man.
He did not confer with man.
He was not commissioned by man.

That is the Gospel was not according to, received from, taught by, or commission by the Catholic Church, a Pope, or St. Peter!

Jesus Christ revealed Himself to St. Paul; Jesus Christ commissioned St. Paul; Jesus Christ was St. Paul’s Leader and “Pope”, NOT St. Peter!

This is what St. Paul said about St. Peter being “Pope”:
“But from those who seemed to be something – whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man – for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.” -Galatians 2:6

St. Paul says that the so-called “Pope” St. Peter added “nothing” to him and made “no difference”. He also stated that God shows personal favoritism to “no man” – not even St. Peter!

So, Catholics: What about St. Paul? And what about all his letters that make up the New Testament?

If St. Paul didn’t claim St. Peter as his leader and “Pope”, then how could St. Paul be called a Catholic?
If St. Peter wasn’t St. Paul’s “Pope”, then to what human leader was St. Paul subject to?
Isn’t he disrespectful of your chief Pope, St. Peter?
Should you excommunicate St. Paul?
Should you tear out half of your New Testament – the 13-14 books/epistles that he wrote and burn them?

Or instead, is our only leader Jesus Christ – who revealed Himself to and commissioned St. Paul, just as He reveals Himself to and commissions His disciples today?

-

michinok:
Absolutely not.
Carefully re-read my question, and you will see.

Catholics:
Here's an idea - how about answering my question rather than "attacking" Protestants with other random questions. If there is an answer, then answer it. I challenge Protestants all the time, and they answer...and the best ones give scripture to back up their answer. Let's deal with one issue at a time. If you have a completely seperate question, then ask it seperately. In case you weren't aware...that's how this "works". A person asks a question...desires an answer...and others answer it. Which part of this don't you understand?
-

Answer 1

Here is the answer for Catholic claim of Peter or Paul or whoever:

1 Corinthians 3:
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
AND
21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

Peter, Paul, Mary - sounds like candy or rock and roll - what it is is heresy.

A Christian is under the discipline of Christ and a Christian not a universalist.

Christ Jesus the Messiah and Anointed is the Head of the Church.

1Titus 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator
between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

Ephesian 5:23-24
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Savior of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

In the very first words of many of Paul's letters and documents he states he is a servant, a slave, a bond servant of Jesus Christ.
Paul was under the direction of Jesus. fini

Answer 2

Tebone gives the complete answer about Peter. Paul was one of the Apostles, an especially gifted teacher sent out by the leaders of the Church to spread the gospel.

Here's the evidence that Paul was under Peter's authority:

When the Judaizing Christians insisted that converts from paganism to Christianity should be subjected to the Law of Moses, Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, to consult "the apostles and presbyters at Jerusalem about this question" (Acts 15:2); and, after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them: "Brethren, you know that in early days God made choice among us, that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us.... Why then do you now try to test God by putting on the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they are" (Acts 15:7-11). Then it was that "the whole meeting quieted down" (Acts 15:12).

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 3

Actually you are conveniently leaving out that the Galatians story goes onto say in verse 18 he sought out Peter and spent (15 days with him) time with him.

That Peter was commissioned first by Christ and that it was PETER who accepted Paul as an Apostle. And how in Acts 15 when he attended the meeting (Council of Jerusalem) of the Apostles led by Peter, he was a participant and Peter the deciding voice.

When you selectively edit the Bible as you are doing you can make it appear that Paul did not view Peter as FIRST AMONG EQUALS which he did, there was a blow up but in the end Paul deferred to Peter's authority.


Actually the Pauline Epistles were not written by Paul, but his followers that assisted him.

You missed your calling chad you should write fiction, because you can make up things like no one else.

Here's an idea how about asking a question based on actual events or the entire epistles in the Bible and not your twisted or selective editing version of what happened or what was written

Answer 4

The leadership of the Church has been intrusted to St Peter.Mt 16:18 "upon this Rock I will build my Church" It is the Church that has been built on Jesus Christ, Peter was intrusted with the authority. This is the key if you don't accept this scripture you are misinturpriting it.
That is not to seperate Peter and Paul because if you have the Sacrament of the Eucharist in your Church you will understand what Communion means, it is not that some are included or some are excluded, it is those who are sinners are included repent, St Paul for example. St Paul work with St Peter to establish the Church in Rome in early history you will see they acheived great things together in Rome. Brothers in Christ.

Answer 5

Any one who is for Christ is not against him...so the basic principles of the Gospel can be preached by those with out apostolic sucession. I am Orthodox and not Catholic so verses that stress the equality of the apostles or the absolute sovrignty of Christ are not an issue since we beleive in the equality of Bishops. Saint Paul did become an apostle and if you look in the early Church he is comimorated the same day as Saint Peter.

Answer 6

Which books of the Old Testament did the Apostles accept as Scripture? Did they accept the 46 books as in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible or the 39 books as in the King James version? The Septuagint was accepted among the Hellenistic sect of Judaism (of which St. Paul was a member) and this canon did indeed include the same books as the present-day Catholic Bible. In addition, the entire New Testament was written in Greek (Hellenist) with the exception of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which was written in Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ). Over 85% of the quotes from the Old Testament that are used in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. The Palestinian Old Testament canon was not compiled until between 70-90 A.D. and then, it was done so by the non-Christian Jews in violent reaction to early Judeo-Christianity. The Palestinian canon was the one chosen by Martin Luther based on the acceptance of it by the 16th century German Jewish community of Luther's time. This canon excludes the seven books that were accepted by the Apostles as Scripture. Why was the canon of the Protestant Old Testament decided by Jews and not Christians? In addition, why did Luther attempt to eliminate the Book of St. James and the Book of Revelation? Is it because they contradicted his dogma of "faith alone?"
During the Reformation, did the Protestants "re-evaluate" all the deutero-canonical and apocryphal Christian writings such as the Gospel of St. James, the Acts of St. Paul, the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Gospel of St. Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of St. Thomas and the myriad of other writings from the first and second centuries of the Christianity? No. The Protestants accepted the New Testament as defined by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century. Why accept the Canon as defined and preserved by the Catholic Church yet not accept the other teachings of this same Church?

What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all." Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages. All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone. Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church?

Answer 7

Catholic, attempting to answer here.

Of course, God shows favor to no man in particular. That's not what being the Pope is all about. Please see John 13:1ff. Peter's role as leader of the Church and his successors' role as pope is not about prestige or receiving favor from God. It's a role of service. The pope bears a spiritual responsibility for every soul on earth during his tenure -- EVERY soul, not just Catholics and not even just all Christians.

The fact that Paul received the Gospel straight from Christ Himself does not negate anything that Peter did or anything that the Church was accomplishing. Since Jesus created the Church, it amounts to the same thing.

So what about St. Paul? We Catholics value his writings and consider him our brother in the Lord. So what if he and Peter had differences? Nobody ever said that all Christians have to be carbon-copies of each other. God made us all different and our individuality is not a bad thing.

You make an assumption that Paul didn't consider Peter his leader, but you fail to substantiate that claim. Galatians 2 isn't calling Peter out by name -- you make an assumption that that is whom Paul is speaking of because that's how YOU feel about Peter, that he's worthless to you and doesn't amount to anything.

But in fact, Paul refers to "those" several times in the chapter and then in verse 7, calls Peter out as NOT "those."

Here are verses 6-8:

As for those who seemed to be important -- whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearances -- those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle ot the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Then Paul goes on to say in verse 9 that James, Peter and John all gave Paul the right hand of fellowship and recognized the Grace he had received. So they were UNIFIED, not divided, hard as you may try to divide them.

All this to say:

1. There is no evidence that Paul did NOT accept the leadership of Peter. To the contrary, he recognizes the leadership of Peter, James and John and valued their approval of his work with the Gentiles.

2. The occasional disagreements between Peter and Paul -- a common occurrence in all relationships -- doesn't mean that Paul was disrespectful of Peter. But even if he was, that would only mean that Paul was human and imperfect.

3. There's no reason to excommunicate Paul because he has done so much for Christianity and continues to do so.

4. His writings have a TON of value for all Christians and it would be foolish for any church to disregard them.

Finally, of COURSE our only leader is Jesus Christ. But He Himself commissioned people to serve as His Apostles, so having earthly leaders who love Him and seek to serve Him is not a bad thing. Sometimes He really does reveal Himself to people through other people or through the Church. Are you going to tell the Lord to stop doing that?

Answer 8

St. Paul also defended the Eucharist. I am sure you know that St. Paul is who wrote Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 11: 23-31

~For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is My body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.~

How therefore can Protestants claim to follow him?

There is nothing in the Bible contrary to the Catholic Church and there is nothing in the Catholic Church contrary to the Bible. The Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world. The Bible is a Catholic book. God bless.

Answer 9

You failed to mention that it was James (the brother of Jesus0, not Peter who headed the church council to which Paul submitted in Acts 15. And that Paul stood up to and rebuked Peter in the book of Galatians when Peter was in error about his doctrine.

It is difficult at best to support the leadership of Peter over the first century church, especially since he completely disappears from the history less then half way through the book of Acts.

Answer 10

I guess the real point here is Peter as Pope.

Peter does not seem to meet the requirements though.

Peter was a married man and Popes are not allowed to marry.

Jesus, in Matthew 16:23, called Peter "Satan" because Peter had just told God that He was wrong. Peter was elevating himself above God in authority and God put him in his place: "Get behind Me Satan".

Is the Pope usually called Satan?

Refusing to believe that they say, "Well that was before Peter was filled with the Holy Ghost".

Ok. Now let's look at Galatians 2 starting with verse 11. Paul says , "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong." The Pope was wrong!? What was Paul's objection? Read verse 12: Peter had drawn back and separated himself from the Gentiles. Peter was trying to elevate himself above others. In verse 13 Paul says this about Peter: "The other Jews joined him in his hypocracy, so that by their hypocracy even Barnabas was led astray." WHAT!!????? Paul called the Pope a hypocrite? Didn't Paul know who he was talking about and that Peter was filled with the Holy Ghost by this time?

When Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, the Greek word that was used is translated as a single stone. Jesus said, "Peter you are a SINGLE stone." Then Jesus used a different word, which is translated as a GROUP of stones joined together to form a slab, when He said "and on this GROUP of stones, joined together to form a slab, I will build My Church." The group of stones, joined together to form one huge slab is the Church. We believers are each one of the "stones" that form the "slab", which is the foundation of the Church.

The keys that Jesus gave to His bride (the church) are a sign of shared authority. Not authority to make rules and systems of worship that do not agree with what God has already said, but to make the same decisions as are made in Heaven. Whatever decisions are made on earth MUST agree with the decisions that have already been made by the ONE in the authority position, God. God is not saying whatever you decide to do, Mr. Man that I created, you do it and I will endorse it - You are the one in control of the decision making from now on and I, God, will get in-line with your program.

That is the kind of hypocritical teaching that landed Peter in trouble with Jesus and Paul in the first place.

"Get behind Me Satan."

Notice I did not use the cut and paste method like some have. I used my own thoughts based upon my own study of the scriptures.

Again. In Matthew right after Jesus re-named Simon to Peter, Jesus called him "Satan" and told him to get behind. If that took place immediately after Jesus made Peter the "Founder" of the church, what does that say? Was Peter infallible as we are taught that Popes are?

Sparki777:
<<"The occasional disagreements between Peter and Paul -- a common occurrence in all relationships -- doesn't mean that Paul was disrespectful of Peter. But even if he was, that would only mean that Paul was human and imperfect.">>

I'll add what you somehow forgot to: "and Peter was not infallible either."

Read the bible for what it REALLY says.