Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much

[Tu Es Petrus]

Lemme see here. Paul is known to have authored eight epistles. John authored one gospel, three epistles, and the book of Revelation. Peter authored two relatively short epistles. If one does a word count in the New Testament of things written by these three apostles, Paul comes out in first place closely followed by John, with Peter a very distant third. Perhaps that might be a better perspective on the matter.

So what: George Washington didn't write diddly compared to Jefferson and the other founding fathers, but he was still the first President of the United States.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Lemme see here. Paul is known to have authored eight epistles. John authored one gospel, three epistles, and the book of Revelation. Peter authored two relatively short epistles. If one does a word count in the New Testament of things written by these three apostles, Paul comes out in first place closely followed by John, with Peter a very distant third. Perhaps that might be a better perspective on the matter.

The Gospel of John also has the longest discourse of our Lord Jesus, chapters 14-17 and he is also the auther of Revelation

 

[bbbbbbb]

So what: George Washington didn't write diddly compared to Jefferson and the other founding fathers, but he was still the first President of the United States.

I will leave it to the historians to determine which, if any, of the Founding Fathers was most significant. Ben Franklin certainly wrote a lot and never held a public office. Some say that he was most responsible for the writing of the Declaration of Independence, without which there would have been no United States.

Andrew Johnson didn't write a thing as President of the United States. Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address, along with many other things. Which one was more influential in the history of the United States?

 

[Revelation1217]

What I do appreciate is that people on this forum are not afraid to express what they really think.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I will leave it to the historians to determine which, if any, of the Founding Fathers was most significant. Ben Franklin certainly wrote a lot and never held a public office. Some say that he was most responsible for the writing of the Declaration of Independence, without which there would have been no United States.

Andrew Johnson didn't write a thing as President of the United States. Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address, along with many other things. Which one was more influential in the history of the United States?

And therein lay may point: Which of them was "most significant" is irellevant to the fact the George Washington was the first president.

And the fact that Paul wrote most of the NT is irellevant to the fact that Peter was the first leader (i.e. pope).

What I do appreciate is that people on this forum are not afraid to express what they really think.

LOL. Boy, you got that right.

 

[bbbbbbb]

And therein lay may point: Which of them was "most significant" is irellevant to the fact the George Washington was the first president.

And the fact that Paul wrote most of the NT is irellevant to the fact that Peter was the first leader (i.e. pope).

Really now? And that, folks, displays the excessive significance attached to Peter by some elements of the Christian Church.

LOL. Boy, you got that right.

I agree entirely. There is nothing like freedom of expression.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So what: George Washington didn't write diddly compared to Jefferson and the other founding fathers, but he was still the first President of the United States.

Excellent analogy

If there is no copyright infringment I may use this.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Tu Es Petrus So what: George Washington didn't write diddly compared to Jefferson and the other founding fathers, but he was still the first President of the United States.

Excellent analogy

If there is no copyright infringment I may use this.

Hi JtC! Where hast thou been lately
I can't understand why this thread was moved out of GT........

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I would like to request a mod to move this thread to the OBOB board since this thread concerns that "Denomination". Or please put it back on the GT Board. Is that possible? Thanks

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=JacktheCatholic;Excellent analogy

Except that it's bacwards.
The secular authority naturaly reverses the order of Godly authority.

If there is no copyright infringment I may use this.

The infringement is of scripture, not copywright, bro.
Want some coffee?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I would like to request a mod to move this thread to the OBOB board since this thread concerns that "Denomination". Or please put it back on the GT Board. Is that possible? Thanks

I agree. This seems like an odd place for this thread.

 

[papist1]

Does scripture focus on peter too much? Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church focus on Peter too much?

Of course not. If anyone has actually read the teachings of the church, they would certainly understand the fact that the primary focus is on Christ and none other.

peace, papist

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=papist1; Does scripture focus on peter too much?

Not too much for me.

Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church focus on Peter too much?

Way too much.

Of course not. If anyone has actually read the teachings of the church, they would certainly understand the fact that the primary focus is on Christ and none other.

If you actualy read & understand the teachings of the RCC you would understand the focus on Christ is nominal.

 

[papist1]

Not too much for me.
Way too much.

If you actualy read & understand the teachings of the RCC you would understand the focus on Christ is nominal.

It is evident that you have not read the catechism, which is entirely centered on the life, death and resurrection and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Else one would have given some primary examples of said accusation.

peace, papist

 

[Rick Otto]

From what is evident to you, it is evident to me that examples would be a waste of time.

 

[papist1]

From what is evident to you, it is evident to me that examples would be a waste of time.

Of course they would be a waste of time, because you would be wasting much time trying to find said example(s).

It is a sad thing when people such as yourself utilize false and misconceived accusations without any evidence to support them in order to slander something which you do not understand because you have done no true skeptical investigation. Propogandists like yourself are not only lying and misleading others, but lying to yourself and to God.

This would be called calumny and detraction, of which both are sins unto death (to your soul).

When you decide to actually do your homework and make the effort to READ the actual teachings of the Church, please come back with some real civil discourse and stop wasting my time and that of others.

peace to you, papist

Obamunism, coming to a freedom near you.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=papist1;Of course they would be a waste of time, because you would be wasting much time trying to find said example(s).

Not at all, rather because you are willing to redefine terms like "evidence" to suit your religious affections, that's all.

It is a sad thing when people such as yourself utilize false and misconceived accusations without any evidence to support them in order to slander something which you do not understand

When that happens, we'll address it. Meanwhile let's forego the slander of me to save false faces on a sad religious spectacle.

because you have done no true skeptical investigation.

You flatter me, attributing to me your own circumstance.

Propogandists like yourself are not only lying and misleading others, but lying to yourself and to God.

Again, you confuse what I'm doing with what you're doing.

This would be called calumny and detraction, of which both are sins unto death (to your soul).

You scare me.

When you decide to actually do your homework and make the effort to READ the actual teachings of the Church, please come back with some real civil discourse and stop wasting my time and that of others.

So you can trash me with more unsubstantiated allegations? Don't hold your fetid breathe.

Obamunism, coming to a freedom near you.

You haven't read Syllabus of Errors? Shame on you.

 

[papist1]

Not at all, rather because you are willing to redefine terms like "evidence" to suit your religious affections, that's all.


When that happens, we'll address it. Meanwhile let's forego the slander of me to save false faces on a sad religious spectacle.

You flatter me, attributing to me your own circumstance.
Again, you confuse what I'm doing with what you're doing.
You scare me.

So you can trash me with more unsubstantiated allegations? Don't hold your fetid breathe.

You haven't read Syllabus of Errors? Shame on you.

As we can see, this person has no evidence from the firsthand source of the actual teachings of the Church concerning the topic of there being too much focus on peter in catholic teaching.

Therefore we can all agree that this person is wasting not only my time, but yours also, and lying not only to himself but to God.

May God have mercy on your soul, or please, show me the evidence in catholic teaching that the focus is far more on Peter than on Christ, as you have purported. This would mean that at least somepercentage over 50% would be focused on Peter than on jesus Christ.

BTW, what does the opposition to panthiesm, naturalism and the like have to do with Peter and Jesus? Have you read the Cathecism?

peace, papist

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=papist1;]As we can see,

If we squint thru a Roman lens,...

this person has no evidence from the firsthand source of the actual teachings of the Church concerning the topic of there being too much focus on peter in catholic teaching.

LOL. Which means you have no sound argumentation, so you immediately resort to blanket condemnation.

Therefore we can all agree that this person is wasting not only my time, but yours also, and lying not only to himself but to God.

When you identify another person with your own traits, it's called "projection". It's a bad habit that reinforces denial. Try to quit.

May God have mercy on your soul,

He did. May He have mercy on yours.

or please, show me the evidence in catholic teaching that the focus is far more on Peter than on Christ, as you have purported.

Papacy, infallability, inerrancy of teaching, all of it flows from Petrine Primacy - confusing primacy of honor with primacy of authority is confusing Peter with God.

This would mean that at least somepercentage over 50% would be focused on Peter than on jesus Christ.

Qualitatively, it is, not quantitatively. Mary gets the quantity and even exceeds qualitatively in manufactured importance.

BTW, what does the opposition to panthiesm, naturalism and the like have to do with Peter and Jesus?

Assert your point. You haven't made one.

Have you read the Cathecism?

Off & on, I do. CaliforniaJosiah pastes from it frequently. I was taught it in my 1st 18yrs of life as an RC. Nave you?

 

[papist1]

If we squint thru a Roman lens,...
LOL. Which means you have no sound argumentation, so you immediately resort to blanket condemnation.

When you identify another person with your own traits, it's called "projection". It's a bad habit that reinforces denial. Try to quit.


He did. May He have mercy on yours.

Papacy, infallability, inerrancy of teaching, all of it flows from Petrine Primacy - confusing primacy of honor with primacy of authority is confusing Peter with God.
Qualitatively, it is, not quantitatively. Mary gets the quantity and even exceeds qualitatively in manufactured importance.
Assert your point. You haven't made one.
Off & on, I do. CaliforniaJosiah pastes from it frequently. I was taught it in my 1st 18yrs of life as an RC. Nave you?

The syllabus of errors is an encyclical silly. if you knew Catholic teaching you would certainly know that encyclicals are not equal in any way to official Catholic teaching.

I have read through the Catechism several times, including previous to converting to the Catholic Church.

The fact that you were Catholic in name for the first 18 years of your life, adds no proof whatsoever as to whether you were ever properly catechised. Your present position would clue me in to the fact that you were not.

peace, papist