Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

[parousia70]

For some reason, catholics believe that Peter founded catholicism... Peter was a jewish believer of Jesus. That makes him a messianic jew. Peter is the rock, to say otherwise is to disagree with Jesus. Peters church never taught idol/statue worship, never taught the mary was an intercessor, never taught custom before scripture/gospel( Jesus spent most of his ministry rebuking the pharisees for this), peter never taught that himself, any apostle/disciple, priest or any other man was an intercessor between man and God, he never taught that his followers could forgive sin etc... Even if catholicism is the church that Peter started(which there is no evidence for, if anything his ministry was very similar to a scripture heavy, messianic jewish congregation) today’s catholic church doctrine is WAY off. Catholics CAN be saved, but, their doctrine is off for sure and its very clear to anyone who reads the scriptures.

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.

Given these two polar opposite church structures, I'm going to side with the Church of Scripture, every time.

Pope Clement of Rome (late 80s AD) wrote a letter to the Corinthians, and the letter was in response to THEIR appeal to him to solve a serious doctrinal division they were having. So, even in the late first century there were apostolic Churches that were making appeals to the Bishop of Rome to settle grave disputes.

The fact remains that There was only one denomination until the protesting catholics broke away in the 1500s (Luther etc). Moreover, only one group of christians can trace its existence from the first century down to today: the catholics. No protestant denomination traces its history back to before about AD 1500. So, we know for a fact that no modern protestant sect has apostolic origins. Yet the catholic sect does, for it originated in the first century and continued in unbroken existence down to our times.

It has continued for 20 centuries now, and its doctrines have never changed. No other organization or government has lasted even beyond a few centuries.

Francis is, also without question, the 266th successor of the Prime Minister of the King, Bishop of the Church of Rome, an apostolic Church which appears in our bibles.

As I mentioned above, The postions of authority in Israel were held within "offices" (Lk 1:8 or Heb 7:5, for example). This continued right on in the offices of the New Israel of the Church. That is, Christ and the apostles came to build a Church that would exist forever (Eph 3:21; Matt 16:18-19), and that Church had leadership contained in "offices" (1 Tim 3:1,10; Acts 1:20; Rom 11:13, 12:4).

Offices have authority by virtue of their God-ordained existence, not by virtue of the person holding office. Psalm 109:8 affirms the nature of the offices of the Church--i.e., they are "offices," and they exist apart from the individual, and they continue perpetually for as long as the Melchizedek priesthood shall last (i.e., forever).

Apostolic Succession is historical and biblical. It can be traced by history, going all the way back generation by generation to Jesus. This is precisely why the Catholic priesthood is the one Jesus instituted 20 centuries ago. This is NOT at all to say those outside of this order are not Christians, but only to say that God has created a governmental order to the Church, and this has not been followed by protestants who broke away from the government of the Church and denied it existed any longer since "the papacy became the endtimes antichrist" (as Luther falsely taught). Obviously, the chaos of the protestant world is the result of this breaking away from the ordained Church government instituted by Christ.

 

[Major1]

Double post, again.

 

[Major1]

So, if we accept what you have written here, it is the case that both sides misrepresent the other at times.

On a "discussion" board, that fact doesn't seem like a reason for berating the motives or character of the other poster(s) at every opportunity.

Agreed.

Perfect example is
Lost4words said: ↑
"Its amazing how many people on here who clearly do not understand Catholicism and go by untruths".

I like Mrs. Lost for words. She is probably a wonderful Christian person as far as I know and I have absolutely nothin against her at all. She is only parroting what she has been taught all of her life.

The question then must be....."Is what is taught what is found in the Bible"?
You see, and I know you agree from past comments, to be a Bible Christian, one must belive in and accept the Bible as the Word of God. WHY???????

Romans 10:17...…….
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God"!

But to say that we who do not accept Catholic doctrine as we "Do not understand Catholicism and go by untruths" is simply not true.

I know for a fact that you make absolutely sure what you say about the RCC is true (So do I) and I applaud you for that.

You see, there is NO response or debate made on the questions asked. Only a personal comment to deflect the position or question in view.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Catholic article makes its defence:
"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.”"

that's an interesting observation, it, however, lacks the reason why the two forms are pitted together if there is no reason for it.

One thing I notice that no one seems to bring up is "petra" is feminine and so is ekklesia (church) where "petros" is masculine (and so is Peter). Jesus isn't going to call Peter a girls name, which would be insulting, nor can he call the church, a feminine noun, a masculine noun. this may have nothing to do with the meanings of the word and more to do with using the right gender

 

[☦Marius☦]

While I believe that Peter was the rock, it doesn't justify papal infallibility or any f the other post schism heresies that have developed in the west.

 

[Major1]

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.

Given these two polar opposite church structures, I'm going to side with the Church of Scripture, every time.

Pope Clement of Rome (late 80s AD) wrote a letter to the Corinthians, and the letter was in response to THEIR appeal to him to solve a serious doctrinal division they were having. So, even in the late first century there were apostolic Churches that were making appeals to the Bishop of Rome to settle grave disputes.

The fact remains that There was only one denomination until the protesting catholics broke away in the 1500s (Luther etc). Moreover, only one group of christians can trace its existence from the first century down to today: the catholics. No protestant denomination traces its history back to before about AD 1500. So, we know for a fact that no modern protestant sect has apostolic origins. Yet the catholic sect does, for it originated in the first century and continued in unbroken existence down to our times.

It has continued for 20 centuries now, and its doctrines have never changed. No other organization or government has lasted even beyond a few centuries.

Francis is, also without question, the 266th successor of the Prime Minister of the King, Bishop of the Church of Rome, an apostolic Church which appears in our bibles.

As I mentioned above, The postions of authority in Israel were held within "offices" (Lk 1:8 or Heb 7:5, for example). This continued right on in the offices of the New Israel of the Church. That is, Christ and the apostles came to build a Church that would exist forever (Eph 3:21; Matt 16:18-19), and that Church had leadership contained in "offices" (1 Tim 3:1,10; Acts 1:20; Rom 11:13, 12:4).

Offices have authority by virtue of their God-ordained existence, not by virtue of the person holding office. Psalm 109:8 affirms the nature of the offices of the Church--i.e., they are "offices," and they exist apart from the individual, and they continue perpetually for as long as the Melchizedek priesthood shall last (i.e., forever).

Apostolic Succession is historical and biblical. It can be traced by history, going all the way back generation by generation to Jesus. This is precisely why the Catholic priesthood is the one Jesus instituted 20 centuries ago. This is NOT at all to say those outside of this order are not Christians, but only to say that God has created a governmental order to the Church, and this has not been followed by protestants who broke away from the government of the Church and denied it existed any longer since "the papacy became the endtimes antichrist" (as Luther falsely taught). Obviously, the chaos of the protestant world is the result of this breaking away from the ordained Church government instituted by Christ.

Wonderful post. Now we have something to talk about.

You said...………...
"Apostolic Succession is historical and biblical."

Please post the Scriptures where that opinion can be verified.

Then you said...………..
"The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body.... without schismatic divisions."
"Given these two polar opposite church structures, I'm going to side with the Church of Scripture, every time."

So then you just said that the Catholic church is the "Church of Scripture".

Then please post for all of us FROM THE SCRIPTURES where we can find...……….
PURGATORY taught.
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION of Mary.
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY.
THE ROSARY.
THE BISHOPS UNABLE TO BE MARRIED.
MARY AS THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN.
TRANSUBSTAINCIATION.
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY.
MARY'S RIGHT TO VENERATION.
MARY'S ROLE AS CO-REDEMPTRIX.

I do not want to bog you down with a lot of these, so I will only ask you to prove these Catholic terachings from the Scriptures as you are a member of the Scripture Church.

 

[Major1]

oops.

For some reason when I hit the post option my computer shows a little black box in the upper right hand corner. It blincks 3 white bars and nothing happens.

I wait 4 or 5 minutes and then move on to something else and then it double posts what I did.

 

[Major1]

While I believe that Peter was the rock, it doesn't justify papal infallibility or any f the other post schism heresies that have developed in the west.

Agreed. There are NO Scriptures to validate Papal infallibility.

 

[Albion]

I like Mrs. Lost for words. She is probably a wonderful Christian person as far as I know and I have absolutely nothin against her at all. She is only parroting what she has been taught all of her life.

Taking personalities out of the matter, it is absolutely the case that the RCC teaches its people that the rest of the Christian world is not only heretical but also bent upon defaming, misrepresenting, and deliberately telling lies about the RCC. I can think of a couple of much smaller and marginal church bodies that do something of the sort themselves, but it doesn't seem to come through so often in what their people say to other Christians.

But to say that we who do not accept Catholic doctrine as we "Do not understand Catholicism and go by untruths" is simply not true.

Agreed.

However, I was also amused or fascinated or something like that to note that, in the recent post which complained about people not understanding Catholicism, the complaint was followed immediately by a false statement about other people who adhere to Sola Scriptura. How ironic.

 

[Major1]

Taking personalities out of the matter, it is absolutely the case that the RCC teaches its people that the rest of the Christian world is not only heretical but also bent upon defaming, misrepresenting, and deliberately telling lies about the RCC. I can think of a couple of much smaller and marginal church bodies that do something of the sort themselves, but it doesn't seem to come through so often in what their people say to other Christians.


Agreed.

However, I was also amused or fascinated or something like that to note that, in the recent post which complained about people not understanding Catholicism, the complaint was followed immediately by a false statement about other people who adhere to Sola Scriptura. How ironic.

Yes, I saw that as well...…….

 

[Albion]

oops.

For some reason when I hit the post option my computer shows a little black box in the upper right hand corner. It blincks 3 white bars and nothing happens.

I wait 4 or 5 minutes and then move on to something else and then it double posts what I did.

That's right. If that happens and the word "loading..." appears in the lower left, you can be sure that it will be posted whenever the problem resolves itself (usually in a couple of minutes). Don't hit "Post Reply" a second time.

 

[Athanasius377]

We can see the church influencing Scripture (though this is another historical fact that many refuse to acknowledge) and we can see Scripture influencing the church.

That's a rather odd statement. What do you mean?

 

[parousia70]

Wonderful post. Now we have something to talk about.

You said...………...
"Apostolic Succession is historical and biblical."

Please post the Scriptures where that opinion can be verified.

I already have above, but here's another regarding choosing the apostolic successor to Judas the apostle:

Acts 1:20
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Then you said...………..
"The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body.... without schismatic divisions."

Yes, and I posted scriptures verifying that... if you disagree, then go ahead and provide your alternate interpretation of those scriptures.

"Given these two polar opposite church structures, I'm going to side with the Church of Scripture, every time."

So then you just said that the Catholic church is the "Church of Scripture".

Then please post for all of us FROM THE SCRIPTURES where we can find...……….
PURGATORY taught.
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION of Mary.
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY.
THE ROSARY.
THE BISHOPS UNABLE TO BE MARRIED.
MARY AS THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN.
TRANSUBSTAINCIATION.
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY.
MARY'S RIGHT TO VENERATION.
MARY'S ROLE AS CO-REDEMPTRIX.

I do not want to bog you down with a lot of these, so I will only ask you to prove these Catholic terachings from the Scriptures as you are a member of the Scripture Church.

Tell ya what... I'll work on providing you that scripture list you asked for.
while I'm doing that, why don't you take the scriptures i already posted and provide your alternative interpretation that supports the position that they do not mean what I have already contended they do?
Unless you are telling me that so far you are in agreement with me about them?

 

[Albion]

Folks, Apostolic Succession is essentially a system of church government. It provides orderliness and, presumably, continuity and expertise. The churches which follow a presbyterian or congregationalist system of church government do much the same thing, and all of them were present somewhere in the first century, along with a primitive kind of Apostolic Succession.

The latter developed for perfectly ordinary and logical reasons in the late first century but does seem to have a Scriptural basis as well, considering the various places in the New Testament where we see the Apostles, whom Christ chose and commissioned personally, themselves calling or authorizing other men to lead after them. Infallibility does not come with Apostolic Succession, nor is it necessarily linked to Papal Supremacy despite the fact that I have often heard people talk as though it is.

 

[dqhall]

I looked at the link you placed here and could not find anything that talked about poor widows. You seem to have created a non sequitur with the assumption that it is terrible for poor widows to give money to the church for their usage. Strange since Christ praised the poor widow that gave all of her money to the temple. The inference seems to be that poor widows should not have been allowed to donate money for St. Peters Basilica. When I was there, I thought just the opposite. How else could these poor people leave anything to their ancestors that they could point to with pride and say, "I helped fund this."?

I am reminded of Jesus’ ministry to the poor being more important than silver or gold:

Matthew 19 World English Bible - public domain

16 Behold, one came to him and said, “Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?”

17 He said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

18 He said to him, “Which ones?”

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder.’ ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ‘You shall not steal.’ ‘You shall not offer false testimony.’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ Exodus 20:12-16; Deuteronomy 5:16-20 And, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” Leviticus 19:18

20 The young man said to him, “All these things I have observed from my youth. What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 But when the young man heard this, he went away sad, for he was one who had great possessions.

23 Jesus said to his disciples, “Most certainly I say to you, a rich man will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven with difficulty. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into God’s Kingdom.”

 

[tz620q]

That's a rather odd statement. What do you mean?

You are right. I probably should have fleshed this out a bit more. For us, Scripture and Tradition (apostolic tradition) are from the same font of revelation which is Jesus Christ. There is not the separation between the two as seen in most Protestant churches. When the Church was deciding which books were canon, they used Tradition, as kept alive in the Church, to decide on the validity of books that were going to be sacred. This is not denying the inspiration of God within these books; but it is pointing out that other books seems to have similar inspiration in parts. Also these other books claimed to be apostolic. Tradition allowed the Church to rule on the apostolicity of the books because Tradition had kept track of which ones were truly attributable to the apostles. Similarly Tradition was a light used to shine on a books inspiration. It can be easy from today's viewpoint to look at the theology contained in the Bible and see it as self-evident; but at the time of Pope Damasus, Arianism could have easily bent the Scriptures to more Gnostic ways. Similarly, I think we can agree that Scripture has a profound influence on the Church.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I have no issue in calling Peter the Rock on whose foundation the Church is to be built. I think that is the best and simplest explanation of what is going on in the text. Recall Peter calls the Lord the Christ the Son of the Living God. The Lord responds with calling Peter Rock. Where I would depart is with the interpretation that show horns the papacy into the text. That is a matter of later ecclesiastical development.

I would agree thst Peter being the Rock in this context makes sense.

I would argue that Christ's later instructions to Peter in John 21:15-17 point to a unique teaching and shepherding role that Peter was given by Christ, and thus, to his successors.

Things definitely developed. So did the doctrine of the Trinity, the truth of the two natues of Christ, and the canon of Scripture. But enough evidence is there in Scripture itself, and history, to be able to come to the conclusion that what the Catholic Church has always taught on this matter is valid, and true.

 

[Francis Drake]

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.

19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

In my view, the Greek original clearly proves that Jesus alone is "The Rock", not Peter, but given the arguments around this one stand alone verse, surely, there must be evidence elsewhere that confirms it one way or another.

Here's what Paul said about the Israelites escaping Egypt.-
1Cor10v1For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, .....................................................and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were drinking from the spiritual rock accompanying them, and the rock was Christ.
As can be seen, Paul who writes later, describes Jesus as the Rock, not Peter.
"For I do not want you to be ignorant brothers....." It seems to me that there are many brothers who are determined to remain ignorant!

Romans9v33as it has been written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and the one believing on Him will never be put to shame."
We are called here to believe on Jesus, not Peter.

1Peter2v7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
8and,“A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.”
It is Jesus who is the cornerstone that was rejected, not Peter. And that was written by Peter himself!

But lets look where the title originates further back in history.-
Ps61v5Rest in God alone, O my soul, for my hope comes from Him.
6He alone is my rock and my salvation; He is my fortress; I will not be shaken.
7My salvation and my honor rest on God, my strong rock; my refuge is in God.
Again we see the title of Rock being given to God alone, to the exclusion of all others, ie. Peter is excluded from that title.

2Sam22v2And he said:“The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
3The God of my strength, in whom I will trust;
Again, "The Lord is my Rock, not Peter.

Isaiah17v10Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation,
And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold,
Again, our Rock is the God of Salvation, not Peter.

Psalm18v2The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
My God, my strength, in whom I will trust;
Again, the Lord is our Rock not Peter.

And Isaiah states categorically that there is no other Rock than the Lord
Isaiah44v6“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.
You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.’ ”
Isaiah says "there is no other Rock", so how can people claim that Peter is also the rock?
The one and only Rock of ages is our Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, the King of Israel, The First and the Last, all titles of Jesus alone, not Peter!

Proof again-
1Sam2v2“No one is holy like the Lord, For there is none besides You,
Nor is there any rock like our God.
Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.’ ”
Scripture states categorically that there is no other Rock than God himself, so why do fools persist in giving the title to Peter?

Is26v4Trust in the LORD forever, because GOD the LORD is the everlasting Rock.
Ps92v15To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness
in Him.
Ps144v1A Psalm of David. Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle;

Abundant evidence shows that there is no other Rock that Jesus, our Lord and Redeemer, and nowhere, absolutely nowhere is there any evidence that a man, Peter, has usurped that title.
The Jews of Jesus's time would be very very familiar with the title of "Rock" for God, as the Messianic King of Israel, and neither Peter himself, nor the apostles would have ever considered any other interpretation of the title.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm having some discussions with a friend of mine who is a Christian Catholic, in regards to the following verse:

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.

19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

From this verse among others the Catholic church seem to legitimize the church and all it's traditions, doctrines and sacraments.

Was Jesus saying that the whole church was build upon Peter and his successors, and so established the Catholic Church as the One church, with the rest of all denominations being "broken" churches, scattered boats flowing astray from the Ark?

I'm trying to figure out the different interpretations of the the verse above from both a Catholic and Protestant point of view.

The two articles:

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built? | CARM.org

Peter the Rock

Carm.com: The author is making the argument that the greek word "petra" (feminine), meaning little stone, and petros (masculine) meaning unmoveable rock.
"...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..."

Later Peter is showing himself not as an immovable rock, but one that denies the Lord 3 times. The Catholic claim is that in the context Jesus is referring Peter as The Rock, the protestant however is making the context broader by what is happening later. I hope I'm making some sense, this is quite new to me.

The Catholic article makes its defence:
"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.”"
‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’

The Catholic defence is that the protestant position is making a wrong interpretation of the Greek word Petros and Petra.

My final question is: What did Jesus actually mean? Was Peter The Rock, or was Jesus himself the foundation of the whole church? Is there a counter-argument to the Catholic Article and the Protestant, where does the "conflict" meet its end?

Peter did become unmoveable when he faced martyrdom at the hands of Nero.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Get ready to welcome the Catholic bashers!

Read:

Peter the Rock A great article as mentioned in above post.

Quote:

“To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.”

Ok I agree that Jesus does say that He would build His church upon Peter but let’s face it apostolic succession failed. Between 1184AD-1870AD 99 Roman popes sanctioned the inquisitions and of which the Roman church has officially apologized for the actions of these men during that time. So for 686 years apostolic succession failed 99 times. These men were not infallible and being chosen as the pope of the Roman Church does not guarantee that person is being guided by the Holy Spirit and representing Christ.