why do non-catholics not accept the pope if st.peter was the very first one?

Question

i've read from the bible that jesus christ himself gave St. Peter the key to heaven thus making him head of the church
why do other christians do not accept him today
does he harm their community?
i truly don't understand because john paul II is one of the nicest popes ever with a true kind heart
i just don't understand

Answer 1

We do not believe that Peter was given the key to heaven. We believe when Jesus said "on this rock I build my church", he was referring to himself. Jesus has been called the rock and the Cornerstone of the Church.

We do not believe that God put a human mediator on the earth, because the bible says there is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men- the testimony given in it's proper time.

Answer 2

The apostle Peter was not the first Pope. As a matter of fact, the head of the church in Jerusalem was James the brother of Jesus. And he was not the pope either. Popes didn't come along until the 3rd or 4th century. Popes and the whole Roman Catholic Church apostasy came as a result of the Jews being driven out of Rome by the orders of Titus. When the Gentiles were in total control of Christianity, they made all kinds of deals with the Roman Empire to control, and take the money from the average person. The Holy Scriptures were not to be read by anyone except the Priest and a few other high ranking religious leaders. Even to this day the Roman Catholic Church discourages the study of the Bible.

You know, why don't you make a serious study of the Holy Scriptures, and the history of the Church.

Answer 3

first as an Orthodox Christian convert I regect the Roman Papacy as I do feel it has altered it's role. Added the Filioque with out council ingored the rullings of the 6th eccumincal council and Tradtion in regards to married clergy. The Church had always ordained married as well as celibate men Rome is the only see with manditory celbacy amoung the clergy. Then there is the fact the Roman Rubacs violates the very canon by kneeling on sundays this might sound minor but the issue is the symbology and anduerstanding of the Eucherstic Liturgy as celbatory. You should be standing during the Eucherestic prayers on sundays and then refusal to use some variant of the local language.
The Aposltes were to to rule over eacher they are eaqual with a primacy of Honnor- this is seen in the Orthodox church. Next the Petarian doctrine it dose not hold up to Church history- Antioch is clearly a Petarian see but when listed in terms of honnor the highest it was ever listed was 3. The Patriarchal sees were orginaly listed Rome Alexandria Antioch then Jerusalem after Constantiople was built it was Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This is a listing according to the size and economic importance of the city.
Antioch would be second if the eccumincal councils had considered Petarian sucession important. We also have the donation of Constantine which is a faked document giving the Pope secular athority. Then finaly the council of cardnials which is vastly differant than any other patriarch is chosen -it should be by their synod and not by a council of men hand chosen by the Patriarch to select the next one. A council of yes men will only further exagurate errors.
The socond this document was faked the second the creed was changed the second the Pope rulled against the Church on celibacy or the rubics of the Liturgy, the second the council of cadinals was created, the second the Pope decided to weild ultimate athority instead of leting the Church be rulled by the synods and councils was the second the Pope ceased to be Pope. The see of Rome has been vacent for almost 1000 years.

Answer 4

We don't accept the Pope because we do not agree with the Catholic interpretation of the passage about Peter. That's pretty much the bottom line. And by the way, Jesus gave the same authority to the other Apostles in other passages, so the keys weren't just given to Peter. In addition, we don't accept the idea that Peter had successors. Even if Jesus had given the keys to Peter alone, that doesn't establish that there are successors.

It is always risky to base an entire structure of doctrine on a single passage in the Bible. Lots of groups have done it, and they wind up with some pretty bizarre stuff.

The Pope is pretty much irrelevant to us. Some of the popes have been very nice people. That doesn't establish that they have the authority ascribed to them. I like the way Pope Benedict XVI holds the line on doctrine, but I still don't accept his leadership. The fact that the Roman church is pro-life is a good thing, and I certainly welcome the help to try to stem the tide of abortion. But you don't have to be a Catholic to be pro-life. Does the Pope harm the community? Not as long as people are free to accept or reject his authority. In the past, when people were not free, yes, it harmed the community. During Luther's time, John Tetzel was going around selling indulgences. Forgiveness and salvation are not available at any price; they are a free gift from God. So Tetzel's claims were fraudulent. The money people used to buy the indulgences came from the money they needed to buy bread, so they went hungry. The money was used to build St. Peter's. Luther challenged Tetzel and said that you can't buy time off from Purgatory, and eventually, noncatholic Christians rejected the idea that there is such a thing as Purgatory. It only comes from one of the books of Maccabees, and we don't accept those books as canonical. They are called the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books. The canon was settled, or "ratified" if you will, at an ecumenical council held in 312. The Apocrypha were not included. Luther was one of the first reformers who did not suffer martyrdom. Before the reformers were able to survive and teach, the Roman church pretty much controlled everything spiritually and politically, and yes, at that time, that caused grave harm.

Answer 5

No one in the bible called Peter Pope. In the new testament Jesus said if any man hears and does my words he will be like a man who builds his house on a rock. Notice Jesus said it was doing his words not Peters. Jesus is referred to as the Chief Cornerstone. All through the old testament we are told there is no Rock other than our God and that God is the Rock of our salvation. So I highly doubt he relegated this position to Peter. We are also told in the new testatment that no other foundation can be layed than that which is layed which is Christ Jesus. Unfortunately building the church on Peter wold be another foundation and would violate the first commandment to love the lord your God with all your heart mind and strenght. In essence to put God first. Which means even above our church and it's leaders.

Answer 6

We simply do not agree with the RCC position of apostolic succession. I liked John Paul btw.

It's interesting to note that shortly after the "rock" statement, He tells Peter to "Get behind me, Satan". Peter is not exactly a firm foundation to build the church upon. In fact, James could be considered the first "pope", having been the leader of the church in Jerusalem before Peter ever went to Rome, as is evident in Acts 15. The statement made by Peter is the foundation for all Christians, one which all Christians do agree with... Jesus is the Son of God. To Him be all power and glory.

As a Christian, I consider Christ the head of the church, with no need of a man to rule as a "king" or "vicar" in His place. I consider the universal church to be all who believe and follow Christ. You may not understand this if you accept that the RCC is the only true church of Christ. Again, Peter in Acts 15 states that the Gentiles were to be considered Christians by evidence of the Holy Spirit. Should the Roman Catholic Church be against this and divide the true church? According to it's doctrines, history and traditions... they do. You will have to decide for yourself.

Another point to consider, the "RCC" has divided several times... with the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant Reformation being prime examples. There are different beliefs and divisions even within the RCC itself, as there are within the others. Yet all of these still hold Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit is evident within them, all have what the others view as "errors", and all should be considered parts of the body. They are all the "true, universal church" of Jesus Christ. Let's strive for unity, not division.

Answer 7

I hope so. There are, after all, more conversions to Catholicism in Africa than anywhere else in the world. A phenomenal number of 4,000 a day. The election of a Catholic Pope would recognize this and speak, I hope, for his people. St Simon was a black apostle. Most of the early Hebrew/Christians were black. Anyway, what does it matter the colour of one's skin; it's the depth of faith and the capacity to lead that matters.

Answer 8

We accept that Peter was a saint and that he was given the keys to the kingdom, --but we don't accept him as Pope because the popes makes statements like,"protestants aren't real Christians" and "Protestant churches aren't real religions". Pope Benedict isn't the first pope to say things like this, nor will he be the last. RC's say they are the one true church and all others are false. So---why should we accept someone who rejects us?

Answer 9

Some listen to Mohamed others to Henry the eight and yet others to Richard Dawkins.The Yanks have a saying "they are drinking Kool-aid"
Edit:
See what Jesus says about this title:

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Jesus also said "let the dead bury the dead "
Why are we not observing that?

Answer 10

"Pope" means "father".

See what Jesus says about this title:

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Now YOU show ME where scripture states that Peter was a pope.

Peter had a wife too, you know?