Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much

[LovesJesusChrist38]

It seems good to focus on the lord and his teaching, the apostles were only servants, uneducated fisherman, the lord was just a lowly carpenter. They are our examples and we should be like them, the lord is our master and savior, the apostles were just lowly servants, nothing more. Their words are from the spirit, its wise to study them. But we need no man to follow, just the lord and his teaching.

 

[Albion]

No, we do not focus on Saint Peter too much. He was the first Pope and is therefore a very important historical figure in our Church which is the original Church.

That's the claim that I was referring to without which the Church of Rome would not be able to represent itself as unique. It MUST therefore talk about it all the time. But is that "too much" and in what sense?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Non Catholics on THESE boards are more obsessed with Peter than anyone else.

I suppose there is some logic in that

Poll results as of today 1/23/13:

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

29 37.66%
No they do not focus on Peter, the Apostle to the Jews, too much

42 54.55%
I don't know, but am willing to learn more on this

6 7.79%



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Ave Maria No, we do not focus on Saint Peter too much.
He was the first Pope and is therefore a very important historical figure in our Church which is the original Church.

That's the claim that I was referring to without which the Church of Rome would not be able to represent itself as unique.

It MUST therefore talk about it all the time. But is that "too much" and in what sense?

So Peter as the first Pope of Christianianity is more of a Roman Catholicism thang?




.

 

[Zeek]

Peter was the first Pope.....seriously?

Peter is known to have gone to Rome...really?

I think as someone recently posted...that there is a necessity in the RCC of repeatedly endorsing Peter, and going through the set RCC teaching about Peter and the Rock etc, because without it, the self proclaimed authority would collapse like a House of Cards....

 

[Albion]

Peter was the first Pope.....seriously?

Peter is known to have gone to Rome...really?

I think as someone recently posted...that there is a necessity in the RCC of repeatedly endorsing Peter, and going through the set RCC teaching about Peter and the Rock etc, because without it, the self proclaimed authority would collapse like a House of Cards....

...and that's not the whole of it.

IF Peter were indeed the first bishop of Rome, it means nothing to the RCC's claims unless there is an unbroken line of bishops of Rome. Yet the Roman Church's own literature says that there is no evidence that Linus--the alleged successor--was ever consecrated a bishop by Peter or anyone else before Peter's death. Linus was, at that time, outside of Rome and was sent for by the townspeople to become their spiritual leader. Again, that's according to the Roman Catholic Church itself.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Peter was the first Pope.....seriously?

Peter is known to have gone to Rome...really?

I think as someone recently posted...that there is a necessity in the RCC of repeatedly endorsing Peter, and going through the set RCC teaching about Peter and the Rock etc, because without it, the self proclaimed authority would collapse like a House of Cards....

I am actually thinking of starting a poll thread on GT concerning that.

However there is a rather old thread that was put up sometime back, but alas, it was closed because of inactivity

http://www.christianforums.com/t2760314-29/
Poll: Peter in Rome?

There is a verse at the end of St Peter's first letter which says:

13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.-1Pt5

​

During those times Babylon was a code name for Rome because it was the romans who were hostile to Christians just as the Babylonians had done to the jews in centuries past. They knew that the original Babylon was in ruins so they didnt worry about people confusing it when it was mentioned later in early Christian writings as a code name for Rome.

Now many protestants would also claim that the CC is the "harlot of Babylon" mentioned in the book of Revelation, but for some reason wont accept that the "Babylon" in St Peter's letteris also Rome.

This thread is about deciding one or the other, either Peter was in Rome and the CC is the WB or he wasnt in Rome and the CC is not the WB.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2760314-29/#post22620052

The verse referenced is often taken to mean that Peter is writing from Rome, and that seems most likely to me. But it's far from proof.


But, I'm lost as to the point. IF Peter ever visited or lived in Rome does not supply any support for the self-claims of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Denomination.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah

View Poll Results: Was Peter in Rome?

Yes he was, and yes the CC is the WB

3 33.33%
No he wasnt, and the CC is NOT the WB

2 22.22%
The WB tv network is dull and lousy

4 44.44%


.

 

[Yarddog]

This was mentioned in another thread by a RC concerning the Peter and Paul of the NC in the Bible.
Question does the Roman Church put too much focus on the Peter and not enough on the Paul. Thoughts?

From the looks of the poll we can see why there is a division of opinion on this. Catholics and those that understand the Catholic Church know that the Church doesn't focus on Peter while many Protestants and Non-denominationals have an incorrect understanding of the Catholic Church.

They perceive something which isn't there because they are on the outside looking in. There is very little attention attention paid to Peter during the Mass. No more is said about Peter than any other important name, other than Jesus Christ.

The whole focus is on Jesus and how we can apply the Gospel to our own lives.

 

[Rick Otto]

I would call that focus context, but the pretext & subtext are are something completely different.

 

[tadoflamb]

Peter was the first Pope.....seriously?

Peter is known to have gone to Rome...really?

I think as someone recently posted...that there is a necessity in the RCC of repeatedly endorsing Peter, and going through the set RCC teaching about Peter and the Rock etc, because without it, the self proclaimed authority would collapse like a House of Cards....

If it's not from God, then let it fall.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If it's not from God, then let it fall.

Five killed, Hundreds injured as church building collapses during church service in Anambra. - YouTube

 

[Zeek]

If it's not from God, then let it fall.

Advice that has stood me in good stead over many years.

Personally I don't yet believe there is conclusive evidence Peter was ever in Rome, and it seems to me that part of the RCC's modus operandi is creating something out of nothing at times, and then building up an apologetics system to counter any challenges....because quite honestly I have never seen so much store put by in so little evidence, and how a vague nuance in a verse is seen to be unchallengable evidence that a certain teaching is true....sometimes I am simply gobsmacked.

I also think the OP is not so much about 'mentioning' Peter all the time, but that he is the lynch-pin to Catholic authority....which is what Rick Otto was pointing out in so many words.

 

[gawfour]

He was just a man!

 

[Fireinfolding]

He was just a man!

Acts 10:26... Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Holding to the wrong head can have you dissembling likewise with the same

Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Paul sure wasnt holding to Peter (as the head) but withstanding him

 

[seeking Christ]

Paul sure wasnt holding to Peter (as the head) but withstanding him

B-b-but, that's not possible ... he was the POPE, with the KEYS, and the big funny HAT, and the RED SHOES, and the Ex Cathedra!!

 

[Fireinfolding]

B-b-but, that's not possible ... he was the POPE, with the KEYS, and the big funny HAT, and the RED SHOES, and the Ex Cathedra!!

Keys, funny hat, red shoes, long robe or gold ring it says

James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

When youre to be blamed youre to be blamed, take it like a man

 

[seeking Christ]

^ ^ Now I suppose you're going to say that pertains to Ex Cathedra too? (Well I never)

 

[Fireinfolding]

^ ^ Now I suppose you're going to say that pertains to Ex Cathedra too? (Well I never)

To the chair of Peter?

Seems Paul knocked him off his chair there

 

[steve_bakr]

No, Roman Catholics do not focus too much on the Petrine office. Normally, the focus is on what's going on at the Parish. And, of course, the focus in Mass is on Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the center of our worship and community.

 

[Rev Randy]

The poll limits Peter to "Apostle to the Jews. So I can't vote. I'm not a Jew.
In truth, I think we non roman's assume they put more focus on him than they do. They seem to bring him up only when pressed as to their reason for claiming primacy.
I'd say Paul was an Apostle to the gentiles but I wouldn't limit him to that. He also ministered unto some Jews just as Peter ministered unto some gentiles.
A prejudice poll can not result in a non-prejudice result.