why st peter ?

[michael777]

As I have said before, when one resorts to name-calling in gentlemanly debate, one has lost the argument.

What i have said i ve said in regards to isreal

In regards to the pope being heretical in his teaching on islam and the christ and his body and who they worship.
that is fact not name calling

 

[vern_humphrey]

michael777:

What i have said i ve said in regards to isreal

Who writes your material for you, Pontus Pilate?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

I

michael777:

n regards to the pope being heretical in his teaching on islam and the christ and his body and who they worship.
that is fact not name calling

Calling names, stamping your foot like a little boy saying “I am SO right” and running away from a straightforward question – yeah, you’ve lost.

 

[SusanL]

michael777:

No, it’s to give you a chance to prove that you aren’t an anti-Catholic bigot. You said the Pope was a heretic and a false teacher because he accepts that Muslims worship the same God we worship.

he is

I feel badly for you. Jews and Muslims do worship the same God albeit differently. Why will you not admit that?

The Pope is not a heretic or a false teacher. He is telling the truth.

If you want to start another thread about Jews becoming Christian before the Second Coming, then we can talk there.

If you want to start another thread about why you think Muslims have to believe in Jesus first then we can talk there, too.
It would be interesting.

However; they are monotheistic. One God. They just need to come the rest of the way.

 

[Church_Militant]

michael777:

Is this to make some kind of anti semite point?
if so i wont bother answering

Valid question kid… answer it.
Do the Jews worship the same God that we do? In spite of the fact that they do not use the same names for Him that we do. Orthox Jews will not even write God…they write G-d and most simply call Him HaShem. Same God?

 

[CARose]

Hi Michael777,

Welcome to the CA Forums. I see you disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the Primacy of Peter. Being a devout Catholic and lover of scripture, I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Perhaps I can assist in shedding light, but information only helps those who care to see the light.

You claim the following (if I’ve correctly excerpted that which was your response from the post above).

michael777:

Peter was indded teaching others that they couldnt eat with gentiles and was rebuked because he was wrong, and so in peters case what you wrote above certainly was the case.

I don’t claim to be an expert, and I don’t recall where this story is located in scripture or I’d look it up and quote it for you directly, but I recall the story differently.

Didn’t the story go that Peter, while teaching that followers of Christ could eat with Gentiles (unlike the Jew’s before them who were required to be segregated from the Gentiles), Peter himself was not living the example of what he was teaching.

While I know that someone above has already rebuked allowing the thread to confuse Primacy and Infallibility, I think that the two are closely enough related and this thread specific enough to allow a quick clarification of this point. Infallibility means that the Pope is protected by a special Charism which prevents him from teaching incorrectly in matters of Faith and Morals. It is not the same as his not sinning, or living contrary to even his own teachings. It merely prevents him from teaching falsely.

Christ even spoke of the Pharasee’s that we should do as they say, not as they do. Fortunately, we’ve been blessed for a period of time with good and Holy Pope’s who do their best to live the example they preach. Unfortunately, at around the time of the Protestant schism from the Church, the Pope and many in the hierarchy of the Church were not living the example of Christ’s life as they were meant to do. This did not negate their position of authority, or their teachings. What’s amazing though, is that over the course of 2000 years, the popes have never taught contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and only a very few (approximately 3) have lived lives significantly out of alignment with their role as “Servant of the Servants of God”.

This is the action, not of a human organization, but rather the Mystical Body of Christ, against which the gates of Hell have not prevailed, nor will they ever. The Pope does not make up doctrine or Dogma, rather he clarifies that which was Divinely revealed by Christ himself, and which has been a part of the repository of faith from that time forward. Scripture grew from the deposit of Faith retained in our traditions, for the church survived all those years listed in the Acts of the Apostles, without New Testatment Sacred Scripture. But the information was there, held carefully for all future generations in our Sacred Tradition.

When it came time to define that scripture or any other questions regarding that which Christ taught, such as the Trinity, the Pope or his legate attended the council and the council finding were sent to the Pope for final acknowledgement and authority. The Trinity, while not specifically stated in scripture, was true from before Christ taught it to his disciples.

I hope this helps in some small way.

Christ be with you,

CARose

 

[jimmy]

michael777:

Yes, it was. In the Greek, which is the original language of the NT, they have different words for the singular and plural words. For example, the pronoun “you”, is “su” in the singular and “umeis” in the plural. They can not be confused. In the passage where Christ gives the keys to Peter, he uses the singular pronoun “su”.

The kingdom is Christ’s, but Christ gave authority to Peter to teach of the truth of Him and the Father and the Spirit.

That isnt a specail authority given to peter alone.

Peter could proclaim the truth without contradiction from others. He taught from the authority of God. They all agreed with Peter, like at Jerusalem in Acts 15 or in Acts 1.

michael777:

To bind and to loose is to say that Peter had the authority to say, “this is truth, and this is not truth.” What he bound was already truth, nut he was given the ability to proclaim it with authority so that everyone knew it was truth.

Niether is that a special authority given to peter alone

Yes that is a very special authority. They could all teach that Jesus was the Son of God, but when there was a tough decision it was for Peter to make.

michael777:

What Peter taught could not be contradicted because it was the truth that was from heaven.

Well usually if a mans teahing is from heaven this would be the case, but i cant think of another example except in the case of peter where the opposite actually happened.
Peter was indded teaching others that they couldnt eat with gentiles and was rebuked because he was wrong, and so in peters case what you wrote above certainly was the case.

That is false, Peter did not teach that they should not eat with gentiles. Peter sinned by being weak and being afraid to eat with the gentiles. As it says in Galatians 2, Peter would eat with the gentiles, but when James and other men would come, he would refuse to eat with the gentiles. It is not a matter of him teaching error, it is a matter of him being afraid to teach the truth and sinning. Peter taught nothing false, he just failed to teach at that time.

One example of what Peter bound was at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, it was him who said that the gentiles did not need to be circumcised. Another is when he decided that they should choose a successor to Judas in Acts 1.

That was decided not by peter alone. So he was part of that decision but didnt have final say. It was An agreed decision
no man is an island infact if you see what God was doing in the chrust he was making it clear every part of the body had an imput and must play its part
no lone rangers here.

The decision was made by Peter, the others agreed with Peter. No, not every person plays a part in the vote. Paul and the gentiles did not play a part in the vote. They came to Peter to see what Peter said. The other apostles simply agreed with Peter.

Not that what he taught was exclusive, but he had the authority to say this is what we teach and this is what we do not teach.

yes not exclusive exactly so jesus confered on him what he confered on all who believed in him
excatly my point.

No, what was conferred on Peter was exclusive to Peter. The Greek of Matt.16 can only be interpreted as referring to Peter alone because it uses singular words repeatedly. The same with John 21 where Christ says “feed my sheep”. It is not the teachings that are exclusive though, it is the authority.

They could all teach the truth, but it was up to Peter to make the difficult decisions.

first part correct second part ludicrous.

There is nothing ludicrous about it.

 

[Tom]

Hey folks, Michael isn’t here any more. He’s been sent to “time out”. i know we’ll all miss his indepth answers. pray for him please.

 

[vern_humphrey]

SusanL:

I feel badly for you. Jews and Muslims do worship the same God albeit differently. Why will you not admit that?

However; they are monotheistic. One God. They just need to come the rest of the way.

Of course. They say they worship the God of Abraham.

And, as I pointed out (giving Michael the willies in the process), the objections to saying the Muslims worship the same God we worship also pretain to the Jews – and Michael didn’t dare apply those critera to them.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Church_Militant]

michael777:

As I have said before, when one resorts to name-calling in gentlemanly debate, one has lost the argument.

What i have said i ve said in regards to isreal

In regards to the pope being heretical in his teaching on islam and the christ and his body and who they worship.
that is fact not name calling

Yep…that’s the way they see it in China and Japan especially. It’s considered a shameful loss of face.

BTW Mikey777 it’s I-s-r-a-e-l. look it up in your Bible.
If the Jews worship the same God we do…and the Moslems readily tell you that we are all “people of the book” and that they worship the God of the Jews…then clearly all of us worship the same diety…and you are then wrong to call His Holiness John Paul II a heretic. Simple as that.

 

[MariaG]

Darn it Michael, I told you what would happen if you could not stop insulting people as well as document your arguments.

I will still post this in hopes that you or others will read it.

Oik
for a start man is not in charge of the kingdom.

But I provided Scripture that shows that Christ appointed a man to be in charge after Jesus was to leave this earth. When a person receives the keys of authority, everyone knows that it does not mean that, in this case, Peter, becomes God. Nor does it mean Peter will rule when Christ returns. It does not mean that in heaven, Peter is ruling over Christ. But giving someone the keys, biblically and historically means that the authority is being given over until the other returns.

Also keys unlock things

Keys may unlock things, but you can’t ignore a biblical interpretation of what keys mean just because it does not fit your beliefs. Keys = Authority. Where in the Bible does Jesus tell us that is not what He meant?

As others have already pointed out the verses John 21:15-19. In this Jesus once again is speaking only to Peter. While he may be restoring Peter’s apostleship from his 3 time denial, Jesus also gives Peter 3 different directives. This is from my NKJV, a Max Lucado study Bible. It is a Protestant Bible.

Verse 15 …“Feed My lambs.”

Verse 16…“Tend My sheep.”

Verse 17…“Feed My Sheep.”

It is not just one Feed my lambs although some translations say that, it is feed my lambs. Lambs are people like you and me. Tend my sheep. Sheep take care of the lambs. Sheep are the Pastors. And then feed the sheep. Before, Christ told Peter was Rock. God is the only other person ever referred to as rock. Here, Christ is making Peter the shepherd. Christ is referred to as the shepherd. Christ is clearly singling out Peter for the one “in charge” when Christ leaves the earth.

Which is simlar to what jesus said to his followers and the many in the crwod WHO LISTENED AND RECIEVED WHAT HE WAS SAYING
WHEN HE SAID to you the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given.

It is similar but it is not the same. You are trying to impose your beliefs and change scripture because you don’t wish to believe in the primacy of Peter.

As to authority yes the keys mean authority but peter had no greater authority where the kingdom of heaven was concerned
for anyone who had faith could ask and be given anything in line with Gods will.

But that is not what Scripture says. It clearly only gave the keys to Peter. I certainly can ask in faith and receive, but Scripture doesn’t say Maria on this Maria I will build my church, here are the keys. It says Peter and only Peter. This is something different and special.

And now for another more obvious reason

what actually is the kingdom of heaven?

the answer is this.

it is peace joy and rightiousness in the Holy Spirit.

was peter more rightious
was peter more joyous?
did peter have more peace?

Christ did not say He was giving Peter the Kingdom of Heaven. He said He was giving Peter the Keys to the kingdom of Heaven. He was giving Peter the authority (which is what the keys symbolize).

And with your last lines, you once again are blurring primacy with infallibility. (You do not understand infallibility either.) Whether or not Peter was more righteous or not does not mean Christ did not give Peter the keys, the authority. Whether or not Peter was more joyous or had more peace does not mean Christ did not give Peter the Keys.

Maybe they will let you back. Actually read what the Scripture says Michael, not what you want it to say.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[bjcros]

vern humphrey:

First of all, you’re wrong in your interpretation. Peter had his commission from Jesus. He passed it on to his successor. At the time of his martyrdom, Peter was Bishop of Rome, and his chosen successor was Linus.

There is no requirement that Peter be “first” in Rome – only that he BE Peter. Since he WAS in Rome, and serving as Bishop of Rome, his successor ascends to his seat, and the dignity thereof.

First of all I am asking questions that I am struggling with in hopes of answers, I would rather receive Biblical answers than what church tradition says.

With that said, I do not think I’m wrong in my interpretation. I think the Pope claims that b/c Peter founded the Roman church he passed his commission down to the Popes? Jesus didn’t say that Peter’s power was passed down through the ages. The Pope isn’t a descendent of Peter. Does the Bible say that Peter passes down the keys to heaven which the Pope claims to have? There is zero scriptual evidence to support the Pope’s power, and that is why I don’t think he has any more power than anyone else in the church. The Pope had tremendous seculair power b/c of the claim to hold the keys to heaven, and he held it over many leaders and used it for his own agenda. The Popes have been evil throughout history. I’m not saying that this Pope is evil, but many Popes were evil. There are no new revelations so, why do catholics hold that what the Pope says is true?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

mercygate:

Move over. The Cavalry has arrived! Itsjustdave1988: “terrible as an army with banners!”

Man! how does he do that?

Thank you mercygate. I’m an army brat with 16 years in the Air Force … I can be nothing else BUT Catholic. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[itsjustdave1988]

did jesus say he would build his church on peter?

Yes.

was this because peter was first to believe in jesus?

We dont’ know why God chose Peter. But I, like others have said, like God’s choice in Peter because he mades mistakes, just like me.

 

[jimmy]

bjcros:

I do not think I’m wrong in my interpretation. Is the Pope’s claim that b/c Peter founded the Roman church he passed his commission down to the Popes? Jesus didn’t say that Peter’s power was passed down through the ages. The Pope isn’t even by blood or birthright so he isn’t even a descendent of Peter. Where in the Bible does it say that Peter passes down the keys to heaven which the Pope claims to have? There is zero scriptual evidence to support the Pope’s power, and that is why I don’t think he has any more power than anyone else in the church. The Pope had tremendous seculair power b/c of the claim to hold the keys to heaven, and he held it over many leaders and used it for his own agenda. The Popes have been evil throughout history. I’m not saying that this Pope is evil, but many Popes were evil. There are no new revelations so, why do catholics hold that what the Pope says is true?

You portray it as if most popes have been evil. That is false, there have been some evil popes, but that is a small minority.

 

[Mickey]

jimmy:

You portray it as if most popes have been evil. That is false, there have been some evil popes, but that is a small minority.

Notice also that even during the reign of the bad popes–church doctrine did not change. Doctrine does not sin–mankind does. The gates of hell shall not prevail. Jesus started the Catholic Church and it will be waiting for Him when he returns! After all, the Catholic Church is His bride!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If you are referring to denominations, then you are misleading people.

Actually, 33,000 is a trajecally low estimate according to Webster’s definition of “denomination”, which is a “a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.”

According to baptist scholars, “every baptist parish is a law unto itself.”

I dunno about you, but there’s a lot of baptist parishes in my town, each of them is a denomination according to Webster’s definition. And yes, some don’t fellowship with the others because they are not “Bible Christians” in the same unique way that they claim to be.

Furthermore, I don’t think he’s misrepresented anything. He seems to be saying that Protestantism is marked by disunity. This is noted also by Protestant authors.

According to Protestant author J. Leslie Dunstan’s book, Protestantism:

Protestantism is one of the three main divisions of the universal Christian Church, which together with the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches make up one world-wide religion. Protestantism is the most recent of the developments within Christianity, having a relatively short history of slightly more than four centuries; the other two branches of the faith have histories going back to the earliest days of the Christian era. Moreover, compared to the unity which characterizes those other branches, Protestantism is divided within itself among hundreds of separate organizations, some of which deny all relationship to others. The many denominations and sects have differing beliefs and carry on a variety of practices, which give them the appearance of being distinct from one another.

(*Protestantism, *by J. Leslie Dunstan, (New York: George Braziller, 1962), p. 9)

 

[bjcros]

jimmy:

You portray it as if most popes have been evil. That is false, there have been some evil popes, but that is a small minority.

Alright maybe I was to harsh on the Popes but you didn’t answer in of the questions. And just so you know it wasn’t that small of a minority. I think there were quite a few, and more than there should be for so many people to accept every word

 

[jimmy]

Mickey:

Notice also that even during the reign of the bad popes–church doctrine did not change. Doctrine does not sin–mankind does. The gates of hell shall not prevail. Jesus started the Catholic Church and it will be waiting for Him when he returns! After all, the Catholic Church is His bride!

very true. Christ has protected his bride.

 

[Shiann]

bjcros:

First of all I am asking questions that I am struggling with in hopes of answers, I would rather receive Biblical answers than what church tradition says…

With that said, I do not think I’m wrong in my interpretation. I think the Pope claims that b/c Peter founded the Roman church he passed his commission down to the Popes? Jesus didn’t say that Peter’s power was passed down through the ages. The Pope isn’t a descendent of Peter. Does the Bible say that Peter passes down the keys to heaven which the Pope claims to have? There is zero scriptual evidence to support the Pope’s power, and that is why I don’t think he has any more power than anyone else in the church. The Pope had tremendous seculair power b/c of the claim to hold the keys to heaven, and he held it over many leaders and used it for his own agenda. The Popes have been evil throughout history. I’m not saying that this Pope is evil, but many Popes were evil. There are no new revelations so, why do catholics hold that what the Pope says is true?

First bolded question:

YES via the “binding” part of the scripture passage. The church is BOUND to the decisions of the apostles. They (bishops) chose the next pope- therefore the keys pass via the authority given to ALL the appostles to bind and loosen in the name of the Church.

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Second bolded question:

We don’t need new revelations. Jesus stated His intent clearly right here! God bestowed Peter with the charism of infallible teaching via the Holy Spirit. (“flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father…”) And in addition made sure this could be passed down in perpetuity via the leaders of the church (“whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…”)

 

[bjcros]

Shiann:

First bolded question:

YES via the “binding” part of the scripture passage. The church is BOUND to the decisions of the apostles. They (bishops) chose the next pope- therefore the keys pass via the authority given to ALL the appostles to bind and loosen in the name of the Church.

Second bolded question:

We don’t need new revelations. Jesus stated His intent clearly right here! God bestowed Peter with the charism of infallible teaching via the Holy Spirit. (“flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father…”) And in addition made sure this could be passed down in perpetuity via the leaders of the church (“whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…”)

That makes a little more sense. First of all the bishops are not apostles. Jesus wasn’t talking to all the apostles either. He was talking to Peter. But did Peter choose his sucessor? I don’t see how Peter’s commission is passed to the Pope. I have seen no scriptural evidence. Is my commission passed to the my succesor then? Jesus gave power to Peter. I know that. Nowhere in the bible does it mention the Pope. The Pope claimed his power and recieved it because Rome was the major religious city in the west.