Peter could never be a POPE! need some help again

[janryboy]

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

 

[LilyM]

Just a couple of things:

1. Peter had a mother-in-law who served in his house and was healed by Christ when she was sick. No mention at all in that Gospel passage of Peter’s wife, who doubtless should have been doing the serving duties. He was very probably a widower, his wife deceased.
2. He certainly acted as a Pope - he was the chief speaker at Pentecost, and at the Council of the Apostles in Acts, he was the last and deciding speaker - his word carried the greatest weight. Not to mention that Christ himself set Peter apart for a special role, as
3. Tell your friend that there is a massive difference between infallible (unable to err in a TEACHING capacity) and impeccable (sinless - which no humans, especially none of the Apostles, were). God himself made his will known to Peter directly on the issue of abandoning Jewish dietary law! Where did God so similarly instruct any of the others?

 

[FightingFat]

Have a look at this

1. Clergy don’t have to be celibate- even today, a few priests are married. Celibacy is a discipline of the Church not a dogma.
2. I think this grew out of the expansion of the empire. This attack is about the Pope really IMO. It’s not logical and takes no account of the historical development of the Christian faith at all.
3. Peter didn’t teach sola scriptura either did he?
4. Peter is often named first amoung the disciples and was singled out by Jesus. The Early Church Fathers were in little doubt as to Peter’s position- catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
5. This Roman thing is just BAD HISTORY. Read Peter’s Roman Residency This might also be useful.
6. See above
7. Papal infallibility was confirmed in Vatican I. This comment simply demonstrates absolutely no understanding of what Papal infallibility means.

 

[Rolltide]

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).

Actually, celibacy, although practiced by many priests early on, did not become a rule in the Western Catholic Church until the 11th century. Even today, exceptions are made. Eastern Catholic priests CAN be married, and some married protestant ministers have been allowed, in rare circumstances, to convert and become priests, even in the West. This is a discipline, meaning a kind of church rule, but it is not an unchangable rule. It was also not a rule for the early part of church history.

 

[LilyM]

Just a point on the bowing bit. They did more than just bow to Peter, they WORSHIPPED him. Big difference.

If I’m ever so fortunate as to meet the Queen of England, who is head of my country too, you can bet your life I’m going to bow to her, as do all her subjects. Does that mean I worship her? Not a bit of it! It’s a sign of RESPECT, no more. What Peter objected to was WORSHIP.

Tell your friend to read the Old Testament - particularly when Jacob and Esau meet as feuding grownups. I believe it’s there in black and white that Jacob bowed SEVEN TIMES to Esau! Was he worshipping him then?

It gets under my skin this confusion between respect and worship. Clearly it’s from someone who knows the meaning of neither.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

My comments in red…

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

1. PETER WAS MARRIED. This doesnt disprove anything, the Catholic Church has some married priests. As a “rule and regulation” the Church has restrictions on who and when a preist can be married, very early it recognized the important calling to celebacy (eg 1 Cor 7:7-8)
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) The key word is “worshipped”, that is reserved for God alone. The Jews had a kingdom with kings and other authorities, paying respects to these authorities was in no way on the same level as “worship”.
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.
   Peter was literally making Tradition as he demonstrated his Apostolic Authority left and right. In Acts 2:38 he DIDNT quote Scripture saying “Repent and be Baptized” he as an authorized teacher commanded those things himself. When the Apostles were preaching there was no New Testament to consult, when a person heard the Gospel they were bound to obey the testimony and authority of the Apostles. (2 Pt 1:15-16)
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!
   This is a clever diversion tactic here, it starts off condemning something that isnt a offical teaching but a custom and uses it to brush off the “mentioned first” factor. Wearing a crown isnt required and the Catholic Church doesnt pretend it was done in the early church, it was simply a custom (not a doctrine). NOW lets NOT brush off the fact Peter was “always mentioned first”, that is VERY significant and infact DOES indicate primacy.
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!!!
   Key word “primarily to the Jews”, this distinction took place AFTER St Paul came into the picture. Some light is shed for the reason Paul was sent to the Gentiles (Acts 9:13-16).
   As for “NEVER to the Gentiles”, that is simply false, St Peter was the first to bring in Gentiles and officially recognize the Gentiles as Christians (Acts 10:44-48, Acts 11:1-18, Acts 15:7). As for if Peter was never in Rome, there is evidence he was, here is a amazing article
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?
   This can easily be explained…when Paul wrote his letters Peter was not in Rome yet…this accusation has no merit.
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.
   Peter was capable of sinning that is not the same as infallibility, he was perserved by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when preaching doctrine (Matt 16:18-19, Acts 15:7-11)

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

Those claims are full of error and misconceptions.

 

[kaycee]

Just a couple of things:

1. He certainly acted as a Pope - he was the chief speaker at Pentecost, and at the Council of the Apostles in Acts, he was the last and deciding speaker - his word carried the greatest weight. Not to mention that Christ himself set Peter apart for a special role, as

James presides and gives the final judgement.

 

[FCEGM]

James presides and gives the final judgement.

This excerpt from an article by Steve Ray published in Catholic Dictionary of Apologetics and Evangelism, Ignatius Press, addresses this:

“James’ pastoral summary at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) does not nullify Peter’s primacy. On the contrary, Peter delivered a binding pronouncement and defined doctrine. Only after Peter spoke did the debating assembly ‘keep silence’ (Acts 15:12). After Paul relates his experiences, James spoke, as the bishop of Jerusalem, to summarize, quoting Peter along with Scripture.”

 

[mercygate]

Actually, celibacy, although practiced by many priests early on, did not become a rule in the Western Catholic Church until the 11th century. Even today, exceptions are made. Eastern Catholic priests CAN be married, and some married protestant ministers have been allowed, in rare circumstances, to convert and become priests, even in the West. This is a discipline, meaning a kind of church rule, but it is not an unchangable rule. It was also not a rule for the early part of church history.

Celibacy was the rule very early on and one of the canons of the Council of Nicea mentions “continence” as requisite for priests who are married. The 11th century claim is the re-iteration of an established rule in response to abuses.

This “11th Century” is a little like the claim that nobody ever believed in the Assumption of Our Lady until 1950.

 

[BrianH]

This excerpt from an article by Steve Ray published in Catholic Dictionary of Apologetics and Evangelism, Ignatius Press, addresses this:

“James’ pastoral summary at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) does not nullify Peter’s primacy. On the contrary, Peter delivered a binding pronouncement and defined doctrine. Only after Peter spoke did the debating assembly ‘keep silence’ (Acts 15:12). After Paul relates his experiences, James spoke, as the bishop of Jerusalem, to summarize, quoting Peter along with Scripture.”

.
"12Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. "
They were silent to hear what Barnabas and Paul said.

 

[Church_Militant]

James presides and gives the final judgement.

In your fallible interpretation. but the context does not support that belief.

N-C Christians virtiually have to say this or they are forced to admit that they are doctrinal offspring of rebellious and disobedient men.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[mrs_abbott]

James presides and gives the final judgement.

When and for what?

 

[Sixtus]

. PETER WAS MARRIED.So too were many of the pastors of the early church and recently among converts who are already married.

1. PETER WOULD NOT ALLOW MEN TO BOW DOWN TO HIM. Men bow down before the pope,Oh no they don’t. They bow to the authority who appointed the Pope At the end of mass, we servers bow to the crucifix. We are not bowing to a piece of wood, we are bowing to what it represents

1. PETER DID NOT PLACE TRADITION ON A LEVEL WITH THE WORD OF GOD. The canon had not been established during his life time. Tradition is borne from history. There cannot be ‘tradition’ when somthing is new. That is a paradox. There lies a clue to the origin of this thread. It is a paradoxical challenge to the ‘Pillar of Truth’ to distract folk away from seeking the ‘Truth’! Would such a motive be of God when it is God that the Pillar of Truth seeks to serve?

1. PETER WAS NO POPE, FOR HE NEVER WORE A CROWN What Pope wears a crown?. Peter never acted, never dressed and the people did not approach him as a pope!

It was not customery in Peter’s day for Jews to wear a particular clothing of office. Today, lawyers, judges, policemen, soldiers, train-drivers, prison officers etc etc all wear a uniform of office.
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!!!What is your proof of this?
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? Not only Peter but Clement also. Why was he not greeted? See his letter to the Corinthians
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 erro

What has infallible got to do with not making mistakes? How many times has a pope spoken ex-cathedra in the last 100-years? Anwser: ONCE!!

 

[NotWorthy]

.
"12Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. "
They were silent to hear what Barnabas and Paul said.

Why did they give silence to listen to Barnabus and Paul???

Because Peter’s words had ended the debate.

 

[NotWorthy]

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).

** Then numerous popes could not have been popes, for the Church allowed married clergy for a long time.***
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)
*
** Numerous people have pointed out that there’s a difference between “bowing” and “bowing and worshipping”. Or else the Japanese would have a whole lot of 'splaining to do.***

1. 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.
2. 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!

** OK, if you are in a city where Christians were being crucified, would you walk around with a crown saying you are the earthly head of the Church.

Point 2, No Pope has ever called himself Universal Bishop of Bishops. Only Protestants have made this claim.***

1. 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!!!

Peter opened the Church up to Gentiles. Peter refused to put the chains of the Old Covenant around the Gentiles. Peter was in Rome "Greetings from Babylon…"

1. 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?

OK, if you are in a city where the Romans are persecuting Christians, would you broadcast that the head of the Christian Church is residing in this very same city??? Remember, the Roman way of wiping out troublesome religious sects was to cut off the head of the sect, and let the body just wither away. Peter would have been an ideal target.

1. 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.

No pope has made the claim to be infallible. But just like Peter, they have taught infallibly. While again, just like Peter, they have not always acted infallibly.

 

[Rolltide]

Celibacy was the rule very early on and one of the canons of the Council of Nicea mentions “continence” as requisite for priests who are married. The 11th century claim is the re-iteration of an established rule in response to abuses.

This “11th Century” is a little like the claim that nobody ever believed in the Assumption of Our Lady until 1950.

Sorry, how am I disagreeing with you? The rule requiring priestly celibacy originated in the 11th century as an eventual result of the Cluny Reform Movement. I absolutely acknowledge that celibacy was the norm for most priests even in the early church, especially after the time of St. Benedict. However, until the institution of that church law, it was technically permitted in the west.

 

[runandsew]

James presides and gives the final judgement.

Final Judgment?

Peter taught that we do not need to be circumcised to be Christians.
That is still binding

James said ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’"

I don’t know about you, but I have eaten steaks that are medium rare, with the juices flowing out of them.
We are no longer bound by the “Final Judgment” of James.

James was telling how to implement the ruling of Peter, in Churches where there was a large Jewish Christian population, so they wouldn’t be scandalized.

 

[puzzleannie]

IF 4. PETER WAS NO POPE, FOR HE NEVER WORE A CROWN.
janry

you forgot Peter never wore red shoes

 

[rciadan]

James presides and gives the final judgement.

It is not the Presider nor the final speaker at a council (or convention) who is the main attractiona and the “big cheese”. It is the keynote speaker. This was Peters’ role at the council. Peters’ was the most important oratory there…

 

[BrianH]

Why did they give silence to listen to Barnabus and Paul???

Because Peter’s words had ended the debate.

Well…thats not what it says though.

They got quiet after he spoke, they must have been pretty noisy WHEN he was talking…
Obviously the audience wanted hear Paul and not miss a word…