Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to Peter? (popes, religion)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh. Well, get out your Greek NT, and reinvent the wheel if you like. You'll need to know a bit of Aramaic and the reasons why that's important. Dig into it and have some fun!
You will EVENTUALLY arrive at the same conclusion that other Greek experts have already acknowledged.
As I pointed out in the discussion in another place, Augustine eventually came to the conclusion that it was what Peter confessed that was the "rock.' When I pointed this out I was told that the Catholic Church teaches BOTH interpretations. When I pointed out that they were mutually exclusive interpretations, you el;ected to go with the one which supported your Popes in their power grab.
First, it would be nice to know which post you are responding to. The quote function makes that easier, as I'm sure you know.
Second, "final analysis"? Don't you mean that it's "your personal opinion"?
Those who insist that Peter is the rock are not looking for truth because they have already found it. We're simply trying to help those who have not.
Now, I know you're going to object to that last statement, but here are the facts:
1. The Catholic Church has been saying this for 2,000 years.
2. Protestant scholars have begun to acknowledge that Peter is the rock now that some of the polemics of the reformation have started to die down.
3. Orthodox scholars are slowly reaching the same conclusion.
It is the ignorant masses (who are afraid of the implications possibly) that continue to deny the facts.
The RCC is not 2000 years old. When scholars believe Peter is the rock, they just do not see that Jesus is the rock in scripture as the Catholic saint Augustine says truthfully "Peter is not the rock, but Christ". Peter is under Christ's authority His representative. Jesus addresses Peter later as Shimon in Galilee. That proofs that apostate Popes were not the rock at all and that rock and the keys do not make a bishop of Rome. A bishop is ordained. Peter was not ordained from Christ as bishop of Rome, contrary Jesus commanded the Apostles not to go to a gentile city and Peter became the Apostle of the Jews. That does not make him a bishop of Rome. He was not the bishop of Jerusalem either, when he was present there, but James the brother of Jesus. When Peter founded the church in Antioch and ordained a bishop, he became not a pope, so why in Rome. Could Peter ordain himself? It was the RCC that ordained him after his death. The Pope is not in the NT, it is a development in the church of Rome. The invisible keyes of the kingdom were made visible by a chair, they claimed to be the chair of Peter, and that chair became magic, that every one that sits on it, is the head of the unilateral church, which in reality is Christ, and the holy father, which in reality is our Father in Heaven and the Vicar of Christ, which in reality is the Holy Spirit. There are more myths than facts. The Pope is lifted up in that way that some of them declared they are God. That is idol "worship" to bow down to a man (Rev 22:8+9), even to a saint in Heaven, how much more to a human here on earth. It is the ignorant masses that are deceived even to this day by a religion, that demands faith in their doctrines and otherwise are coursed for eternity. Therefore the RCC made every afford to keep away the truth, the word of God from the believers, that they may not find the truth. The RCC is not free from error, I am sorry, this is just a claim as many other.
The RCC is not 2000 years old. When scholars believe Peter is the rock, they just do not see that Jesus is the rock in scripture as the Catholic saint Augustine says truthfully "Peter is not the rock, but Christ". Peter is under Christ's authority His representative. Jesus addresses Peter later as Shimon in Galilee. That proofs that apostate Popes were not the rock at all and that rock and the keys do not make a bishop of Rome. A bishop is ordained. Peter was not ordained from Christ as bishop of Rome, contrary Jesus commanded the Apostles not to go to a gentile city and Peter became the Apostle of the Jews. That does not make him a bishop of Rome. He was not the bishop of Jerusalem either, when he was present there, but James the brother of Jesus. When Peter founded the church in Antioch and ordained a bishop, he became not a pope, so why in Rome. Could Peter ordain himself? It was the RCC that ordained him after his death. The Pope is not in the NT, it is a development in the church of Rome. The invisible keyes of the kingdom were made visible by a chair, they claimed to be the chair of Peter, and that chair became magic, that every one that sits on it, is the head of the unilateral church, which in reality is Christ, and the holy father, which in reality is our Father in Heaven and the Vicar of Christ, which in reality is the Holy Spirit. There are more myths than facts. The Pope is lifted up in that way that some of them declared they are God. That is idol "worship" to bow down to a man (Rev 22:8+9), even to a saint in Heaven, how much more to a human here on earth. It is the ignorant masses that are deceived even to this day by a religion, that demands faith in their doctrines and otherwise are coursed for eternity. Therefore the RCC made every afford to keep away the truth, the word of God from the believers, that they may not find the truth. The RCC is not free from error, I am sorry, this is just a claim as many other.
You can talk about Matt 16:18 all day long, but then you have to deal with Matt 16:19 as well as John 21:15-19 (where Peter is clearly given the authority once again).
You are correct in one thing. The term Pope was not used at that time and therefore it is not mentioned in the Bible. However, the supremacy of Peter in the Bible is clearly demonstrated. And Peter was the leader of the apostles and he was martyred in Rome where he ministered to the Romans. And from there the papacy was born!
Not very likely. Been studying it for about 38 years now. I have that issue settled by the Holy Spirit in my soul. No need to question God about something He has confirmed to me.
If you say so.
For the benefit of those of us who have not attained your degree of clarity, would you mind posting some of your analysis of the differences between petros and petra? Where there any differences in the usage of those two words during the first century or were they largely synonymous? Why does Paul call Peter Cephas if he was only a lithos? That kind of thing.
For the benefit of those of us who have not attained your degree of clarity, would you mind posting some of your analysis of the differences between petros and petra? Where there any differences in the usage of those two words during the first century or were they largely synonymous? Why does Paul call Peter Cephas if he was only a lithos? That kind of thing.
Thanks.
The BIGGEST difference is that one is masculine and one is feminine and you simply don't switch genders when you are talking about ONE rock.
WHAT int the world are you talking about? It is not the fact that Peter confessed that the church is built on, but the fact of WHAT Peter cofessed, That "you are the Christ the son of the living God"
If THAT is the cause of your failure to see the truth, lay it to rest.
But what Peter confessed was known to many people according to some in this forum. So, it was no biggie...certainly nothing to justify Simon getting a name change. If true, why the fuss just because Peter finally understood what others already knew?
Further, Paul didn't say that he preached that "Jesus is the son of the living God" (though he did that, too); what Paul preached was Jesus crucified. So, if anything would be suggested as the real foundation of the Church it should be the crucifixion and resurrection. Without that, Jesus would be a forgotten carpenter from Nazareth.
Yes, Peter confessed the truth, and lots of people have heard his confession...perhaps maybe made it their own. But that is not what the sentence structure of the Greek or the Aramaic which Jesus actually spoke suggests.
As I pointed out in the discussion in another place, Augustine eventually came to the conclusion that it was what Peter confessed that was the "rock.' When I pointed this out I was told that the Catholic Church teaches BOTH interpretations. When I pointed out that they were mutually exclusive interpretations, you el;ected to go with the one which supported your Popes in their power grab.
And so did about a zillion other Early Church Fathers...all except for the power grab part.
When scholars believe Peter is the rock, they just do not see that Jesus is the rock in scripture as the Catholic saint Augustine says truthfully "Peter is not the rock, but Christ".
Sure they do. They know those verses, too. But what they know that you don't is that the Greek and Aramaic of one verse says that Peter is the rock.
Quote:
Peter is under Christ's authority His representative.
His vicar, yes. Well said.
Quote:
Jesus addresses Peter later as Shimon in Galilee.
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).
Quote:
That proofs that apostate Popes were not the rock at all and that rock and the keys do not make a bishop of Rome. A bishop is ordained.
Some have been ordained Bishop of Rome. Those are called popes today.
Quote:
Peter was not ordained from Christ as bishop of Rome, contrary Jesus commanded the Apostles not to go to a gentile city and Peter became the Apostle of the Jews. That does not make him a bishop of Rome. He was not the bishop of Jerusalem either, when he was present there, but James the brother of Jesus. When Peter founded the church in Antioch and ordained a bishop, he became not a pope, so why in Rome.
Peter was the head of the early church, and if Peter had died in Antioch, his successor in Antioch would be the head of the Church today.
Quote:
Could Peter ordain himself? It was the RCC that ordained him after his death.
Jesus ordained Peter and the apostles.
Quote:
The Pope is not in the NT, it is a development in the church of Rome.
It is a word or title that simply means "father". That title was applied later to the office that always existed.
Quote:
The invisible keyes of the kingdom were made visible by a chair, they claimed to be the chair of Peter, and that chair became magic, that every one that sits on it, is the head of the unilateral church, which in reality is Christ, and the holy father, which in reality is our Father in Heaven and the Vicar of Christ, which in reality is the Holy Spirit. There are more myths than facts.
Correct. What you wrote here is complete myth. Whew!
Quote:
The Pope is lifted up in that way that some of them declared they are God.
Can you provide any documentation that any pope has ever declared himself God? Thanks.
Quote:
That is idol "worship" to bow down to a man (Rev 22:8+9), even to a saint in Heaven, how much more to a human here on earth. It is the ignorant masses that are deceived even to this day by a religion, that demands faith in their doctrines and otherwise are coursed for eternity. Therefore the RCC made every afford to keep away the truth, the word of God from the believers, that they may not find the truth. The RCC is not free from error, I am sorry, this is just a claim as many other.
Based on this pope, it is abundantly clear who is in serious error. I suggest more reading.
And so did about a zillion other Early Church Fathers...all except for the power grab part.
No, only about 1/4 of a zillion, the Peter as foundation for the church was very much a minority position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't you mean that it's "your personal opinion"?
