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?

Comments

• ps - if the mention of one's name is the sign of being favoured in the Bible, well that means Satan is more favoured than some of the Apostles....
  That's the whole problem with the Catholic church - and I was one for forty years, and highly enough regarded in it to be the recipient of a Bene Merenti medal from JP 2 - the absolute brainwashing and propagandizing of the followers. The RC church is NOT about christianity any more, it is about money staus and power, In other words, it strives to be and remain the top Multi-National Corporation the world has ever seen,,,,

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 16th, 2010

• Anonymous, Peter was considered bishop of Rome by whom? Catholicism? That's no big surprise. Are they correct? According to what Scripture has to say on the matter, no.

  • Report
  

  by ""Account Closed"" on April 16th, 2010

• Favored amongst the Apostles. The Satan thing is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Mention of one's name is not the issue. It's how Jesus keeps telling him to take a leadership role over the rest of his followers. (every time he mentions his name, as you were saying) I don't think He said that to Satan anywhere.
  Peter was considered the Bishop of Rome by history. Why do you say he wasn't? I've never heard THAT position before. But, yes, the Catholic church considers him Bishop of Rome too. According to what scripture has to say on the matter, yes. Jesus commanded his apostles to go out to all nations and spread his word. That's what they did. They built and led the church of Christ in each of these cities and taught it The True Word of Christ. That's what a bishop is. Peter went to Antioch and to Rome. That's history. Not any difference in doctrine.

  • Report
  

  by dmanondrums on April 19th, 2010

• News for you peter was never in rome. the catholics discovered peters bones in Jeruslam in 1953 and the pope of the time excepted it as true , we are still waiting for a statement from rome.

  • Report
  

  by william6 on June 2nd, 2011

• No, as dramatic as you make it, I can't consider that any type of news. But, in like-fashion; (since we're just "saying things") News for YOU, he was. History has always held that. His own writings show that he was. Christian tradition has always taught that he was. He and Paul both. And were both martyred there. Who is this "we" you are speaking of? Somehow I doubt you are an archaeologist waiting on a verdict.
  Either way, assuming that you are not only NOT CATHOLIC but are also quite anti-Catholic, then what is the difference to you? If you reject the teachings of the Bishop of Rome, then what matter is it to you? Just looking for an argument perhaps?
  Unless you're saying that you submit to the guidance of the Patriarch of Jerusalem???....I doubt that too.

  • Report
  

  by dmanondrums on June 3rd, 2011

Comments

• jonathan gray sent me papers saying that Peters bones were discovered in Jeruslam in 1953 and the then"pope' excepted it as true. mary is buried in glastonbury in england near joseph of aramathea. great post .

  • Report
  

  by william6 on June 2nd, 2011

Comments

• I seriously doubt Jesus cares where the physical church is located. Peter was given a vision about the gentiles just before he was visited by some. [Acts 10:17] I'm not sure what literacy has to do with anything, as Peter used scribes, as did most people of the time. Even Paul made a special effort to write even a small section of one of his missives, apparently using large letters to do so. And travel was not necessarily slow back then. Sailing ships could get anywhere then as quickly as they can now. The wind is the wind, after all.

  • Report
  

  by LarryH54 on April 3rd, 2010

• There are many historical accounts of Peter being in Rome...of the day...not well into the 3rd century. AND, if you understand the symbolism used in the New Testament, you know that Peter wrote his Epistle while in Rome. He sends out his greeting from the Church in Rome. (1 Pet. 5:13) shows that he was writing it from Rome. (They called it Babylon) But, as we know from many other references in the New Testament, when the writers spoke of Babylon, which didn't exist in the days of the Apostles, they were talking about Rome.
  I say all of this, because we know that Peter WAS in Rome. And that he died in Rome. But it actually doesn't matter whether or not he was. Or WHERE he was, for that matter, to prove that he was the origin of the papacy. Jesus conferred that upon him long before he ever went to Rome or anywhere else, for that matter.

  • Report
  

  by dmanondrums on April 19th, 2010

Comments

Comments

• Pope not even in Bible? When did Christ gave him power tio rule?

  • Report
  

  by itinary on October 4th, 2010

Comments

• av8or47, sorry to have to break this to you but the Catholic Church discredits itself with it's many heretical and pagan teachings, doctrines, beliefs, and practices.

  • Report
  

  by ""Account Closed"" on April 16th, 2010

• IF peter was 'pope' - wht did the other apostles not automatically defer to him in the Bible - and they certainly did not, there were many arguements and disputes among the early church and you sure don't see Peter or any individual being looked to as 'head of the church'

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 16th, 2010

• av8or47, it doesn't matter what Eusabias, Jimmy Carter, or the Wizard of Oz has to say about Peter supposedly being in Rome and dying gloriously there. If it's not recorded in Scripture, then it's best to leave it alone. Believing extra-Biblical sources over Scripture, speculating, guessing, and serving up a huge portion of opinion are for those desperate to make something be that isn't.

  • Report
  

  by ""Account Closed"" on April 16th, 2010

• originallyjustme, very good point.

  • Report
  

  by ""Account Closed"" on April 16th, 2010

• The Church has no heresy. And no pagan teachings. I've never seen proof of even one. The Apostles do not always agree in the Bible. And they don't always "automatically", as a poster put it, defer to Peter, that is correct. But they do submit to his ruling many times in the New Testament. Peter is spelled out as first amongst the Apostles so many times I can even list them as a comment. (which is what this is)

  • Report
  

  by dmanondrums on April 19th, 2010

• No heresy? "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.:" —Matthew 6:7
  
  The chanting of the Roman Catholic Rosary is VAIN REPETITION!!! It is exactly what God hates. God is not impressed with such empty and meaningless prayers. Some Catholics try to justify vain repetitious prayers with Scriptures such as Matthew 26:44, "And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words." But, asking God three times for the same thing, is very different than mumbling the same dead words (the Rosary) over and over for a lifetime.
  
  Furthermore, this was not the norm when Jesus prayed. There are times in our life where we will want to keep asking God for something; but, that is certainly not the same as mumbling the same WRITTEN, dead, repetitious, religious, words over and over. A Catholic repeats 52 "Hail Mary" in each DAILY Rosary prayer. Jesus clearly states that the "heathen" pray with useless repetitions. Since Catholics claim that their repetitious Rosary prayers are not "vain repetitions"; then I ask, who was Jesus speaking about? And yet, not one mention is made of the name of Jesus Christ in the Rosary. Like it or not, the Word of God condemns formalized religion. It is abundantly clear that the nuns who are chanting the Rosary (which you are now hearing) are praying with VAIN REPETITIONS.
  
  I'm always amazed and saddened at the ignorance of Catholics. I mean, Matthew 23:9 forbids us from calling any man "Father" (i.e., to respect men as God); yet, this is exactly what Catholics call their priest. Victims of Catholicism have even been brainwashed to believe that their priests can forgive sin. (heresy) We know from 1st Timothy 2:5 that they are LIARS, because ONLY Jesus can forgive sin.
  
  Roman Catholic theology does not embrace the interpretation of salvation and justification as that presented by Scripture and the Protestant Reformers. The Roman Church does teach that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ. What is missing, however, is the word "alone." By omitting this word the Roman Church redefines grace, faith and justification in a way that undermines and invalidates the teaching of Scripture. Rome says that Christ made an atonement for sin, meriting the grace by which a person is justified but that the work of Christ is not the exclusive cause of an individual’s justification and salvation. Ludwig Ott makes this statement:
  
  
  
  "Christ’s redemptive activity finds its apogee in the death of sacrifice on the cross. On this account it is by excellence but not exclusively the efficient cause of our redemption....No one can be just to whom the merits of Christ’s passion have not been communicated. It is a fundamental doctrine of St. Paul that salvation can be acquired only by the grace merited by Christ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 185, 190).
  
  According to the Church of Rome, "Christ did not accomplish a full, finished and completed salvation in his work of atonement. His death on the cross did not deal with the full penalty of man's sin". It merited grace for man which is then channeled to the individual through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments. This grace then enables man to do works of righteousness in order to merit justification and eternal life. Christ death on the cross wasn't good enough? Anther Catholic heresy.
  
  In Roman Catholic teaching there is no salvation apart from participation in the sacraments mediated through its priesthood. The Roman Church teaches that she is the mediator between Christ and the individual. Saving grace is mediated through these sacraments. John Hardon, author of The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (which carries the official authorization of the Vatican) says this:

  • Report
  

  by ""Account Closed"" on April 19th, 2010

• "Why did Christ establish the Church?
  Christ established the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation. How is the Church the universal sacrament of salvation?
  The Church is the universal sacrament of salvation as the divinely instituted means of conferring grace on all the members of the human family. What does the Catholic Church believe about the forgiveness of sins?
  She believes it is God’s will that no one is forgiven except through the merits of Jesus Christ and that these merits are uniquely channeled through the Church He founded. Consequently, even as the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation, she is also the universal sacrament of reconciliation. How does the Church communicate the merits of Christ’s mercy to sinners? The Church communicates the merits of Christ’s mercy to sinners through the Mass and the sacraments and all the prayers and good works of the faithful. Are the sacraments necessary for salvation? According to the way God has willed that we be saved the sacraments are necessary for salvation."
  
  (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Questions # 401, 402, 461, 462, 1119).
  
  These words clearly express the official position of the Church of Rome. There is no salvation apart from participation in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no other means of obtaining saving grace. Hardon’s words echo the teaching of the Council of Trent:
  
  "If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation...and that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain from God, through faith alone, the grace of justification...let him be anathema."
  
  (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919), Canon IV, p. 119).
  
  So the Roman Catholic Church maintains that only through it's sacraments can a person gain salvation. That is a damnable heresy. Only through Jesus Christ alone do we have salvation.

  • Report
  

  by ""Account Closed"" on April 19th, 2010

• Again, I don't seek an argument with anyone. I could throw all the refuting evidence back into this thread. But, I'm sure you've read it all before. (if you haven't, I'm happy to) And we're not likely to convince each other. I only aim to correct what I see as an "incorrect answer" to some of these questions posted, instead of just letting a mis-informed answer ride all by its lonesome.
  I'm always amazed at the ignorance of "individual" Catholics too. I used to be one. But, the things you mention are not a matter of ignorance. Calling a priest "father" is quite biblical, and I've cited the reasons on other posts. But, again, we're not likely to convince each other.

  • Report
  

  by dmanondrums on April 19th, 2010

Comments

• Actually, Greek won't do it. (if you don't understand it) I speak Greek, and although I don't have any mastery of ancient Greek, the same principles apply. The original words of Jesus, in Aramaic are "Thou art Cephas and upon this cephas I will build my Church. That original meaning is lost in the Greek translation due to grammatical rules of Greek. So, there is no small stone or great rock. Protestants have it wrong. Gotta refer to the scholars, not our own translations.
  
  As a Christian yourself, you'd actually have Constantine to thank for the fact that christianity is a major religion in our world. Because he forced everyone in his Roman empire to be Christian. (because of the reasons you mentioned) Otherwise we might all be pagans. But, he had nothing to do with the Church, itself. Other than to call for all Christian leaders of his time to convene and define a doctrine that they all agreed with. (bishops, not Constantine) He did this only to try to create stability in the empire. He wasn't Christian. Nobody, other than the Church leaders ever defined doctrine and no Church doctrine ever changed then or ever. He was never Pope. He was Pagan. And only converted on his deathbed.

  • Report
  

  by dmanondrums on April 16th, 2010

• I beg to differ. I have Jesus Christ to thank for Christianity being a major religion. It is upon Jesus, the Chief Cornerstone, that His church was built upon.
  
  Matthew 16:14-18 "And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."
  
  In Greek, the original language of the New Testament, Christ calls Peter "Rock", (masculine gender) then says "on this rock" feminine gender I will build my church. What is the rock on which the church is built? The usual Catholic interpretation is Peter, but the difference in gender makes this very questionable. The, just five verses ahead, Jesus reproves Peter with such severity that He calls him Satan. In the context itself then, it is equally possible that the "rock" upon which the church is founded is found in the statement that Peter made. (You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God).
  
  If you let passages from in other parts of the Bible that refer to the same subject help us decide who it is that the church is founded upon, we find Christ.
  
  "No one can lay a foundation other than the one that has been laid, namely Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11).
  
  Peter certainly should have understood whether the church was founded upon himself or on Christ, and he wrote that that it was founded on Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:6-8).
  
  The above verses were taken from the Catholic Bible. The Catholics have it wrong as they have many other things wrong within their church. The Catholic Church is pagan in origin and if you need proof, I can furnish the information.

  • Report
  

  by The Galaxy Hitchhiker on April 16th, 2010

• dmanondrums, Greek won't do it? What language will? If the New Testament was written in Greek why would you refer to what Jesus said in Aramaic? Why would you try to apply Aramaic over the Greek text? Would it possibly be because the Catholic Church is desperate to keep alive their unfounded notion that Peter was the first Pope?
  
  Gotta refer to the scholars, not our own translations? Who's scholars, the Catholic scholars or scholars in general? The Catholic Bible says the same thing as the Protestant Bibles and none of them say that Peter was the first Pope. By your own admission, you don't have a mastery of ancient Greek (Koine). So why would you make it known that you read Greek? I can read Pig Latin but it doesn't make me a scholar in the language. I'm not impressed. What does impress me is when people are willing to take God at His word and believe Scripture and not what some dusty old "theologian" may have to say.
  
  If we are poorly educated or even with only a very average education, you know the sort of people, the sort of people the Father calls to His Son - the Lord Jesus Christ. How can poorly educated people be expected to understand the things of the high intellect? Is it a case that the Lord just wants a few intellectual 'elites' in order to look down upon us mere mortals and tell us what's what? No way, and these Holy Scriptures prove it:
  
  1 Cor 1:26-28 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world (like me) to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world (also like me) to confound the things which are mighty. 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are." (Brackets mine)
  
  In many ways these jumped up intellectual people speak a foreign language in English, so complicated is their way of doing things. How do they get away with it? Notice what Paul says: "not many wise men after the flesh are called" now, what does that statement mean - wise men after the flesh? Well it's all very straightforward isn't it, once we understand? Men who are wise after the flesh are vain, worldly, 'clever' men, aren't they? The word 'flesh' here is used to describe carnal human beings and carnal human nature - the human condition. They are clever in the eyes of men and are usually people with high IQ's and 'impressive' university qualifications - many have 'ologies' in their titles.
  
  They are worldly wise, and with worldly wisdom comes the ego, hence their fondness for big words; let's list a few of these words here just to get the gist of what I'm saying: Sola scriptura; pluralism; christology; exegesis;premises;magisterium; hermeneutics; apologetics; soteriology; eschatology; syllogistics; harmatiology; scholasticism; ecumenicalism; cessationalism; homiletics, to name but a few. There we are, all very 'fine' and 'dandy', but in reality just pompous highfalutin' words, and not one of them Biblical. More importantly, too, not one of them edifying to church members, so what's going on?
  
  So when did men start using these useless words and why? Why, too, when the Lord tells us quite plainly through Paul that there is a "Simplicity that is in Christ" 2 Cor 11:3. The fact is, these educated people and their babblings represent the opposite of what the Lord Jesus Christ tells us, for there is no simplicity in what they say, none, it's all highly complex and confusing to the base things of this world. You can rely on theologians, scholars, and Bible intellectuals if you want but as for myself, I will rely on my Teacher, the Holy Spirit and upon Scripture.

  • Report
  

  by ""Account Closed"" on April 16th, 2010

• Fog Cutter, I appreciate all of your points. You're certainly right about the complexity of language. That's why I tend to warn people in my postings about getting tied up in terminology. I dislike it too. A word is just a word, and people get way too concerned about words like "Catholic" and "Protestant" and "Pope" and "Purgatory" and "Sola Fide", etc. So, you and I are in agreement about that. (I honestly think that all of us Christians have much more in common that we're aware of. And we'd all come together much easier if we weren't tied up in terminology)
  
  Naturally, ANYONE needs to be able to hear and accept the word of God. All men. All nations. Why is it that you think I said only the few elite do? I never even eluded to that. That's why preachers preach....and teach. Why missionaries travel to far away places. I only mean that Every one of us can't go back and re-evalute the original Greek or Hebrew of the Bible. We'll most likely be wrong.
  
  Most people, myself included, not being well educated in ancient languages, can't rightfully be running around trying to say what a passage like Matthew 16:18 really means. That's my point on the Greek issue. Accept scripture for what it is. Just like you said. I'm not trying to impress you, or anyone else. I don't use big words. I don't claim any research to be my own interpretation. I have no ego in this matter. I only hope to point out an error if I see it. So the internet world doesn't just read an answer that is full of non-proof and speculation. (hoping that one would do their own research, knowing that there may be a discrepancy that you may not be aware of.) I'm just pointing out that Modern Greek is not an acceptable basis by which to talk about whether or not Christ meant two different things by naming Peter "Rock" and saying that he will build his church upon this "Rock". That's all. How did you miss that in my comment? The original poster, and you are citing modern Greek.
  As I'm sure you know, all the Apostles and Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. Even written some of their books in that language. Its not my opinion. Its just historical fact. I'm glad to read that you know about the Koine dialect of the New Testament. If you do, then...you know that THAT is the proper dialect that the NT was written in. There is no distinction between petros and petra in that dialect. Only gender, as you mentioned. Not meaning. "Lithos" is the word that Matthew would have used if he wanted to translate "little stone". This is just contrary to what the poster was saying. May I not point that out if I know it to be true?
  And to "Rufus Clancy", quite true, my brother...Jesus Christ IS the one to thank. I would be a fool to say otherwise. I only meant to point out that Constantine did away with paganism on a large scale. Even though he, himself was a pagan. That means a lot when it comes from a society that persecuted Christians on a large scale.
  
  Peace to all.

  • Report
  

  by dmanondrums on April 19th, 2010