the POPE has NOTHING TO DO WITH PETER!!!!!!?

Question

do you agree?


sorry just had to get it off my chest....

he has something to do with Constantine though...

Answer 1

Yes, I do agree. The Pope is a man-made god -- an idol. God said idolaters will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Answer 2

Totally.

Peter couldn't have been a Pope, he had a wife (or how else could Jesus heal his mother-in-law).

The Bible is clear that Paul was more of a teacher to the Romans than Peter ever was. Peter also speaks to the fact that he was sent to the Jews.

Answer 3

I am not Christian, however, it is clear from the historical documents that the pope was considered the successor of St. Peter by early Christians. I would point out that all Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic ordinations of bishops follow Acts 2, with the ordination of Mathias. In fact, not only was the bishop of Rome considered the successor of Peter, we know who Peter ordained and have the writings of at least one successor who was ordained a presbyter by Peter, Clement I. Clement's first letter was in fact considered part of the bible for at least 300 years and wasn't totally removed from all bibles 750 years and was still being read in appendices through the Reformation.

Jesus' comments on Peter having the keys make no sense if the Church was not to continue since he also gave the power to bind and loose to the other eleven, although later.

The power of Peter to bind things in Heaven or Loose things in Heaven has a clear rabbinic meaning as did granting the keys. The papacy is the only correct understanding. I say this because until the time of Luther, no Christian and no heretic anywhere disputed this. Many heretics sent to Rome for relief on the presumption of papal power because they sincerely believed they were proclaiming the "apostolic tradition," and wanted papal approval.

If something is true, then it must always be true or always be false. If the earliest Christians accepted the papacy, then anyone who rejects it is rejecting the earliest form of Christianity. Further, since it was the popes who authorized the canon of the scripture following the work at the synods of Rome, Hippo Regius and Carthage to reject their Petrine authority requires picking new bible books since the choice of books rests solely on that authority. The other option is that Christian truth cannot be known and can be voted on at conferences. As such, it wouldn't actually be truth, just consensus.

Luther did understand this and did choose new books, he excluded James, Jude, Revelations and the books Protestants now call the Apocrypha.

It is clear, from the ordination records, that the current pope is in fact the direct successor by ordination of Peter, in the way described in Acts of the Apostles for Mathias. It is a later invention of Protestants because the papacy became the stumbling block of reform that the popes do not hold Petrine authority. That does not rationally invalidate the papacy, but it does remind one that the papacy is not the sole guarantor of truth, which is also Catholic teaching. It is the guarantor only when the bishop of Rome is in communion with the bishops, the people concur and is teaching only that which was taught in earliest Christianity.

I am not Christian and so consider me neutral on the subject. The historical record is clear in favor of the Catholics, even the Orthodox are working toward reunion. That does not mean that Protestants did not have important points, but as a Lutheran bishop pointed out, they did adopt 93 1/2 of Luther's 95 thesis, what more could Protestants really ask for? The Evangelical Lutheran Church is also working toward reunion with Rome.

You are a partisan who needs to believe something which isn't true. Since, if there is a God, falsehood cannot come from him, you need to reject your falsehood and either become Catholic or cease being Christian. To remain Protestant is irrational and ungodly given the full body of the historical record. I do recommend starting out your reading with the apostolic fathers. As they were directly ordained by the apostles and were the first hearers of the message, indeed Polycarp was one of the editors of John's Gospel, what they have to say is of deep importance. Luther rejected them because their writings rejected Luther's opinions.

Catholicism has reformed itself, check it out with an open heart and not one "closed as at Meribah and Massah." (psalm 95)

One other note, the papacy was a headache for Constantine not the creation of Constantine. There is a fascinating body of myth regarding Constantine and the early Christians. I recommend reading actually contemporary biographies of Constantine, written at the time, and of the fathers whose lives overlapped Constantine. You will get a true picture of what influence Constantine did and did not have.

I also recommend reading the liturgy of James, one of the three first century services still in use today (the others being by Mark and Peter). It is available in English translation online. The closest thing we have to Peter's service is the Roman Catholic Easter Vigil as it is the only thing still done that is close with its 13 old testament reading, 13 psalm readings, new testament readings, baptisms, chrismations and so forth. Mark's liturgy is only done once per year and only by the Copts. All of the early Churches reduced down the length but not real content of the service to make it fit to under two hours.

You should attend a Roman Catholic Church and take a bible. You will find that every line, except the creed, is either a direct quote of scripture or a close paraphrase to make it fit the context better.

I am not a fan of the Catholic Church, but I do recognize that if anyone does truly have a claim on the truth, should it turn out that Jesus really is the Son of God, then they alone hold the fullness of it. Anything else is to ignore the historical record.

Answer 4

Finally! Someone I can blame for making that awful movie.

Thanks for the info.

Answer 5

Did not Peter deny Christ thrice?

Answer 6

How do you get through life being so ignorant