Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #61  
Old Jan 18, '09, 2:30 pm
seekdatruth seekdatruth is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2008
Posts: 371
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

OK, there seems to be no question as to why Peter was the first pope, and that there is an unbroken line of Catholic popes from him, but how do we prove that the papacy has continuously and without fail, represented the Truth of Salvation?
You could easily say Peter is still the foundation of any Christian Church today, since they all had origins in the same early Christianity that started with the apostles. Even the apparent supremacy of Peter, does not mean that his successors (the Catholic Popes) always stayed on the path, and that the CC, as we know it today is right and others are wrong.
Please don't' be angry with me, I have faith in the CC, and I want to hear a good defense for this viewpoint I'm describing. It's not mine.
__________________
'That you may have pleasure in everything, seek your own pleasure in nothing. That you may know everything, seek to know nothing...Be continually careful and earnest in imitating Christ in everything, making your life conform to His.'
-St. John of the Cross

Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old Jan 18, '09, 6:29 pm
Arandur Arandur is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2008
Posts: 1,500
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
I'm not disputing the fact that Jesus put Peter in charge of his Church. This is very much Biblical. The case for Peter being the first pope and the popes after Peter and the whole premise with that is very debatable. This is well illustrated by the fact that at the same time Peter was in Rome and was eventually martyred, Paul was there as well preaching to the Romans (around 25AD or so) and never spoke a single word about Peter being there in Rome as Pope and being killed etc. etc. The truth is that Paul never wrote anything about this supposed Great Historical Fact in Catholic church history in any of his letters. This was one very large hurdle that was never overcome in all my time as a Catholic.
How can you accept Peter as leader and then no one after him? What happened? Who do you think was leader next? Where is it said who was next, then? If Christ thought it prudent to set Peter up as leader and establish an authority structure, what changed after Peter died that made such a leadership authority unnecessary?

To accept that Jesus set Peter up as leader but then there was no other since is to call Jesus a fool who builds his house on shifting sand and doesnít count the cost to carry through and complete his building. Jesus was a carpenter for more than one reason.

A few letters from one man are what you base all your faith on? How could all of Christís message be contained it in? Was Paulís primary concern to outline the leadership structure of the Church? If he was not the primary leader himself (but Peter was), why would it be Paul's responsibility to set down or ratify that leadership?

You seem to put more emphasis here on Paul than on any of the rest of the Scriptures, it seems, and more than on Christ.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old Jan 18, '09, 7:50 pm
SIA SIA is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Posts: 1,820
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
Originally Posted by BILL PICK View Post
in 33ad peter was not called a pope
Ok, so? Paul still never spoke of Peter in Rome at this time.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old Jan 18, '09, 8:18 pm
Arandur Arandur is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2008
Posts: 1,500
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
I really like reading your posts. You seem to be very original in your answers.
I do have a question about what you said above. Where is that in Scripture? I'm assuming that is your source. I'm sure you're aware LDS hold up the BOM because Joseph Smith was supposedly visited by angels, and ask how we could say it didn't really happen or that the BOM is not a true testament of JC. To know the precise location in Scripture where to point when presented with this argument, would help immensely.
Thanks!
Thank you! I'm glad I can help, and just pray that I'm letting the Spirit sow seeds. Since I myself have a tendency to be very analytical, I find it helpful to remember that our faith is a mystery and that it is mystical, and one based on what a loving Father and husband would wish to set out for His household. Such an approach is much more personal those that accept the Bible alone (or, in the case of Smithites, a prophet) as the ultimate authority, because this approach recognizes that we are in relationship directly with God our Father. A book and the dictates of a human visionary are no such relationship.

Thank you for your question as well. I have had a lot of contact with Mormons, from a close friend and girlfriend in college to a much less radical but still BoM-believing sect that my wife belongs to. To get to your question (and some others that are relevant to it and the topic at hand), here are some references (New American Catholic Study Bible):

Galations 1:8-9 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! [anethema]"
--There is some good and directly supportive context before and after, including Paul's explanation of his "credentials." Though it's hard to make them see it, this passage alone should eliminate any consideration of Joseph Smith's message.
--As to the topic of the Church and Magisterial infallibility, how could Paul claim such a thing as this if he did not think the Church had it? He right here claims the charism of infallibility for the Church's authoritative leaders alone, going on to explain that the reason for this is that Christ speaks through them in the Spirit. No angel has this gift, nor does any other person without the apostolic charism. Thus he can tell the Galatians to only accept the Gospel that the apostolic successors (for he was not an original apostle, remember!) taught, as it was guaranteed by Christ's promise and the action of the Spirit to be true.

2 Corinthians 11:12-15 "And what I do I will continue to do, in order to end this pretext of those who seek a pretext for being regarded as we are in the mission of which they boast. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not stranger that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."
--So angels of darkness masquerade as angels of light--more bad news for anyone who takes the word of an angel over that of the Church, for they have opened themselves up to the Prince of Lies.
--Notice also that Paul speaks of "apostles of Christ" as if it were a continuing office. If it were the original 11 only, there would not have been appointed a 12th and Paul could not claim to be yet another (at least a 13th). Nor would he even need to say this, for these "others" that he refers to are obviously not the original apostles. So he is clearly working under the reality that there are more, properly-appointed "apostles of Christ," ones that you can clearly trust when you should not trust the false apostles. Again we have the assumed, implied infallibility, for how else can you trust the true apostles of Christ if they have not this gift? For deceitful workers and angels can fool our senses. He is telling us how not to be fooled, and that we have an assurance that the proper apostles of Christ teach truth.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old Jan 18, '09, 8:19 pm
Arandur Arandur is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2008
Posts: 1,500
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Matthew 23: 1-3 ďThen Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, ĎThe scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.Ē

--Here we have Jesus himself speaking of an authority structure in the Church and the necessity for laity to submit in obedience. Now, I have read non-Catholics claims that this doesnít support the Catholic position because they say that Mosesís seat is symbolic for teaching from the Pentateuch, or that we should do what they say to do with the caveat that it must be from Scripture, but not do as they do, which is supposedly a reference to traditions. This is supposed to support the idea that we should just follow Scripture. Those are quite weak and not based on anything there in the text. Tradition is what they say, whether they do it or not, and the whole point of their teaching is null if you choose to believe that your own interpretation is superior to theirs.

--What is clear at the least from this passage is that there is a teaching authority even in the pre-Christian Church. The laity are supposed to obey it. How can the laity trust what they say enough to obey it? Because God has either guaranteed that what they say will be sufficiently good that it should be followed, or that the laity are absolved from responsibility for following Godís authoritative leaders on earth. How much more would the Christian Church benefit from Spirit-led authority, when we have been washed clean by Christís blood and our Baptism, so that we would not be stained by sin when following Christís appointed leaders on earth?

-- Now, if Christís Church is supposed to be led into all truth, if it is his Body, if Christ is Head, if we are his Bride, if he has prayed for us and promised us that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (which would obviously happen if it taught untruths), if Christ is a wise man and builds on rock not sand, if he counts the cost before he builds his tower, if he is the cornerstone and uses fallible men (his apostles) as the foundation of his Church, then how could Christ not have protected his Church from teaching falsehood? Thatís a mouthful, but all of those clauses are references to Scripture.

--Letís consider something else here with regards to infallibility. If ďMosesís seatĒ and the ďapostles of ChristĒ are phrases that somehow refer not to an infallible teaching authority, what have we to resort to? If itís our own interpretation of Scripture, it is absurdly obvious that this fails, for if the Spirit was leading us into all truth through our own interpretations, we would have no disagreements over doctrine or Scripture. If itís some other minister, ordained outside Christís one true Church or not ordained at all, then we can again see that this structure is absurdly weak and leads to 32,000+ errors, teachings from authority that contradict each other and thus should not be followed lest we sin. The point of this thought exercise is to show that just by history and the current state of Christian schism that it is utterly impossible for one true Church to exist without a charism of infallibility, however limited in its expression, granted and preserved by the Spirit and exercised by an authority structure here on earth. This is what Paul repeatedly assumes and refers to, and what Christ speaks of in these and all the traditional Catholic proof texts (Peterís appointment and role, the keys, the Church as the Pillar of Truth), etc.)

It is helpful to remember, as someone else on here pointed out, that every Christian seems to believe that the authors of the Scriptures were acting infallibly when they wrote the Scriptures. So we have clear precedent accepted by almost everyone that God has frequently chosen to gift certain followers with a protection from teaching error. Is it really so odd to think that He would gift His appointed Church that Christ builds (ďI will build MY ChurchĒ) with the ability to teach infallibly, preserving the Church that IS NOW the temple of Christís Body from the sacrilege of falsehood?

In other words, the Scriptures are evidence that God can grant a gift of infallibility, and evidence from the Scripture itself that its authors seem to think He did grant it to the Church in some capacity. The most open question remaining is just how does that infallibility manifestóand that I have tried to show would have to happen at least within some sort of authority structure. The Catholic Church sees it expressed by the apostolic successors, with the Petrine successor, following in Peterís office as leader of the apostles, to be the position of final appeal on earth and thus granted a special gift by the Spirit to function in that position. God gives the gifts necessary to do His will.

Referring back to my previous posts, the simplest evidence of infallibility is the logical necessity that if the Church is Christís Body and he lives within it (in a way that did not happen before his death and resurrection), then it is Divine. If it is Divine by virtue of it being Christ, then it is simply impossible for it to hold at its core to anything but the Truth. For it to be otherwise hell would have prevailed against the Church and against God. This should be a gentle reminder that if you claim that Christ through his Church is teaching evil or untruths, you claim that God is evil, and thus you blaspheme.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old Jan 18, '09, 8:22 pm
Arandur Arandur is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2008
Posts: 1,500
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIA View Post
Ok, so? Paul still never spoke of Peter in Rome at this time.
If a few letters of Paul don't happen to mention that Peter was in Rome at the time that Paul was, does that mean it never happened?

Are you saying that the only evidence you will accept for the existence of a Petrine successor is that you require that Paul states in Scripture that Peter was in Rome?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old Jan 18, '09, 8:28 pm
danaemariejoan danaemariejoan is offline
Junior Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: January 15, 2009
Posts: 197
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arandur View Post
If a few letters of Paul don't happen to mention that Peter was in Rome at the time that Paul was, does that mean it never happened?

Are you saying that the only evidence you will accept for the existence of a Petrine successor is that you require that Paul states in Scripture that Peter was in Rome?
And who says that Peter was ever in Rome? May I remind you that not every pope was stationed inRome and since Peter was the first pope after Jesus' death he may not have even seen rome? (then again I might be mistaken and he did indeed see rome but is being in rome a requirement for a pope? I don't think so)
__________________


St. Joan of Arc, Pray for us
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old Jan 18, '09, 8:37 pm
valient Lucy valient Lucy is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2006
Posts: 2,670
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
Originally Posted by grampben View Post
Thanks

This must be the most charitable thread on NCR, lol
Well, we can't have that!

Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old Jan 18, '09, 8:57 pm
Arandur Arandur is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2008
Posts: 1,500
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
Originally Posted by danaemariejoan View Post
And who says that Peter was ever in Rome? May I remind you that not every pope was stationed inRome and since Peter was the first pope after Jesus' death he may not have even seen rome? (then again I might be mistaken and he did indeed see rome but is being in rome a requirement for a pope? I don't think so)
You're right that the successor of Peter need not to have been tied to a place. What matters first is the nature of Peter's office; next, was that office passed down/did it have to be; last, who holds that office. Most of this thread has addressed the first two points, demonstrating the particular office of Peter and that it was passed down. As to whom it was passed to, whom will you say holds it but the Pope?

If the position is held at all, surely it is held by the Catholic Bishop of Rome. Even the Orthodox accept that; even Luther accepted that. The early Church had discussed it and settled it before the major councils (after the first Council of Jerusalem), acknowledging that the Petrine See had settled in Rome and that it had become tied symbolically with Rome (as the center of the world, and as evidence that Christ's Word had struck at the heart of the world and was for the whole world).
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old Jan 18, '09, 9:11 pm
danaemariejoan danaemariejoan is offline
Junior Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: January 15, 2009
Posts: 197
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arandur View Post
You're right that the successor of Peter need not to have been tied to a place. What matters first is the nature of Peter's office; next, was that office passed down/did it have to be; last, who holds that office. Most of this thread has addressed the first two points, demonstrating the particular office of Peter and that it was passed down. As to whom it was passed to, whom will you say holds it but the Pope?

If the position is held at all, surely it is held by the Catholic Bishop of Rome. Even the Orthodox accept that; even Luther accepted that. The early Church had discussed it and settled it before the major councils (after the first Council of Jerusalem), acknowledging that the Petrine See had settled in Rome and that it had become tied symbolically with Rome (as the center of the world, and as evidence that Christ's Word had struck at the heart of the world and was for the whole world).
I agree with that. And also how could the church continue to thrive if it did not have a successor to the leadership of the church. Admittedly now we have a better way of appointing a new pope than in the early years like when peter died (i think he died and thats how the enxt pope came along) And it makes sense that as Rome was indeed the center of the world at that point in time that the pope would establish his headquarters there
__________________


St. Joan of Arc, Pray for us
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old Jan 18, '09, 10:01 pm
weepixie71 weepixie71 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2007
Posts: 379
Religion: Traditional Catholic
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
Originally Posted by NDfan View Post
I agree 100% that many actions of the church were taken in response to heresy. Ignatius pushed for the canon in response to Marcion's attempts to re-write the Gospel of Luke and some of the Pauline Epistles. Ignatius was also the first to push for Apostolic tradition in the church. Again this was in response to the churches getting infested with heresies.



Yes the doctrines of Mary. We don't see anything until the late 4th century. Jerome even errors in his statement of Mary saying she never married after giving birth to Christ.

The only support that the RC uses that has early dating is the Infancy Gospel of James. Interestingly this was never accepted by the early church as either inspired nor historically accurate. It flat out contradicts Matthew's account which is canonical yet it is referenced by the RC today as support for their claims.

I'm not saying the doctrines are flat out wrong but if you read the catechisms they plainly state the church came into the belief. They don't cite scriptural support. That came much later. So I would then ask when exactly did they come into the belief and how can it be validated?

There's also no evidence that the early church believed in the doctrine of purgatory either at all or as it is defined today.

To claim the beliefs of the church are based on oral tradition is a slippery slope. How can one validate that early Christians believed something because someone orally said so maybe around 300-400AD?? This is the main problem with the infallibility beliefs as they pertain to the Pope.

I believe there is a reason we have scripture. To validate our doctrines of faith as they relate to our salvation.
if this helps, there are several bible verses that talk about a place we go to for purification. how it got called purgatory i can not tell you. but the place is spoken of often.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old Jan 18, '09, 10:12 pm
weepixie71 weepixie71 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2007
Posts: 379
Religion: Traditional Catholic
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
Originally Posted by grampben View Post
As a protestant, I have no problem with the idea that Peter was the first Pope. But he didn't claim to be infallible and may well have been a leader among equals. Certainly he led the early church. The difference is, I believe that any church (where it is an institution) is corruptible. But the 'church' is the community of believers, that as a spiritual entity is incorruptible.
Sorry if I have de-railed the thread, I want to keep this on the papacy as much as you, Bill!
God Bless.
i really want to ask you a question but im afraid it will come across as a smart alack. i truly hope i dont because i am just really curious. my husband is a convert and i take a lot of slack for being a catholic and when they bring up the pope, i quote mathew 16:18 And I say to thee, thou art peter, and upon this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail thee. what ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.
then they say to me that is not how they interpret it.
then i ask how else can this be interpretted?
but they never tell me how they do interpret it. can you help me???
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old Jan 19, '09, 1:05 pm
SIA SIA is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Posts: 1,820
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arandur View Post
If a few letters of Paul don't happen to mention that Peter was in Rome at the time that Paul was, does that mean it never happened?

Are you saying that the only evidence you will accept for the existence of a Petrine successor is that you require that Paul states in Scripture that Peter was in Rome?
If it was the monumental place in history that Catholics claim it was I would most certainly expect to see it proclaimed and shouted from the rooftops if you will from Paul. Paul's silence on this matter really does speak volumes in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old Jan 19, '09, 5:30 pm
Arandur Arandur is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2008
Posts: 1,500
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIA View Post
If it was the monumental place in history that Catholics claim it was I would most certainly expect to see it proclaimed and shouted from the rooftops if you will from Paul. Paul's silence on this matter really does speak volumes in this case.
Oh? Why would that be unusual? If during this time the Church was under persecution, why would Paul publicly reveal the identity of another Christian working in the underground Church there, particularly the first among the leaders of the Church? That would have been traitorous stupidity, would it not?

What do you mean this "monumental place in history?" Catholics merely say that Peter's successor has traditionally been located there. I have explained some of the likely symbolism of the location, but others have pointed out that the location may not have mattered much. Again, if Peter was the leader of the Apostles, and in that capacity helped preserve the unity of the Church in all matters of faith and morals, then where is his successor now if not the Bishop of Rome? And if there is no successor, then what changed?

Obviously, not having a central leader among the priesthood has lead to widespread schism and contradictory doctrines outside the Catholic Church, so such a construction is demonstrably anti-unity--and thus no work of Christ. If you can demonstrate how unity in communion and in truth has somehow been preserved outside of the successor of Peter, I'd be very interested.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old Jun 7, '12, 10:41 am
JESUSisTheRock JESUSisTheRock is offline
Trial Membership
 
Join Date: June 6, 2012
Posts: 1
Religion: non-denominational
Default Re: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope,

Was the Apostle Peter the first Pope, the earthly head of the church according to the Bible? Was he the Chief Shepherd, the Supreme Pontiff, and Vicar of Christ? Is the Roman Catholic church the true church as proved by a succession of the Papacy since Peter? Does the Bishop of Rome have authority to declare church law? Does the Bible teach that the Papacy is the foundation of the church? What about celibacy? Should we bow to honor the Pope as the Holy Father?

Several religious groups teach as fundamental doctrine that Peter was the first earthly head and Chief Shepherd (pastor) of the church, and modern church leaders are his successors. Others claim that the Papacy is the foundation of the church. Consider this quotation:

"The Pope ... is the bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ on earth. He is the visible head of the whole Catholic Church ... Who was the first Pope? St. Peter, who was made Pope by Jesus Christ Himself ... Did Peter's authority die with him? No, it was handed down to a man named Linus, and after he died, it was handed down to another, and so on, during the past 2000 years ... Does Jesus require us to follow the Pope in matters of religion? Yes, because obedience and loyalty to the Pope are among the chief requirements of the Lord's plan for unity in His church" (A Catechism for Adults, by William Cogan, 1975 ed., pp. 55,56).

Hold on a minute, Jesus made Peter the first Pope? If it is true, as important as it is, we will surely find it in the Bible. Obviously Peter could be Pope only if Jesus authorized the existence of that office. So let's see what Jesus' word says. The Bible specifically names several offices in the church and describes the work and qualifications of those who hold that office.

Apostles : Named......Eph. 4:11; Matt. 10:2-4; Luke 6:13-16. Qualifications.... Acts 1:21-26; 2 Cor. 12:11,12. Work .....Eph. 3:3-5; Acts 10:39-41.

Elders or Bishops: Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23; Eph. 4:11. Qalifications..... 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9 . Work.....Acts 20:28;
1 Peter 5:1-3.

Deacons: Phil. 1:1 . Qualifications.....1 Tim. 3:8-13 . Work... Acts 6:1-6 .

The Bible contains several passages where the office of Pope ought to be mentioned, if it existed. Ephesians 4:11,12 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 list various officers and workers in the church, but the office of Pope is not mentioned. Why not? Paul wrote several letters to and from Rome, naming many people there (Rom. 16; Col. 4:7-14; 2 Tim. 4:9-22; Philem. 23,24). If Peter was Pope in Rome, surely Paul would have mentioned him. But Paul mentions neither Peter nor anyone else as being Pope.

Who can imagine someone today writing official letters to or from the church in Rome, listing the officers of the Catholic Church, giving all this information about the work and qualifications of lesser officers, but never mentioning the Pope? If the office of Pope was established by Jesus, why does the New Testament fail to mention it?

The Bible Says Jesus Is the Head of the Church. The Pope is believed to be the head of the church, but note: Ephesians 1:22,23 - Jesus is head over all things to the church (cf. Col. 1:18). What is there left for a Pope to be head of? Ephesians 5:22-24 - A husband is head of his wife as Jesus is head of the church. But for a wife to submit to two husbands is adultery (Rom. 7:2,3). So for the church to submit to two heads (Jesus and the Pope) would be spiritual adultery. Matthew 28:18-20 - Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth. He is the one lawgiver (James 4:12). To claim that the Pope may issue religious laws is to deny the unique power of Jesus.

The Bible plainly states that Jesus is Head of the church. He is the one Lord in the one body (church). There cannot be two Lords any more than there could be two Gods (Eph. 4:4-6). Bishops (even from Rome) are forbidden to lord it over the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3). The Bible Says Jesus Is the Church's Foundation.

"The primacy of St. Peter was ... an essential part of Christ's church, the rock on which it was built ... The House of God will always need its foundation" (The Question Box, Bertrand Conway, 1929 Edition, pp. 153,154).

Hence, the authority of Popes is said to be the foundation of the Catholic Church. But the Bible says: 1 Corinthians 3:11 - There can be no foundation other than Jesus. 1 Peter. 2:3-8 - Peter himself taught that Jesus is the chief cornerstone on which the church is built. Acts 4:10-12. Matthew 16:13-18 - This passage is often used to try to prove Peter is the foundation of the church (Catechism, p. 56; Question Box, p. 146). But the passages already studied prove that Jesus, not Peter or the Pope, is the foundation of the church. Matthew 16. actually confirms this truth.

The context (v13,15,16) is not discussing who Peter is nor what his position is, but who Jesus is and what His position is. The passage does not exalt Peter; it exalts Jesus. Jesus does not confess Peter; Peter confesses Jesus. The verse is not saying Peter is the rock on which the church is built, but rather it contrasts Peter's name (Greek PETROS, masculine - a piece of rock) to the rock on which the church would be built (Greek PETRA, feminine - a solid ledge of rock).

Jesus often compared Himself to inanimate objects - a temple (John 2:18-22), a door (John 10:7), a vine (John 15:1-11). Here He compares Himself to a rock, a name often used for Deity in the Old Testament (Psa. 31:3; 71:3; 89:26ff; 18:2f,32f). The foundation of the church is not Peter. It is the truth that Peter had just confessed - that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (v16). This is confirmed by the context and by other Scriptures. To say Peter is the foundation would be to put a man in the place of Deity!

Read more: Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope, when the word ``Pope'' doesn't even appear in Catholic Bibles? Just where does the Pope get his authority to rule over the Catholic Church? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1788305#ixzz1x2CzAmHI
======================================== ======================================== ======================================== ============================

I did not write this post. I was led to it by the Holy Spirit while studying the subject of Peter and Papacy. I found the post on the www.answerbag.com it was posted by Parepidemos

For all who have taken the time to read this. May God guide you and bless you all. May the Holy Spirit Bless you and reveal the truth in scripture that will set you free from any traditions set forth by man and church interpretations that scripture does not support.

JESUSisTheROCK
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8537Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: jerrythetrucker
5198CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: James_OPL
4433Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3869SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3834Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3395Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3300Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3231Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3150For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:19 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.