This is why Peter isnt the rock.Its christREAD

[exodus]

gardenswithkids:

In John 14 Jesus promised to send His Holy Spirit to guide the Church to all truths. If He sent it to us all individually to know all truths, then every Christian would agree on everything; but we don’t. Catholics believe it is the Holy Spirit that ultimately protects the Pope and the Church from teaching error.

Did you know that the Holy Spirit already did that? How do you think the writers of the New Testament were able to “infallibly” write down events(and which ones they were supposed to) years sometimes decades after something happened. Now we have Scripture that is complete, hence we have “all truth”.

Did you know the Catholic church put Galileo on trial for heresy for his scientific findings(that the earth revolves around the sun)…think the pope would have known better.

 

[adstrinity]

exodus:

Did you know that the Holy Spirit already did that? How do you think the writers of the New Testament were able to “infallibly” write down events(and which ones they were supposed to) years sometimes decades after something happened. Now we have Scripture that is complete, hence we have “all truth”.

Did you know the Catholic church put Galileo on trial for heresy for his scientific findings(that the earth revolves around the sun)…think the pope would have known better.

Show me the PROOF that Galileo had (not just his speculation).
Which Pope?

ALSO, I don’t think you understand what “infallible” means.

 

[exodus]

adstrinity:

Show me the PROOF that Galileo had (not just his speculation).
Which Pope?

ALSO, I don’t think you understand what “infallible” means.

In September 1632, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he arrived in January 1633. First the inquisitors tried to get Galileo to admit that he had earlier been officially banned from teaching Copernicus’ theory as true, but Galileo produced Bellarmine’s letter to contradict this. By then, both Bellarmine (1621) and Cesi (1630) were dead, and Galileo had few powerful patrons left to defend him. A plea bargain to plead guilty to a lesser charge was scuppered, however, when Urban VIII decided in June that Galileo should be imprisoned for life. Galileo was then interrogated under threat of torture, and made to abjure the ‘vehement suspicion of heresy’. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Galileo spent the rest of his life at his home at Arcetri, under house arrest with the archbishop of Siena. Pleas for pardons or for medical treatment were refused.

in·fal·li·ble (ĭn-făl**’**ə-bəl) http://www.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif
adj.

1. 
   *]Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
   *]Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
   *]Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.
   
   Anyone want to take a crack at those half a dozen or so references in the NT to prove there was no pope in the first century. That Peter never thought of himself with authority over other “fellow workers”, and even had to be corrected in his “infallible” doctrine by Paul. I’m curious why Paul(wrote half the NT) or James(son of Mary the mother of Jesus and head of the first NT church) are not claimed to be popes. The only verse that can be pointed to is Matt 16, its not even recorded in Mark, Luke, or John. Peter never mentions being pope, also doesn’t set out a theology of his authority in Acts where he is preaching the gospel to the Jews. Maybe Catholics see Matt 16 differently, but how can you reconcile that with the next 30 years of Peter’s life?

 

[kindlylight]

An example among many of Peter’s authority is where he settled the vexed question as to whether Gentile converts were to be circumcised by speaking against the practice at the Council of Jerusalem. Acts 15. (This was so deep an issue that Paul had Timothy circumcised, as an adult, to be more acceptable to the Hebrews). At the Council when Peter spoke “all the assembly kept silence” Acts 15:12… The Rock had spoken!!!
Seems CM has scared off seetiger, the Kepha Kepha argument has such force as to be unanswerable.
Great stuff.

 

[Ignatius]

exodus:

Did you know the Catholic church put Galileo on trial for heresy for his scientific findings(that the earth revolves around the sun.

Actually you are incorrect about this. Galileo was a devoute Catholic and was never a heretic.

 

[Ignatius]

exodus:

First the inquisitors tried to get Galileo to admit that he had earlier been officially banned from teaching Copernicus’ theory

Once again you are in error my friend. Nicholas Copernicus was a churchman, who first advanced the doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, “De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium”, was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished fellow churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the “mathematicians” (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side, although Luther and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms.

You had better check your sources.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[exodus]

kindlylight:

An example among many of Peter’s authority is where he settled the vexed question as to whether Gentile converts were to be circumcised by speaking against the practice at the Council of Jerusalem. Acts 15. (This was so deep an issue that Paul had Timothy circumcised, as an adult, to be more acceptable to the Hebrews). At the Council when Peter spoke “all the assembly kept silence” Acts 15:12… The Rock had spoken!!!
Seems CM has scared off seetiger, the Kepha Kepha argument has such force as to be unanswerable.
Great stuff.

7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Peter preaching faith alone and grace alone,
Hallelujah

The interpretation of Peter as the rock(even the Kepha defense) doesn’t hold water, nowhere in Scripture does Peter declare he is superior to any other believer(show me where???), that he is the vicar of Christ(one verse, i have mine that names the Holy Spirit by Christ Himself), that he ever went to rome(Paul was there and he never mentions Peter), that he was infallible in doctrine and morals(far from it…like we all are, thats why we need Scripture alone which never changes, like tradition). Christ never appointed a supreme office in his church, He is the foundation of the Church, the head, the Holy Spirit is the vicar in this world for Christ, not Peter. Peter preached the gospel in Acts 2, three thousand were saved that day. He was indeed a “fellow elder” as Peter himself says. The Bible never records anyone taking the place of the original apostles other than the place of Judas(who was a false apostle). Peter was not pope and had no “chair” to fill. He would point you to faith in Christ unseen in heaven, not a wafer in a golden monstrace. Peter is very different from the popes of today, but shouldn’t they be one in the same?(especially since the Catholic Church never changes on anything)

 

[Milliardo]

exodus:

The interpretation of Peter as the rock(even the Kepha defense) doesn’t hold water, nowhere in Scripture does Peter declare he is superior to any other believer(show me where???)

Why would Peter declare himself superior? Peter’s leadership, in the face of Jesus’ rebuke on them on who should be first, is one oout of humility, not arrogance. So Peter accepted this role of leadership in all of humility.

that he ever went to rome(Paul was there and he never mentions Peter)

Note that Acts left off with Paul awaiting sentencing; accounts have it that he was executed by beheading, the punishment that’s carried out to Roman citizens (recall that Paul pleaded to be tried as a Roman citizen). That’s nowhere in the Bible, but Protestants seem to not have a problem with that. Early Christian writers do confirm Peter’s presence in Rome.

that he was infallible in doctrine and morals(far from it…like we all are, thats why we need Scripture alone which never changes, like tradition)

Peter did preach, yes? So in that, as well as the other Apostles, they are infallible in what they taught. Realize as well that almost half of the Apostles never wrote anything; do you think they have any less authority or are in error then?

Christ never appointed a supreme office in his church, He is the foundation of the Church, the head, the Holy Spirit is the vicar in this world for Christ, not Peter.

When you’re done reading about the early Church Fathers, come back here and tell us all about Christ never appointing a supreme office.

 

[TNT]

Another TOUCH-AND-GO landing by an infallible Baptist pope.
48 posts and still he’s AWOL.
Ignorance is bliss ! And they insist on being blissful.

 

[exodus]

Milliardo:

Why would Peter declare himself superior? Peter’s leadership, in the face of Jesus’ rebuke on them on who should be first, is one oout of humility, not arrogance. So Peter accepted this role of leadership in all of humility.

Talk about concrete evidence, oh I’m sold. So now Peter is the humblest of them all ay? Make up your mind, I thought he was the foundation of the church, now he’s mother teresa. I have you talking out both sides of your mouth.

Milliardo:

Note that Acts left off with Paul awaiting sentencing; accounts have it that he was executed by beheading, the punishment that’s carried out to Roman citizens (recall that Paul pleaded to be tried as a Roman citizen). That’s nowhere in the Bible, but Protestants seem to not have a problem with that. Early Christian writers do confirm Peter’s presence in Rome.

Early church writers are not inspired Scripture. I asked for one verse to prove that Peter said he was pope, or that others thought he was the rock after Matt 16, instead I get revisionistic history lessons. This actually proves more of my point then before you even posted.

Milliardo:

Peter did preach, yes? So in that, as well as the other Apostles, they are infallible in what they taught. Realize as well that almost half of the Apostles never wrote anything; do you think they have any less authority or are in error then?

Peter preached to the Jews, but had to be corrected by Paul. Can you imagine one of the cardinals correcting ole Benedict the XVI?, I can’t. Peter was infallible when he was carried along by the Holy Spirit, as in I and II Peter, his confession of Christ. But he was indeed fallible when he denied Christ, rebuked the Lord that he was wrong about his death on the cross, thought that Gentiles should not be brought into the fold of God. None of what you’re posting about makes Peter pope. Even if for arguements sake(because there is no Scripture that makes Peter pope) you are correct, there is no where in Scripture in any interpretation that has Peter passing this “rock” to another.

Milliardo:

When you’re done reading about the early Church Fathers, come back here and tell us all about Christ never appointing a supreme office.

Still waiting on all the verses about Peter’s primacy since the NT had 30 years to record it. Christ said He was the head of the church, not Peter. He said the Holy Spirit would come after His ascention, not Peter. If Christ appointed Peter to anything it was as a shephard(feed my sheep) among many as equals. Peter himself says who the rock is, Jesus Christ.

I Peter 2

3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

If you think Peter was the first pope, why do you ignore his God-breathed writings?

 

[adstrinity]

exodus:

Talk about concrete evidence, oh I’m sold. So now Peter is the humblest of them all ay? Make up your mind, I thought he was the foundation of the church, now he’s mother teresa. I have you talking out both sides of your mouth.

Can you not BELIEVE that one cannot be strong yet humble? Is this an imposibility for you? The New Testament is FULL of people being this way!!! Mary: The Handmaid of the Lord, but, ALWAYS GIVING ALL GLORY AND HONOUR TO GOD. Paul: A loudmouth who preached about being good, yet being meek. Jesus Himself, we know, didn’t utter a word against Him when he was being accused. Have you seen JPII? Did he not stand up for what is right w/o being proud?!! You act like it’s impossible for Peter to be both Pope yet humble. I know of very few popes in history who AREN’T like this.

Early church writers are not inspired Scripture. I asked for one verse to prove that Peter said he was pope, or that others thought he was the rock after Matt 16, instead I get revisionistic history lessons. This actually proves more of my point then before you even posted.

Revisionistic?!!! How is what was originally written “revisionistic”? We have already given you inspired Scripture, and yet, you do not see it as we see it. What good will this do for either of us?

Peter preached to the Jews, but had to be corrected by Paul. Can you imagine one of the cardinals correcting ole Benedict the XVI?, I can’t. Peter was infallible when he was carried along by the Holy Spirit, as in I and II Peter, his confession of Christ. But he was indeed fallible when he denied Christ, rebuked the Lord that he was wrong about his death on the cross, thought that Gentiles should not be brought into the fold of God. None of what you’re posting about makes Peter pope. Even if for arguements sake(because there is no Scripture that makes Peter pope) you are correct, there is no where in Scripture in any interpretation that has Peter passing this “rock” to another.

YES!!! Yes I can imagine one of the cardinals correcting Pope Bennedict!!! I could also imagine a priest, or even a lay person doing it!! I don’t know WHY you Protestants think the Pope is perfect…you give him much more credibility than us Catholics when you say things like this!! Peter was infallible when he was stating a truth of the Church. Now, Peter wasn’t speaking on behalf of the Church with those things, was he? No. He was speaking on behalf of Peter, who was actually, (and, St. Peter, I’ll pray to you that you will forgive me, I am sorry, but, to make this man see, which I shall also pray that you pray to God about, it must be said…Pray for me, St. Peter), a bit of a dufus…AND THAT SHOULD PROVE THAT HE WAS POPE!!! LOOK AT, by your own admittence, what a fallen HUMAN Peter was!! He was probably the LEAST leader-worthy of all of the Disciples!!! YET, IT IS BECAUSE OF HIM THE CHURCH WAS ABLE TO REMAIN AS IS THOSE FORMATIVE FIRST YEARS!!! Why? Because Jesus said Himself the least shall be first & the first shall be least. Peter was, all in all, the LEAST of them all, Jesus was working another miracle by appointing THIS mess up, ABOVE ALL THE OTHERS to LEAD HIS CHURCH. If it wasn’t blessed by God, it wouldn’t have happened. And, you’re right, there is no Scripture that makes Peter Pope…it is The Word, Himself that appointed Peter to be the first Pope.

 

[adstrinity]

Still waiting on all the verses about Peter’s primacy since the NT had 30 years to record it. Christ said He was the head of the church, not Peter. He said the Holy Spirit would come after His ascention, not Peter. If Christ appointed Peter to anything it was as a shephard(feed my sheep) among many as equals. Peter himself says who the rock is, Jesus Christ.

He asked Peter three times. Why Peter & ONLY Peter? Did he not believe Peter? What did He want out of Peter that was so special? Why is this recorded?

Also, for the following post: Footnote 5

5 [9-10] The prerogatives of ancient Israel mentioned here are now more fully and fittingly applied to the Christian people: “a chosen race” (cf Isaiah 43:20-21) indicates their divine election (Eph 1:4-6); “a royal priesthood” (cf Exodus 19:6) to serve and worship God in Christ, thus continuing the priestly functions of his life, passion, and resurrection; “a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6) reserved for God, a people he claims for his own (cf Malachi 3:17) in virtue of their baptism into his death and resurrection. This transcends all natural and national divisions and unites the people into one community to glorify the one who led them from the darkness of paganism to the light of faith in Christ. From being “no people” deprived of all mercy, they have become the very people of God, the chosen recipients of his mercy (cf Hosea 1:9; 2:23).

 

[adstrinity]

I Peter 2

3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

If you think Peter was the first pope, why do you ignore his God-breathed writings?

Wow. I was worried, there, about this, because, it looked like it supported what you were saying…but, then, I read the words inbetween the bolded letters. I guess, if one takes things out of context, they would support a view like yours, but, let’s review…

First off, in NAB:
3 for you have tasted that the Lord is good. 2 4 Come to him, a living stone, 3 rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God, 5 and, like living stones, let yourselves be built 4 into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it says in scripture: “Behold, I am laying a stone in Zion, a cornerstone, chosen and precious, and whoever believes in it shall not be put to shame.” 7 Therefore, its value is for you who have faith, but for those without faith: “The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” 8 and “A stone that will make people stumble, and a rock that will make them fall.” They stumble by disobeying the word, as is their destiny. 9 5 But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises” of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were “no people” but now you are God’s people; you “had not received mercy” but now you have received mercy. Footnotes are as follows:

2 [3] Tasted that the Lord is good: cf Psalm 34:8.

3 [4-8] Christ is the cornerstone (cf Isaiah 28:16) that is the foundation of the spiritual edifice of the Christian community (1 Peter 2:5). To unbelievers, Christ is an obstacle and a stumbling block on which they are destined to fall (1 Peter 2:8); cf Romans 11:11.

4 [5] Let yourselves be built: the form of the Greek word could also be indicative passive, “you are being built” (cf 2 Peter 2:9).

 

[Milliardo]

exodus:

Talk about concrete evidence, oh I’m sold. So now Peter is the humblest of them all ay? Make up your mind, I thought he was the foundation of the church, now he’s mother teresa. I have you talking out both sides of your mouth.

Being a leader doesn’t have to mean being arrogant. Was Jesus arrogant? Yet He led men. He was the foundation, the overall foundation. Was He arrogant? So Peter merely took up what Jesus showed and humbled himself as the Lord did.

Early church writers are not inspired Scripture.

Early Christians would beg to disagree.

Peter preached to the Jews, but had to be corrected by Paul. Can you imagine one of the cardinals correcting ole Benedict the XVI?

Yes, I could: the Pope has a confessor himself. So the Pope is not far above reproach, as non-Catholics tend to believe.

I can’t. Peter was infallible when he was carried along by the Holy Spirit, as in I and II Peter, his confession of Christ. But he was indeed fallible when he denied Christ, rebuked the Lord that he was wrong about his death on the cross, thought that Gentiles should not be brought into the fold of God.

The Lord also gave Peter the 3-fold counter to his denial in John 21:15-19 (incidentally, the Gospel narrative of Pope Benedict XVI’s Mass today).

None of what you’re posting about makes Peter pope. Even if for arguements sake(because there is no Scripture that makes Peter pope) you are correct, there is no where in Scripture in any interpretation that has Peter passing this “rock” to another.

As stated, the New Testament left off with Paul awaiting trial in Rome; nowhere does it state either that Paul was beheaded in the Bible, yet Protestants don’t seem to have any problem with that. Are everything in the Bible? No. Certainly not the history of the early Church after Paul’s sentencing. Nor are there narratives as well of the other Apostles?

Still waiting on all the verses about Peter’s primacy since the NT had 30 years to record it.

See my post above.

Christ said He was the head of the church, not Peter. He said the Holy Spirit would come after His ascention, not Peter.

Yes, the Holy Spirit would guide His Church after His ascension; did that make the Apostles’ missionary work unnecessary? No, of course not. The Holy Spirit guides the Church, but the proclamation and the governance was still by men.

If you think Peter was the first pope, why do you ignore his God-breathed writings?

Let me ask that question back: why do you as well ignore Jesus’ words?

 

[eleusis]

My fellow Catholics,
I have had to handle a hardened evangelical protestant at work for the last year. We have gone round and round for the entire time. They don’t care about history because they believe that the Catholics, with Constantine and the other Emperors help, rewrote history to our benefit and so cannot be trusted. They really and deeply believe that when Jesus began his Church only a remanent survived to suddenly burst forth on the scene during or after the protestant reformation and that the Catholics were a sect of pagans created by the devil to fool the faithful. The hardened ones believe this. So please, present the truth and move on, don’t do what I did and spend nights and weekends pouring over books and magazines to be able to properly present Catholic views to a supposedly inquisitive mind because few care. All they care to do is feed their ego by engaging in non-productive arguments that only serve to wound the Church further. They sit with their little anti-catholic bible tracts and refute any and every argument and feel satisfied they are doing the work of God. Let them go.

 

[RyanL]

exodus:

Early church writers are not inspired Scripture. I asked for one verse to prove that Peter said he was pope, or that others thought he was the rock after Matt 16, instead I get revisionistic history lessons. This actually proves more of my point then before you even posted.

You’re right, the Early Church Fathers (ECF) are not writing scripture. Keep in mind, however, that it’s these same people on whom you rely to have recognized ACTUAL scripture for what it was, and compiled it as our Bible. Without these same people, you would not have a Bible. Do you agree? If so, you might want to listen to what they have to say. If not, please explain WHO exactly compiled scriptures into a Bible (and don’t cop out by saying “The Holy Spirit” - we acknowledge His work in this, but we also acknowledge that the Bible wasn’t handed down from heaven’ MEN were involved).

exodus:

Still waiting on all the verses about Peter’s primacy since the NT had 30 years to record it. Christ said He was the head of the church, not Peter. He said the Holy Spirit would come after His ascention, not Peter. If Christ appointed Peter to anything it was as a shephard(feed my sheep) among many as equals. Peter himself says who the rock is, Jesus Christ.

You acknowledge, I assume, that Peter was not the first called to be an Apostle - it was his brother Andrew, who went and brought Peter to Christ. Yet, in all of the lists of Apostles, Peter comes first (and Judas last - for obvious reasons which again have nothing to do with chronology). In fact, Peter is mentioned ~190 times in the NT (as Simon, Peter, or Cephas). The next most mentioned Apostle is John (the Apostle who Christ loved), at ~40 times. Why? You have to answer this if you would deny the Petrine Primacy. Why would John wait at Jesus’ tomb for Peter to get there before he would go in? Why, in Acts 15, would everyone shut up when Peter speaks? Why, in Acts 15, would James say “THEREFORE” it is his judgement? When reading scripture, if you see a “therefore”, you have to ask what it’s there for. “Therefore” means “because of what was just said”. What was just said? Peter just infallibly pronounced something on a matter of faith and morals, which is never contradicted throughout the rest of scripture. What happens to James’ pronouncements? Contradicted by Paul, with no hesitation. Peter was at the helm.

Who walked on water? Christ, of course, but Peter as well. Anyone else? Nope. When Peter started to sink, did Christ let him? Nope. Who paid tax for Christ? Peter, who paid one shekel for the both of them. Who miraculously caught 153 fish, and was told to become a fisher of men? Peter. Who was empowered with superhuman strength to pull them ashore (which you’ll realize WAS superhuman if you’ve ever held up a stringer of even 10 fish)? Peter. Who receives enlightenment FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT to proclaim Christ the Son of God? Peter. Any reason to suspect the Holy Spirit couldn’t do it again? Nope. Who’s boat does Jesus get into to preach? Peter’s. Who, besides Christ, Moses, and Elija, speaks at the Transfiguration? Peter. Who does Jesus tell to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep,”? Peter. Anyone else? Nope. Who entered the upper room first after the ascention? Peter. Who declares the first anathemas in Acts 5? Peter. Who’s shadow has the power to heal, something not recorded for anyone else in scripture? Peter.

Do you see a trend? Do I need to go on? I ask that you prayerfully reflect on these truths and ask why, exactly, it is that you despise authority.

May the Holy Spirit guide you in your pursuit of truth.

RyanL

 

[exodus]

Being a leader doesn’t have to mean being arrogant. Was Jesus arrogant? Yet He led men. He was the foundation, the overall foundation. Was He arrogant? So Peter merely took up what Jesus showed and humbled himself as the Lord did.

You still have not produced one verse to say that Peter or anyone else thought he was pope, supreme pontiff, etc.

Early Christians would beg to disagree.

Are you saying Church writers thought their writings were “God-breated”? They are long dead, you disagree, they accepted the Scripture and did not add to it. Hence the warning in Rev 22. I can have the same debate with charasmatics, if it is inspired writings why not write it into one volume as the true Holy Scritpures, and complete the Word of God.

Yes, I could: the Pope has a confessor himself. So the Pope is not far above reproach, as non-Catholics tend to believe.

The Lord also gave Peter the 3-fold counter to his denial in John 21:15-19 (incidentally, the Gospel narrative of Pope Benedict XVI’s Mass today).

Peter did deny Christ, and Christ gave him the opportunity to be restored. Not to hajack the thread, but wouldn’t this be a good proof text for “once saved always saved”. I don’t see Jesus saying Peter is in danger of hell after denying him, or that Peter is saved again.

You are the first one I’ve seen to post this. Wouldn’t the supreme pontiff go straight to God for confession? Are you saying the “keys” work on everyone else but himself???

As stated, the New Testament left off with Paul awaiting trial in Rome; nowhere does it state either that Paul was beheaded in the Bible, yet Protestants don’t seem to have any problem with that. Are everything in the Bible? No. Certainly not the history of the early Church after Paul’s sentencing. Nor are there narratives as well of the other Apostles?

There is historical tradition of the deaths but the Bible does not record it. If Jesus made Peter the “rock” and intended it to be passed on, surely the Bible would have recorded that little detail in detail(pun intended, but seriously). John was alive until the late 90’s of the first century yet he writes nothing about or to Peter or a successor to Peter. The best source of authority for the Catholic church is strangely quiet.

See my post above

Ok, see my post above as well, that was easy.Don’t see any verses still, is that because there are none?

Yes, the Holy Spirit would guide His Church after His ascension; did that make the Apostles’ missionary work unnecessary? No, of course not. The Holy Spirit guides the Church, but the proclamation and the governance was still by men.

The Holy Spirit specifically guided the NT writers into writing down what was “God-breathed” into “all truth”. After Revelation was finished, the truth was complete. If you don’t think so, why not add all the “inspired” writings to the Word of God?

Let me ask that question back: why do you as well ignore Jesus’ words?

Since you didn’t give any Scripture reference, I must only assume you mean your one and only proof text of Peter’s primacy…Matt 16. Let’s read it shall we…

Cont.

 

[exodus]

Matthew 16:13-20

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealedit unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven…removed because post is too long… 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

The whole passage is not about giving Peter authority, its about Jesus being revealed as Christ. Hence Jesus says Peter is blessed because the Father has revealed his confession that

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God

Then Jesus tells them at the end of the passage not to tell anyone that Peter is pope??? Nope, not to tell that he was Jesus the Christ.

The apostles were great men of God, but they(the ten) still had indignation when they had the idea that one(or two) of them would be over them…notice this is when Peter is supposed to already be “rock”, chief of the apostles, etc. Yet they get mad, not because Peter is already pope, but because the other two wanted to be first. The Lord tells them “it shall not be so among you”. Poof, no more pontiff.

Matthew 20:24-28

24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. 25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great** exercise authority upon** them.

26But it shall not be so among*** you***: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;27And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:28Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

 

[exodus]

eleusis:

My fellow Catholics,
I have had to handle a hardened evangelical protestant at work for the last year. We have gone round and round for the entire time. They don’t care about history because they believe that the Catholics, with Constantine and the other Emperors help, rewrote history to our benefit and so cannot be trusted. They really and deeply believe that when Jesus began his Church only a remanent survived to suddenly burst forth on the scene during or after the protestant reformation and that the Catholics were a sect of pagans created by the devil to fool the faithful. The hardened ones believe this. So please, present the truth and move on, don’t do what I did and spend nights and weekends pouring over books and magazines to be able to properly present Catholic views to a supposedly inquisitive mind because few care. All they care to do is feed their ego by engaging in non-productive arguments that only serve to wound the Church further. They sit with their little anti-catholic bible tracts and refute any and every argument and feel satisfied they are doing the work of God. Let them go.

Got it wrong my friend, we believe the church will always withstand the gates of hell, and didn’t suddenly pop out in the 1600’s. We believe that the “church” just like the greek word, means “called out”. The church is the body of Christ(not the church of Christ denomination), its invisible, not visible. Christ has always been the head, and he doesn’t share that There were always faithful believers of the church Christ founded, even when they were being persecuted for their faith in Christ. The roman church began in and around 325AD and has been changing(departing from the faith) ever since. I know you will disagree, but just think about the things that have changed in the last 200 years(assumption of Mary, immaculate conception, before 1965(Vatican II) all non-Catholics go to hell, papal infallibility started in 1870AD, 1996 Catholics can believe in evolution(John Paul II), etc(there’s more I just have no time).

 

[mtr01]

exodus:

Matthew 16:13-20

…removed because post is too long…

Now that is funny.

What was conveniently removed?

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

pesky little detail, huh?

exodus:

The whole passage is not about giving Peter authority, its about Jesus being revealed as Christ. Hence Jesus says Peter is blessed because the Father has revealed his confession that

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God

Then Jesus tells them at the end of the passage not to tell anyone that Peter is pope??? Nope, not to tell that he was Jesus the Christ.

Yes, but in the meantime, Christ says He’s going to build his Church on Peter, gives him the keys to the kingdom of heave, and the power to bind and loose. Pesky details again…

exodus:

The apostles were great men of God, but they(the ten) still had indignation when they had the idea that one(or two) of them would be over them…notice this is when Peter is supposed to already be “rock”, chief of the apostles, etc. Yet they get mad, not because Peter is already pope, but because the other two wanted to be first. The Lord tells them “it shall not be so among you”. Poof, no more pontiff.

Nope, it just says that the chief among them will be their servant, as is stated in the Bible verse you quote below. Christ never says “there will be no chief among you”. Poof, there goes your argument.

Matthew 20

:24-28

24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. 25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great** exercise authority upon** them.

26But it shall not be so among*** you***: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;27And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:28Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

That’s why one of the Pope’s titles is “The Servant of the Servants of Christ”