Peter could never be a POPE! need some help again

[Mannyfit75]

I posted this in another thread. Since this is related I can repost it here.

Peter has the charisma of being to lead first. We see this clearly in the first Chapters of Acts. In the Gospel this is more so. It is Jesus who ask Peter, do you love three times. It is Jesus who told Peter feed my sheep, and feed my lambs. It is Jesus who prayed for him more than the others so they his faith may not fall (See Luke 22:31-32). Peter is alone is told by Jesus that the Father received divine knowledge from the Father (see Matthew 16:17). The tax collector approach Peter first for Jesus’ tax (see Matt 17:24). In Matt. 17:26-27, Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. In Matt. 19:27, Peter speaks in behalf of the Apostle. In Mark 10:28, Peter again speaks in behalf the disciple by telling Jesus, they have left everything to follow him.

In Mark 14:37, at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

I can go on. There are countless of verses during the time Jesus was still with his Apostles, and the time he left Earth to be at his throne, that Peter was left in charge of the Apostles.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I trust the Holy Spirit. If I make a mistake, I change my belief. I submit to the Scriptures. How do you know your Church gets it right? Why do you trust untrustworthy Tradition and not Scripture alone?

I know the Church got it right because the first pillars and foundation of the Church are the Apostles and the cornerstone of the Church is Jesus Christ, who is the head.

Can you convince me that Jesus Christ isn’t the head of the Church? If he wasn’t, the Church would in fact err in teaching moral and faith. These are unchanging, immutable.

The lady that handled a snake that died, she wasn’t some great sinner. She was confused. She didn’t understand; I fear maybe she was one of those people who would have jumped off a cliff if an “angel” claiming to be from the Lord told her to do it.

Ah, but not prevailing is not the issue. I too believe the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. However, I take a look around and realize that they have won some of the battles. If Peter was infallible, then the Church would not lose any battles. The enemy wins some battles but will not win the war. Praise God!

Peter was only infallible when he speaks from his “office” much like he did in Acts 15:17 when he said it was ok for the Gentiles to be converted and not be subject to Mosaic Law.

 

[Mannyfit75]

So you’re saying that it is still ok to sell indulgences? I thought the Church outlawed that? I’m not off to look for anything as I don’t have the time nor the desire. The fact is you have changed things at times. Vatican 2 itself is proof of this. I don’t need to look for anything. I just have to know that Vatican 2 happened. Therefore, your Church has changed.

The Church has always forbid the sell of indulgence. It was never enforce prior to the Reformation.

Indulgence according the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *states,

“An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins.” The Church does this not just to aid Christians, “but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity” (CCC 1478).

Jimmy Akin puts this into prospective:

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal around indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms— indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "*t is easy to see how abuses crept in.

Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."*

Who said he shouldn’t have witnessed for his faith? I don’t appreciate the slight right there. You say “witness” as if you think I don’t do it or that you are smarter than I am. Maybe you are, however, I don’t need to be smart. I do need to have Jesus and gosh darn it, guess what? I have Him. I have “the fullness of truth”. Ponder that…

Well, the Catholic Church has the full means of truth. 1 Tim 3:15-16 makes this very clear:

"if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth. Gread indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:
He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached amongst the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory,*

The Truth my friend, is Jesus Christ. The Church is His Body, he as the Head of the Church. When it comes to authentic authority, it is the Magisterium of the Church, not individuals. If individuals were indeed in charge, then they will fall into heresy. The Church has to be authoritative because God gave his Bride authority.

Let me quote Jesus own words,

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptized them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold I am with you always, to the close of the age.

 

[Martwen]

I disagree with you though. All Sacred Tradition that the Lord wanted us to be required to believe made its way into Scripture. Yes, the Church put the Bible together. It follows then, that if Sacred Tradition were binding on the conscience of believers that the Church would have included it all in Scripture. Right?

Apart from Scripture we have no way of knowing if someone is telling the truth. Is it any wonder that the cults have “additional books” that they put on par with Scripture. I may make a mistake in interpreting Scripture but at least I know that Scripture is God’s Word. I have no way of knowing this with anything else.

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John 21:25
So it looks like here that John said that not everything was written down. So was the things that were not written down lost?

“Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,” I Corr 11:1-4.
Paul himself commended his followers for following the traditions he set forth

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15. :yup:
This speaks for itself. I was woondering if you need more passages on following tradition?:yup:

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

IF we take a closer look at the Scriptures, it becomes apparent that Peter could never be a POPE!!

1. PETER WAS MARRIED. Matthew 8:14 speaks of Peter’s wife’s mother being sick. Therefore he can never be a priest. Another is a part in the Scriptures where Paul made a statement that the apostles has wives (1 Cor 9:5) – including Cephas – which was Peter’s Aramaic name, which again means…a stone (John 1:42).
2. PETER WOULD NOT ALLOW MEN TO BOW DOWN TO HIM. Men bow down before the pope, but it was not of the latter that Peter did show when he came to Cornelius’ house.
   “And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a MAN. (Acts 10:25-26)
3. PETER DID NOT PLACE TRADITION ON A LEVEL WITH THE WORD OF GOD. The same that the Pope would stress upon respect of traditions (1 Peter 1:18). But instead, he simply told the people to simply REPENT and be BAPTIZED (Acts 2:38) and that they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
4. PETER WAS NO POPE, FOR HE NEVER WORE A CROWN. Peter never acted, never dressed, never spoke, never wrote, and the people did not approach him as a pope! Peter was always mentioned first when the apostles were concerned, but NONE would indicate that Peter was the UNIVERSAL BISHOP of BISHOPS!
5. PETER WAS AN APOSTLE TO THE JEWS…AND NEVER TO THE GENTILES. Paul was of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13) while Peter’s ministry was primarily to the Jews (Gal 2:7-9). He never even went near ROME!!!
6. PETER WAS NEVER RECOGNIZED BY PAUL AS SOMEONE ESTABLISHED IN ROME: If Peter was an establishment in Rome, then why wasn’t he mentioned in all and in any greetings of Paul primarily to the twenty-seven persons. Imagine a missionary writing to a church, greeting 27 members by name and not even greeting the Pastor?
7. PETER WAS NOT INFALLIBLE. He made a lot of mistakes (which includes citing Paul’s statement for Peter to be blamed, Gal 2:9-14). He was also considered as an error.

again and again…posted by a Protestant guy!!! it annoys me and being a CRADLE CATHOLIC…a trying hard Catholic apologetic…i need your good points on this type of bash…

forum.pba.ph/index.php?topic=169941.msg518692#new

CAF will always be my helping hand…and i am very thankful for all your help guys!

Peace!

janry

For #1. Show mw where in the Scriptures it specifically says that Peter’s wife did this or that?

 

[mlchance]

James presides and gives the final judgement.

James held authority in Jerusalem because Peter gave it to him before Peter left Jerusalem to evangelize elsewhere. James’s “final judgement” also did little but endorse Peter’s decision.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Parysa]

Scripture diesagrees with you my friend. Scripture is the Living Word and it most certainly does perform actions. In fact, it convicts of sin. It leads one to salvation through Christ. It discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. It goes out to DO that which God WILLS it to DO and does not RETURN to God void. Scripture is most certainly capable of action. It is inerrant AND infallible.

Actually, Christ is the Living Word, not the Bible. “And in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Where in the Bible does it say that my KJV actually DOES anything?

And anything that is written down in the New Testament is all that Jesus requires us to know in order to live holy before Him.

And water is the only refreshment that is required of me to drink in order to be hydrated and not die. So does that mean that I shouldn’t drink juice or tea or soda or anything BUT water?

**Exactly my point. Those things that were done are not required for us to know or else they would have been written down too. Since they weren’t written down in Scripture, they were not meant for us to know. **

Says who?

But were they required to believe them and obey them? No. We are only required to believe and obey Scripture as it and it alone is the highest authority when it comes to faith and practice. This is what I believe and I will not give it up easily as I believe that I believe the truth.

WHERE in the Bible does it say that it is the only truth?

 

[PinoyCatholic]

Hmmm… Seems like Jesus actually taught His disciples things in private apart from the parables He said to the masses. This can be seen in Mark 4:33-34, which states:

“And with many such parables, he spoke to them the word, according as they were able to hear. And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.” (emphasis mine)

This coupled with the fact that not everything Jesus did was written down (John 21:25) points to the fact that the disciples have been handed things of great import that were not contained in Scripture.

Sounds a lot like Tradition to me.

 

[roanoker]

To the OP: The Book of Acts in chap.28 tells us that when Paul was taken to Rome he was met by Christian brethern who had come from Rome to encourage him. If Peter did not found the church at Rome, then who did? Clearly there was a Christian church at Rome when Paul arrived. Nobody else is claimed to be the founder in Acts. So it must be that Peter preceded Paul there and established the church. Or so it seems to me. Roanoker