Reference Section: Peter And The Papacy

[phatcatholic]

pham,

w/ the completion of the "church authority/apostolic succession" entry, we begin our next entry on "peter and the papacy".

in this thread u will provide info which proves that peter was foremost among the apostles.

pax,

phatcatholic

[Circle_Master]

you may have to argue against something like this, so make sure you answer contains it..

Did Christ Really Appoint Peter as the Pope?

Looking at the chronology in Matthew and Mark, we find the following facts:

Matthew 16:15-18 “. . . ‘Who do you say I am?’ . . Simon Peter answered, ‘ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.. . .’ ‘And I tell you that you are Peter,[1] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[2] will not overcome it.’[3]

1. [18] Peter means rock.

2. [18] Or hell

1. [18] Or not prove stronger than it

This is the verse that the Catholic Church says makes Peter the “rock,” or the foundation of the church. Protestants say that the “rock” is Peter’s “belief in Christ.” Christ is frequently referred to as the Rock or Cornerstone in the Bible. Protestants believe that this verse does not refer to Peter himself.

Mark 8:27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" 28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets." 29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ.[1] "

1. [29] Or Messiah. "The Christ" (Greek) and "the Messiah" (Hebrew) both mean "the Anointed One."

So we pick up in Mark’s account at the same point in time that supposedly made Peter the Pope in Matthew’s account. However let’s look at the following chronology in Mark as follows:

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

If Peter had been made the Pope, the disciples would not have been arguing over who was the greatest, or the leader of the group. This is further supported by the following verse:

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

For James and John to want to be the two top leaders and sit on both sides of Jesus in glory, it once again rules out the fact that Peter was number one, or the “Pope.”

Finally, in Galatians, Paul challenges Peter “to his face.” He would not have done this if Peter had been made the final authority in the church (the Pope).

Galatians 2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Bible Verses: © Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. All rights reserved.

[musturde]

Go Circle!

[phatcatholic]

circle,

i will make sure that i include information that addresses these claims. thank you,

phatcatholic

[Circle_Master]

I want to read some criticism of this. I moved it to the debate forum which seems to be more active. The first try didn't work as people never dealt with the passage and just started spitting out the 'standard response'. I want you guys to think, not spit me out what you were told before. Hopefully this second thread I made people will get the point and actually issue my question

[musturde]

wait was ur post pro Cath or anti?

[foundsheep]

Circle doesnt want to answer questions himself. Hed rather throw stuff at us and make us answer just that. That pile of jibberish he posted above was answered ,just not to his likeing.

[foundsheep]

wait was ur post pro Cath or anti?

Its anti.

[phatcatholic]

everyone.........lets try to remain respectful here

[Circle_Master]

Circle doesnt want to answer questions himself. Hed rather throw stuff at us and make us answer just that. That pile of jibberish he posted above was answered ,just not to his likeing.

foundsheep... the first time i tried for a response no one dealt with the argument of the quote. I asked for people to critique it because I, myself, have not properly studied into it to see if it is all true or not. It sounded good, and from my perspective I have no questions to answer about it. Every single response I got back from the quote (which was proving Peter wasn't the Pope because in Scripture no one ever acknowledges Him to have that premecy) dealt with the passage and what it might mean, and nothing with what the quote was about.

I am finding it frustrating to get you guys to think and to stop feeding back 5 cent answers, but hopefully we will get somewhere.

Other questions I have put up is to learn generally what the Catholics believe. However, I am finding that frustrating as well. When I ask for a simple thing like 'What do Catholics do with the Mosaic Covenant' no one answered me. Not one person. Some people suggested some ideas they may have heard, but no one had anything to back it up. How can I learn about Catholicism if you cannot answer any of these questions. Please don't think I am anti-Catholic, I am honestly trying to learn what the church stance is as was suggested.

I am seeing flaws in some of the arguments, but I will bring those out later if I feel it to be necessary. But why should I argue against something I don't fully understand.

[hyperdulia again]

Circle, if you are trying to learn what the Church teaches, you need to go to the Church. We are fallible people who can err in our attempts at trying to explain the Infallible Bride to others. Go to documents ask questions on anything that seems unclear from the documents aand be patient with us. We're used to throwing rhetoric at anti-Catholics in response to the rhetoric they throw at us. Real dialogue does not come immediately, but after trust and friendship have been built. If you continue showing yourself as you have, a Christian committed to truth as he understands it in time trust and friendship will come. Honest dialogue will come. And our slightly triumphalist you're wrong the Church is right rhetoric will fall away and we'll be better able to really talk to you Christian to Christian, not faithful Catholic to percieved anti-Catholic.

[Circle_Master]

I'm sorry, that is not an option for me to join the Catholic Church. I would need to first believe that Scripture taught the Pope to have authority on par, if not greater than Scripture, which I do not. I would also need to see some proof of many of the Catholic doctrines in Scripture, which as Catholics argue sometimes 'Scripture supports, but does not prove, we go to other sources'. I cannot accept anything beyond Scripture as that in itself is the only thing I've seen to have proof through prophecy, external and internal, and also promises about itself to be inspired and the fact that it has never been shown to be incorrect. (I have many other reasons, but this isn't a debate on if it is true or not so I'll stop now).

[Paladin D]

Go Circle!

LOL! Man, you must be tired.

[phatcatholic]

circle,

i would suggest posting questions in the "Catholic Q&A" board. or try sending a personal message to someone here u find knowledgable or easier to discuss with.

hope this helps, and good luck and ur quest to learn more about catholicism.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[hyperdulia again]

I'm sorry, that is not an option for me to join the Catholic Church. I would need to first believe that Scripture taught the Pope to have authority on par, if not greater than Scripture, which I do not. I would also need to see some proof of many of the Catholic doctrines in Scripture, which as Catholics argue sometimes 'Scripture supports, but does not prove, we go to other sources'. I cannot accept anything beyond Scripture as that in itself is the only thing I've seen to have proof through prophecy, external and internal, and also promises about itself to be inspired and the fact that it has never been shown to be incorrect. (I have many other reasons, but this isn't a debate on if it is true or not so I'll stop now).

I'm afraid you misunderstood me..