Does Saint Peter need to live in Rome to prove the Papacy? (myth, priest)
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.
I agree with you. Christ is within me 24/7. However, the Pope is still the the Vicar of Christ.
He is not. He thinks he is but he is not in place of Christ. He is not an "earthly representative of God or Christ.: If you seriously think he is then you are not a true Christian by any stretch.
He is not. He thinks he is but he is not in place of Christ. He is not an "earthly representative of God or Christ.: If you seriously think he is then you are not a true Christian by any stretch.
Among his titles he is known as the Vicar of Christ.
And Jesus asked Peter to be the pastor of his flock. As the successor of Peter our Pope is simply doing his job.
Among his titles he is known as the Vicar of Christ.
And Jesus asked Peter to be the pastor of his flock. As the successor of Peter our Pope is simply doing his job.
I would recommend a good Bible class for you so you can get some true understanding of the Bible and of the lies that you have been told by the Catholic Papacy. He is not a successor at all and he certainly is not in place of Jesus. You would do well to take some classes to learn about the true history of the Catholic Papacy and the true history of the popes. BTW, Peter was never pope.
I would recommend a good Bible class for you so you can get some true understanding of the Bible and of the lies that you have been told by the Catholic Papacy. He is not a successor at all and he certainly is not in place of Jesus. You would do well to take some classes to learn about the true history of the Catholic Papacy and the true history of the popes. BTW, Peter was never pope.
Sounds like you take religion too seriously.
Peter was not Pope, you are correct. Saint Peter was the most prominent apostle and Jesus selected him before and after the resurrection.
Here Peter is being named Vicar of Christ.
Quote:
Matthew 16:19
New English Translation (NET)
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”
Here is the definition of Vicar:
a person who acts in place of another; substitute.
a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another
After the resurrection:
John 21:15-19
New English Translation (NET)
Peter’s Restoration
Quote:
15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 17 Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the solemn truth, when you were young, you tied your clothes around you and went wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go.” 19 (Now Jesus said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God.) After he said this, Jesus told Peter, “Follow me.”
I don't see how Protestants can deny how Jesus elected Saint Peter not once, but three times. This is not equivocal! THis is very clear!
He is NOT the leader of all Christians at all. He certainly isn't the leader over me and I am Christian. He is a man and nothing more and I do not bow down to any man.
If I meet the Pope I would bow and kiss his ring. That is just common courtesy.
My wife bows down to our pastor who is just a monsignior.
1. Peter was never a pope. 2. If Catholics truly believed in the Bible then they would not have confession to any priest because the one anyone should confess to is Jesus. PERIOD. I was raised Catholic and am so glad that I got away from their folly. 3. The Papacy changed the 10 commandments to suit their needs. I could go on, but the Papacy is just man's tool, not God's.
1. Peter founded the Christian community at Rome. This community was the Catholic Church in it's embryonic form.
2. Jesus gave the authority to forgive sins to his apostles. Priests are the successors to the Apostles. We are also told to "confess your sins to one another" in the bible. The combination of these two things is the basis for priestly confession. If you were "raised Catholic" you should know this.
3. False. What you are referring to has become a very persistent rumor on the internet. Here's the truth: All Catholic bibles, whether they be the Latin Vulgate, Douay Rheims, NAB, New Jerusalem Bible, or any other Catholic bible, lists the Commandments exactly as they appear in every Protestant bible. Just go online and look at any Catholic bible. You can even view photocopied pages of one of the (Catholic) Gutenberg bibles online dating to 1450 AD. Every commandment is listed there. It's always been thus. Nothing has ever been changed. But there is an abbreviated version of the Commandments that has been stripped to it's bare essence. This bare-bones version of the Commandments is used simply for ease of memorization, particularly for kids and can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On the very same page of the Catechism, you will find the entire Ten Commandments as listed in every Bible, Catholic or Protestant, in order to see all the original wording. And please remember, the original Commandments in the bible were never numbered. God didn't give Moses the "Ten Commandments". God gave him "The Commandments".
1. Peter founded the Christian community at Rome. This community was the Catholic Church in it's embryonic form.
How do you know this to be true? This is how the RCC retells history in order to make the Pope into the ruler of all Christianity, but what evidence do you have that Peter was ever involved in the foundation of the Christian community at Rome?
The New Testament doesn't ever even once say anything about Peter being in Rome. When Paul is writing letters to and from Rome, he mentions a lot of people. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul sends greetings to Epaphras, Mary, Andronicus, Junia, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Appelles, Herodion, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Heras, Philologus, Julia, Nereus, Olympas, but Peter is never mentioned. Not as Peter. Not as Cephas. Not as Simon either. In Epistles Paul wrote from Rome (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy. Titus, Philemon) he sends his greetings on behalf of many fellow-Christians in Rome: Aristarchus, Mark, Barnabas, Jesus Justus, Epaphras, Luke and Demas. Yet Peter is never once mentioned. There isn't even the barest hint that Peter is there in Rome with Paul. If Peter was actually there, can you think of anyone more deserving of mentioning?
I've seen it suggested that Peter was hiding out in Rome for about 25 years and that nobody actually knew he was there. This is a mark of desperation on the part of folks who are determined that Peter really was at Rome. The most idiotic place on earth to hide from capture by Roman authorities is Rome itself, and Peter would have to essentially abandon the ministry in order to hide so well in the Roman capital for 25 years.
There are no firsthand account of Peter being in Rome. Not by Christians. Not by non-Christians. Nobody writing in their journal, "I met a man named Peter today." All you will find is men writing 100+ years after the fact, claiming that Peter was there. How could they possibly know that he was there? They weren't even born yet.
Honestly, this is what the original post is all about. Like most non-Catholics, I do not believe that Peter had the authority to propagate the ruler of Christianity in perpetuity. But the sad truth is, even if some eternally perpetuating succession from Peter was even possible, the See of Rome cannot prove any link between itself and Peter anyways. Peter can be linked to Jerusalem, Galilee, Antioch and many other places, but certainly not Rome.
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.
