Peter was not a pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sirach14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That article really makes no sense to me. First of all, it assumes that papal claims hinge on that one passage from Scripture - they do not.

Secondly, to make the absurd claim that Paul was a pope too because he used the same verb as our Lord is also ridiculous. The author clearly is unable to make the distinction between a command from God himself, and Paul’s hoping that he could spiritually benefit the Romans.

This is just another example of ripping a few verses out of the context of the entire Gospel, and twisting it so say “it can’t possibly mean what they say it means.” On their own, the verses from Luke do not “prove” a special mission for Peter. Combined with being the Rock upon which the Church will be built, receiving the keys of the kingdom, and the exclusive command to feed our Lord’s sheep…well now we get a whole different picture.
 
I suppose Joseph Mizzi is somebodies Pope for sure, since some people may declare his interpretation in articles infallible!
 
**The article is off track! **

Satan gives everyone of us temptations. St. Peter was not an exception.

With reference to Luke 22:15-20 Jesus had instituted the Eucaristic meal. Then in vers 21 Jesus tells that one of them will betray him (Judas as we know). After that there is a debate between the diciples about witch one of them that will be the greatest in Heaven. In verse 26 Jesus tells them: “rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves.” In the Cartholic Church, the pope as a leader also is one who serves (follows Jesus example, because he served us). In vers 31 Jesus says: “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, 32but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Jesus ask Peter to strengthen the others after they all have been tempted (I can’t see how Peters mission to strengten the others after they all have been tempted, diqualifies him as a future-pope).

What is interstening is that Peter thinks that he himself will be able to say no to the temptation.

The lesson is that we all need Gods grace to be able to even draw our breath. Peter hasn’t understood that, yet, in the reffered text. (Even popes need to grow in their relationship to God)!

But he will soon understand: After he has betrayed Jesus thee times, Jesus asks him three questions after his resurrection (John 21):
  1. ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?’
  2. ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’
  3. ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’
Simon Peter answerd every question with a clear YES! The last time he even says:"Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ This time Peter as accsepted that Jesus knows better than him. He is very humble! Jesus shows that there is hope and that the betrayal is forgiven. Jesus answers to Peters three YES is:
  1. ‘Feed my lambs.’
  2. ‘Tend my sheep.’
  3. ‘Feed my sheep.’
That is precisely what a pope do: He leads and feeds Jesu flock (sheep)!!!

The drawback of the author of the article “Peter was not a Pope” of Sunday, March 27, 2005 in the SUNDAY + TIMES (Malta), has demonstrated bad knowlege in Catholisism and bad knowlege in that not everything is reported in all the four gospels… He needs more training!

His comparison of St. Peter and St. Paul is stupid! St. Paul was called later for other reasons.

(I have used an NRSV online Bible as a source).
 
This article is extremely weak, and just plain lame. It bases everything on one little piece of Scripture, whereas Peter the rock upon whom Jesus chose to build His Church is shown to be Pope in other passages as well. The author also seems to have a misconception about infallibility, as if it makes a human being super human or perfect, or sinless. it does not. Jesus obviously saw something in Peter that would make him the right leader for His Church at that time in History.
 
40.png
laadan:
And the claims to papacy are read into every setting in which Peter’s name appears.
Click to expand...
Tradition came before Scripture so Scripture should be read in light of it. Anyway, you may personally not interpret those passages that way, but what makes your personal interpretation infallible?
 
First century Jews had no concept of the pope as we know of it today, but they did understand that one of those selected by Jesus was first among them… They knew that Jesus was the Son of David and they knew that Peter was entrusted with his keys, the OT allusion to a type of Prime Minister from the royal court is unmistakable. To suggest that Peter was not the head of this new thing that followed the way of the resurrected Jesus is unsustainable based on scripture or history and is quite frankly iniquitous.

God Bless
 
Fidei Defensor:
The logic of the argument is terrible. Simply terrible.
Click to expand...
I’ll second the thought. The conclusion didn’t follow the whole rest of the article, and as several have mentioned, the passage ascribed is generally not a proof text for Peter as the first Pope. :hmmm: Thanks and God Bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top