• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much

  • Thread starter LittleLambofJesus
  • Start date

RCs and Peter vs Paul

  • Yes they focus on Peter, the Apostle to the Jews, too much

  • No they do not focus on Peter, the Apostle to the Jews, too much

  • I don't know, but am willing to learn more on this


Results are only viewable after voting.

AHJE

& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp;
Jun 27, 2012
693
7
✟23,402.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The Romans have no choice but to go on about S.Peter, as someone else has said it is the basis for their whole organisation.
But I don't mind this desperation, it's understandable, the real question is, why don't they prove their contentions?

Interesting word there ... "basis" ... I like Jesus word better, Rock.

How about "organisation" ... I like Jesus word better, Church.

What "desperation" when we are standing solidly on the Rock which Jesus, the Master Builder, has chosen?

"Prove"? ... I believe the burden of proof is on anyone to show that the Bible does NOT show that Jesus singled Simon out from among the Apostles ... and renamed him PETER (KEPHAS) ... and that the Apostles recognized this fact. That Jesus gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and furthermore, the power to bind and loose.

? ? ?

I think that a better title for this thread ought to be:

Do Protestants seek to undermine the Ecclesiastical Authority of Peter and his lawful Successors?

Protestants claim to take Jesus at his word, ... well, ... unless it does not suit them it seems. Those who despise Peter or the Pope despise Jesus and the One who sent Jesus.

God love you.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Upvote 0

Michael David

Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miserere nobis
Nov 20, 2012
8
0
Visit site
✟22,618.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Romans have no choice but to go on about S.Peter, as someone else has said it is the basis for their whole organisation.
But I don't mind this desperation, it's understandable, the real question is, why don't they prove their contentions?

Can you blame us for seeking to stay in communion with the successor of the one to whom Christ gave the 'keys to the kingdom of heaven?' Yes some fathers speak of the 'rock,' as Peter's confession of faith, but in most of those SAME cases and also in about 3 times more cases, the fathers speak of the person of Peter as the rock! We catholics are not fundamentalists, we can believe that the 'rock' is Peter's person AND his confession (in fact, our Catechism says so!). Anyways, even if you stubbornly insist that Peter (rock) is not 'the rock,' you cannot argue that Jesus gave him the 'keys; in a unique and singular way according to the Bible.

"the real question is, why don't they prove their contentions?"

As for proof, read all of the early church fathers that you can.I would post links, but my post count isn't high enough yet so I am not permitted to. If you want more of a 'bible only' type proof, read 'Jesus, Peter, and the Keys,' which still has not been refuted WHATSOEVER by all that protestantism can muster. The best that critics can do is throw stones at some of the contributors because they only have master's degrees instead of doctorates, and then whine that Catholics have a "peter syndrome". Uhh, sorry guys, but what were you expecting, did you not read the second word in the title of the book? Also, please don't pretend that all Catholic beliefs must be explicitly described in scripture, because scripture never teaches 'sola scriptura,' and neither do we.


BTW, all this is coming from someone who used to call the pope the antichrist before he stopped believing the ignorant polemics, and actually studied the bible and church history. All I have to say now is that I recommend you to stay far away from the early church fathers, ecumenical councils, and all pre-16th century interpretations of scripture if you hope to remain a protestant with a clear conscience.

I apologize if this all comes across as arrogant, and I have no intentions of belittling or offending. I just can't help but come to the defense of the Catholic Church, which I now love even 5 times more than I used to hate (which is a lot!) when I was non-denominational, then calvinist, and then Lutheran.

-May the peace of Christ be with you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Can you blame us for seeking to stay in communion with the successor of the one to whom Christ gave the 'keys to the kingdom of heaven?'
I don't think that this ^ matters much to other Christians. It's more the invention of Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, and the "one, true, church" ideas that offends.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by Michael David Can you blame us for seeking to stay in communion with the successor of the one to whom Christ gave the 'keys to the kingdom of heaven?'
I don't think that this ^ matters much to other Christians. It's more the invention of Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, and the "one, true, church" ideas that offends.
:thumbsup: :amen:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7571475/
Arguments against the Supremacy of the Papacy/Petrine Primacy?

Can you kindly provide me with arguments and writings of the early Church Fathers against Petrine supremacy? I read St Matthew chapter XVI, and I see that St Peter specifically was given keys to Heaven's Kingdom; this seems so clear to me. However, if it can be refuted by the early Church, I may potentially be considering Orthodoxy.

However, thus far, I have as of yet, not found any argument, convincing. I am very cautious regarding this. As I only wish to make sure, that with God's help, I am doing what God wills for me.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you kindly.

Pax Christi.

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

Michael David

Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miserere nobis
Nov 20, 2012
8
0
Visit site
✟22,618.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't think that this ^ matters much to other Christians. It's more the invention of Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, and the "one, true, church" ideas that offends.

I see and I can respect where you are coming from. I am interested in finding out why you think these three notions are inventions. We believe that papal supremacy, infallibility, and One true Church are all inherent within Jesus granting the 'keys of the kingdom' to Peter, prophesying that this Church will not fail, and making Peter the sheperd of the whole flock (confirm your brethren, tend my sheep, feed my sheep, etc...). Christ, who is the Truth himself, promised to always remain with his Church, and if the truth will always remain, then the person with final say must be guaranteed by God to say the truth when it comes timee to make the final say (through an ecumenical council or in the rare ex-cathedra statements).

If they are inventions, rather than legitimate developments within a blossoming Church that is growing into the fullness of itself and what it is meant to be, when were they invented? Was it during the first 800 years or so of the Church, when Rome rescued the East from error time and time again, and all the Eastern councils DESPERATELY sought papal approval for their councils (even to the point of imprisonment of a pope in one case!) so as to make them universally binding?

Was it invented in the 1st century, when Pope Clement saw fit to make authoritative judgments regarding other Churches disputes?

Was it invented in the 2nd/3rd century, was it was clearly expressed that:

St. Irenaeus "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)"

Tertullian:
"I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19a) or 'whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19b) that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed onto you, that is to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? (Tertullian, On Modesty, 21:9-10, 200 A.D.)"

"St. Cyprian:
The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," He says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19) And again He says to him after His resurrection: "Feed my sheep." (John 21:17) On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can still be confident that he is in the Church? (St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4, 246 A.D.)"

Like all legitimate authorities, it was challenged by some churches, but it was always there. If you want quotes from some Eastern Church fathers regarding the papacy, I will gladly supply them.


-May the peace of Christ be with you.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I see and I can respect where you are coming from. I am interested in finding out why you think these three notions are inventions.

That would take a lot of explaining, and we've been over all of the them repeatedly on these forums. In short, none of them is original with Christianity or supported by scripture. But, of course, the issue is more the flaunting of the belief and "lording it over" other Christians, not the beliefs themselves, that causes most of the resentment, IMO--and that is the question of the thread as I get it.

We believe that papal supremacy, infallibility, and One true Church are all inherent within Jesus granting the 'keys of the kingdom' to Peter, prophesying that this Church will not fail, and making Peter the sheperd of the whole flock (confirm your brethren, tend my sheep, feed my sheep, etc...).
Yes, we're all familiar with the explanations that the church offers on these matters. On the surface, they seem reasonable enough, but the facts are otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

SilenceInMotion

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2012
1,240
40
Virginia, USA
✟1,646.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much

Well being that it is Peter's church, of course he is going to have a special place in it.

But that doesn't mean that we hold Paul or any of the others in lesser esteem, either.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much

We usually get rolling and forget the actual wording in the thread's title, but I too was thinking of it exactly as written and...

I'd have to say "yes."

It is apparent that the members of the RCC are as grounded in that claim as Mormons are with the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Everything hangs on the one basic proposition that is believed to establish authenticity.

The reason I'd answer "yes" is because the idea that a church--any church--is correct merely because it's the oldest church does not make sense. It's really a non-sequitur.

Besides, there are several that are older anyway. ;)
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well being that it is Peter's church, of course he is going to have a special place in it.

But that doesn't mean that we hold Paul or any of the others in lesser esteem, either.
But of course! :)

Originally Posted by Catholic Christian
Long Live
Peter among us !

pope_350.jpg
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well being that it is Peter's church, of course he is going to have a special place in it.

But that doesn't mean that we hold Paul or any of the others in lesser esteem, either.
Thks for bumping this up bro.

I originally started it on the GT board, but the powers to be put it on this board.
"Denomination Specific".

That appears to imply y'alls church is a Denomination afterall :D ;) :p
 
Upvote 0

SilenceInMotion

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2012
1,240
40
Virginia, USA
✟1,646.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That appears to imply y'alls church is a Denomination afterall :D ;) :p

The context in which 'denomination' is used is self-evident. The traditional churches are not denominational; they are not even on the same paradigm.

Many people just call it a denomination as to not labor under exhaustive semantics. And, in some cases, not to give the traditional churches due credit.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I couldn't vote, Peter was commanded to teach all nations, not just The Jewish nation, Babylonia comes to mind. But yes Rc is in error.
When do we ever see much of Peter traveling with Paul to preach to the "gentiles/nations" in the NT?

Galatians 2:8
for He who did work with Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,
did work also in me in regard to the nations/gentiles
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by LovesJesusChrist38 I couldn't vote, Peter was commanded to teach all nations, not just The Jewish nation, Babylonia comes to mind. But yes Rc is in error.

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus When do we ever see much of Peter traveling with Paul to preach to the "gentiles/nations" in the NT?
I was just saying, but i see your point and did understand the op the way it was intended, i understand.
Ahhh, ok thks for clarifying that...



.
 
Upvote 0