Petrine Doctrine of Papacy...Authority as God’s self appointed church exposed

Petrine Doctrine of Papacy...Authority as God’s self assumed appointed church exposed

Matthew 16:15-19 (NKJV)

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The chief scriptural basis the Catholic religion uses to justify their self-appointed ecclesiastical authority (over Christianity) comes to us from the passage above. They particularly like to zoom in on verses 18 and 19 to take away from some of the context of the passage. This thread will thoroughly examine this passage to understand its full meaning and then scrutinize the catholic interpretation to see if it holds water in line with other scriptural truths and historical evidences.

The background to this passage is that Jesus was asking the disciples who the people in the region say that Jesus is (v.13). None of the disciples relayed back saying that people had recognised Him to be the Messiah/Christ or God but rather merely “one of the prophets” instead (v.14). Jesus then asked the disciples who they say He is and Simon Peter replies by recognising Him as “the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God.”

In verse 17 we see that it is considered a blessing by Jesus that Simon Peter has recognised/understood this truth, the truth that Jesus was in fact the promised one who was to save the world from the curse of sin and was God’s Son in the flesh.

Historically, why might this be a blessing?
Let’s have a look at some OT passages relating to the prophetic foretelling of the Messiah

Isaiah 53:11 ... by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.

Here we have God the Father talking of His Son to come Jesus who will justify many before the throne of God when people have knowledge of who He is. He would also bear their iniquities which is another blessing.

Thus, Peter showed knowledge of who Jesus is and was therefore blessed because he would now be considered justified in faith and salvation.

Peter formally recognises these characteristics of Jesus himself when he says:

1 Peter 2:24 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness; you have been healed by His wounds.

Or another OT prophetic promise,

Psalms 72:17 His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.

Here we have a passage foretelling what the Messiah would do; we see that “men shall be blessed in him”...would having ones salvation justified and assured be a blessing to Peter when he recognised Jesus...I think so!

What NT scriptural foundation might there be for this recognition as a chief axiom amongst Jesus’ church

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life

Hebrews 11:1, 2 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Mark 16:15-16 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Galatians 2:16 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

It seems awfully clear to me that having ones salvation justified rests on a person recognising and understanding Jesus’ acts as our Messiah, the foundation of Jesus’ church’s offering of eternal life to the world and readily seen as the reason my Peter would apparently be blessed.

Now let’s play along for a bit to give the Catholic church a hearing out and see where it ends up
Rejecting the contextual basis for the passage, can we really reject as well that the Bible is telling us God’s church authority on Earth would be from Peter and that evidently it would be the Roman church?

Now according to the Catholic argument the original Aramaic (which unfortunately no original manuscripts exists with) uses the word Ke'pha' to name Peter (as Peter’s name also means rock) and the rock from which God’s church is to be based is also called ke'pha'. Hmmm, some understandable confusion right transpire out of this limited descriptive language use, especially from those who want to ignore grammar in relation to the object of the passage and the previous verse context if it means they can further their own ends.

This distinction in the Greek, the Protestant points out, makes it clear that Peter is not the rock that the church is founded upon, but rather Peter's profession of faith and/or Jesus Himself. To this the Catholic will likely respond that early church fathers indicate the book of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek. The Greek, they will say, has been incorrectly rendered because petra, being feminine in the Greek, could not have been used to represent Peter's name. They will propose that what Jesus really said in Aramaic to Simon Peter was this: "thou art Peter (Kepha), and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my church;" ... . The original Aramaic, they will point out, makes it quite plain that Peter was indeed the rock.... However, there is a small problem with this approach. No Aramaic texts of Matthew have survived, they have all been lost. So just what the Aramaic texts might have said is nothing but pure speculation.
source

When this passage was rendered into the inspired Greek with its intended meaning better revealed a few problems seem to have arisen (for the Romanists).

Traditionally, Romanists base their case primarily on this passage, claiming that Peter is the “rock” upon which the Church is founded, thus giving his successors the full power of binding and loosing. There is certainly a word-play evident in the Greek. The name Peter is Petros and rock is petras. Even so, it is not clear in the original language that Christ was referring to Peter being the foundation of the Church when He spoke of “this rock.” “Peter” is in the second person but “this rock” is in the third person. Furthermore, “Peter” is a masculine, singular term but “rock” is a feminine, singular term. Thus, it seems unlikely that they have the same referent. Jesus could have easily said, “and upon you the rock,” had He intended Rome’s meaning. Instead, He switches from direct address to the demonstrative “this.”

Arguing this in non-technical language is somewhat strained but when going from second person, “you, Peter,” to third person, “this rock,” then “this rock” is referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding phrase, something that we find in the immediate context.

Horn, Thomas; Putnam, Cris D. (2012-04-15). Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope Is Here (Kindle Locations 3445-3454). Defender Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.

Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words.

According to Liddell and Scott:

Petros, ...(distinct from petra)...
Hom. IL. 16.734; 7:270; 20.288
E. Heracl.1002, "panta kinesai petron" ..."Leave no stone unturned"
cf. Pl. Lg. 843a
X. HG 3.5.20 "Petrous epekulindoun" "They rolled down stones."
S. Ph 296 to produce fire "en petroisi petron ektribon"
Id. OC 1595 of a boulder forming a landmark
[the usual prose word is lithos]"
from: A Greek - English Lexicon, complied by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, pg. 1397- 8, Pub. by Oxford, at the Clarendon Press.)

NOTE: Petros, a stone, a smaller movable stone (Heracletes uses it in the phrase "leave no stone unturned.") So, a "PETROS" is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone. Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.

The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona. Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.
...

Conclusion
a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be:
"You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text:
"You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."

b. The Pe#ta Syriac New Testament text, at leaast in its extant MSS, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA.

c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language.

d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"
source

When rendered and analysed in a language (Greek) that can make some sufficient language distinctions and who’s manuscripts actually exist we see the Romanist argument again rendered disturbingly lacking in substance (even when overlooking the context of the passage which has already defeated the doctrine).

The death knell of this Catholic argument line is the words of 4th Century Catholic church Father Augustine:

“On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built.”

Augustine, “On the Gospel of John,” Tractate 12435; as quoted in James R. White, Answers to Catholic Claims: A Discussion of Biblical Authority (Southbridge, MA: Crowne Pubns, 1990), p.106

Next we will go on a tour around the scriptures to see if this Petrine doctrine is in contradiction to any other scripture

- In v.18 we see the phrase used “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it”...this is a rather ironic phrase when just a few verses later in v.23 we read Jesus telling Peter:

Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

So according to Catholic doctrine Peter would be God’s representative on Earth and yet almost instantly Peter is prevailed against by Satan and his thoughts are shown not to be of God but of men. We are also told in Matthew 26:69-75 that Peter denies Jesus three times.

Who is the rock and what are these keys to heaven
-

Centuries before the Saviour’s advent Moses had pointed to the Rock of Israel’s salvation. The psalmist had sung of “the Rock of my strength.” Isaiah had written, “Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.” Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 62:7; Isaiah 28:16. Peter himself, writing by inspiration, applies this prophecy to Jesus. He says, “If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house.” 1 Peter 2:3-5,
...
Peter had expressed the truth which is the foundation of the church’s faith, and Jesus now honored him as the representative of the whole body of believers. He said, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“The keys of the kingdom of heaven” are the words of Christ. All the words of Holy Scripture are His, and are here included. These words have power to open and to shut heaven. They declare the conditions upon which men are received or rejected. Thus the work of those who preach God’s word is a savor of life unto life or of death unto death. Theirs is a mission weighted with eternal results.

The Saviour did not commit the work of the gospel to Peter individually. At a later time, repeating the words that were spoken to Peter, He applied them directly to the church. And the same in substance was spoken also to the twelve as representatives of the body of believers. If Jesus had delegated any special authority to one of the disciples above the others, we should not find them so often contending as to who should be the greatest. They would have submitted to the wish of their Master, and honored the one whom He had chosen.

Instead of appointing one to be their head, Christ said to the disciples, “Be not ye called Rabbi;” “neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” Matthew 23:8, 10.

“The head of every man is Christ.” God, who put all things under the Saviour’s feet, “gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.” 1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22, 23. The church is built upon Christ as its foundation; it is to obey Christ as its head. It is not to depend upon man, or be controlled by man. Many claim that a position of trust in the church gives them authority to dictate what other men shall believe and what they shall do. This claim God does not sanction. The Saviour declares, “All ye are brethren.” All are exposed to temptation, and are liable to error. Upon no finite being can we depend for guidance. The Rock of faith is the living presence of Christ in the church. Upon this the weakest may depend, and those who think themselves the strongest will prove to be the weakest, unless they make Christ their efficiency. “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm.” The Lord “is the Rock, His work is perfect.” “Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.” Jeremiah 17:5; Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 2:12.

White, Ellen G. (2010-12-05). The Desire of Ages (Conflict of the Ages) (pp. 251-252). Copyright © 2010, Ellen G. White Estate, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

From this analysis of the passage, where multiple verses and scriptural themes are linked we see a clear understanding of what God intended lest He be in contradiction with everything else He said. Why would God appoint Peter as the heir apparent clearly if shortly later in a parallel passage to Matt. 18:1-5 we read in Luke 9:46 “An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest”. But I thought Jesus just pointed out Peter (or so the Catholics think). Evidently not...

When Jesus left Earth did Peter become the head of the church?
The clearest example of a major meeting of the church elders coming together to discuss issues and make clear judgements on where the church would head on its foundation of beliefs occurred at the Council of Jerusalem outlined in Acts 15, which dated to around the year 50 A.D.

In Acts 15:13 we see that James is the one speaking in giving the final declaration on the issues discussed where in verse 19 and 20 James says, “therefore, in my judgment, we should not cause difficulties for those among the Gentiles who turn to God, but instead we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from blood.”

Those who, as popes, have claimed to be Peter’s successors, have no Scriptural foundation for their pretensions. Nothing in the life of Peter gives sanction to the claim that he was elevated above his brethren as the vicegerent of the Most High. If those who are declared to be the successors of Peter had followed his example, they would always have been content to remain on an equality with their brethren. In this instance James seems to have been chosen as the one to announce the decision arrived at by the council. It was his sentence that the ceremonial law, and especially the ordinance of circumcision, should not be urged upon the Gentiles, or even recommended to them.

Embarrassingly Peter is denounced by Paul for his hypocrisy in Galatians 2:13, 14 showing his fallibility:

When Peter, at a later date, visited Antioch, he won the confidence of many by his prudent conduct toward the Gentile converts. For a time he acted in accordance with the light given from heaven. He so far overcame his natural prejudice as to sit at table with the Gentile converts. But when certain Jews who were zealous for the ceremonial law, came from Jerusalem, Peter injudiciously changed his deportment toward the converts from paganism. A number of the Jews “dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.” This revelation of weakness on the part of those who had been respected and loved as leaders, left a most painful impression on the minds of the Gentile believers. The church was threatened with division. But Paul, who saw the subverting influence of the wrong done to the church through the double part acted by Peter, openly rebuked him for thus disguising his true sentiments. In the presence of the church, Paul inquired of Peter, “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Galatians 2:13, 14.

Peter saw the error into which he had fallen, and immediately set about repairing the evil that had been wrought, so far as was in his power. God, who knows the end from the beginning, permitted Peter to reveal this weakness of character in order that the tried apostle might see that there was nothing in himself whereof he might boast. Even the best of men, if left to themselves, will err in judgment. God also saw that in time to come some would be so deluded as to claim for Peter and his pretended successors the exalted prerogatives that belong to God alone. And this record of the apostle’s weakness was to remain as a proof of his fallibility and of the fact that he stood in no way above the level of the other apostles.

White, Ellen G. (2010-12-05). The Acts of the Apostles (Conflict of the Ages) (Kindle Locations 2317-2331). Ellen G. White Estate, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Is there any scriptural basis that Peter even travelled to Rome?
None

According to Revelation 3:7, the Lord Jesus holds the key of David. What He opens no one can shut, and what He shuts no one can open. Peter is given the “keys” through preaching the Gospel, an authority subsequently granted to all who are called to proclaim the Gospel. In Acts, Peter is the apostle who first preaches the message of the kingdom to the Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2), to the Samaritans (Acts 8), and to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Peter was an important apostle but no more preeminent than Paul. Peter helped establish the Jerusalem church, but James the brother of Jesus assumed the leadership of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15). It was Paul who defined Christian doctrine having written thirteen of the twenty-seven New Testament books. Paul became “the apostle to the Gentiles” (Acts 14; 16–28). Peter became the “apostle to the Jews,” preaching throughout Palestine (Gal. 2:7–8).

Horn, Thomas; Putnam, Cris D. (2012-04-15). Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope Is Here (Kindle Locations 3471-3478). Defender Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.

The New Testament, the only contemporary account of Peter’s life, reveals him as having a wife living in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14) and makes no reference to his having been in Rome, nor to his martyrdom. Capernaum was located on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee about two and a half miles west from the entrance of the Jordan River, and was the economic center of Galilee. The house of Simon Peter at Capernaum is mentioned many times in the Gospels (Matthew 8:14; 17:25; Mark 1:29; 2:1; 3:20; 9:33). This house, including evidence of an internal house church, was located in 1968 during the archeological excavations led by V. Corbo and S. Loffreda.

In the Book of Acts, which chronicles the Apostles’ deeds after Jesus died, Peter is seen as preaching in Jerusalem as late as AD 45 (Acts 12), and last appears at the Jerusalem council which is dated around AD 48–49 (this date is crucial because as we will see later it undermines his direct founding of the Church in Rome). Peter cannot have been where Catholic tradition places him as the Bishop of Rome and where the book of Acts reports him to be at the same time. It is quite literally a decision between the Bible and third-century tradition.

Horn, Thomas; Putnam, Cris D. (2012-04-15). Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope Is Here (Kindle Locations 3490-3501). Defender Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.

Does logic say Peter was in Rome at the right time?

According to the director of the Medieval Institute and Professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, Thomas F. X. Noble, the Roman Catholic dates of Peter as bishop of Rome from 42 to 67 are wrong. Noble is certainly a preeminent authority on the papacy and his lecture notes state unequivocally, “Peter did not found the Roman community, and there is no good evidence that that community had a bishop—an ‘overseer’—in the 1st century.”[223] The New Testament evidence simply does not support the official Catholic history.

[223 citing. Thomas F. X. Noble, “Lecture One: What is Papal History and How Did it Begin?” notes for course, Popes and the Papacy: A History (The Teaching Company, 2006), 3.]

The spurious and unbiblical nature of the Catholic claim is seen clearly in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Paul’s letter was written in AD 56–57 during the time the Catholics claim Peter was there. However, the omission of a salutation to Peter in the epistle to the Romans suggests that Peter was not in Rome at the time. In fact, nothing in Paul’s inspired letter to the Early Roman Church remotely suggests that Peter was there or had even a minor part in its foundation.

Horn, Thomas; Putnam, Cris D. (2012-04-15). Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope Is Here (Kindle Locations 3507-3516). Defender Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps more decisive is the fact Paul also omits Peter from his extensive list of greetings to Rome’s prominent Christians in the salutation of his epistle (Romans 16:3–16). Paul greeted these residents of the city of Rome at exactly the time the Vatican would place him there. He greeted entire families and mentioned twenty-nine folks by name. But he did not mention Peter. That is surely an unimaginable oversight if Peter was residing there as the Bishop of Rome. Furthermore, a few years after he wrote the book of Romans, Paul was taken to Rome stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him (Acts 28:15). This is only a few years before Peter’s [supposed] martyrdom. Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. Luke certainly would have mentioned him had he been there. The New Testament stands in sharp relief to the papists claim.

Horn, Thomas; Putnam, Cris D. (2012-04-15). Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope Is Here (Kindle Locations 3539-3545). Defender Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.

Peter setting up a church in Rome whom he became head of is unsupported. Even if it was supported though, scriptural analysis makes it clear that God did not set any discipline above another, and the foundation rock of Jesus’church is belief in Him.

All doctrines and practises that are outside of the Bible that the Catholic church uses do not have God’s approval to be changed from what is written in scripture (and a whole thread could be dedicated to just going through those which I might have to do).

Unfortunately the result of this deceived Christianity is not a church that represents God’s teachings or authority but actually meets every description given in the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation that God designates as the Whore of Babylon/Beast of the Sea/Daniel 7 Little Horn (another topic for a future thread) who’s power, throne and great authority comes from Satan (Revelation 13:2).

Selecting a church which teaches what is in line with scripture as a whole should be the task for anyone Christian seeking truth, especially those whose previous teachings are based on counterfeit approval from God.

I almost fell asleep somewhere in the middle of Post No 2.

Sorry, but I couldn't make it all the way through.

Maybe you can give a short summary of what precisely your thesis is, so far I fail to find any coherent one. I'm thinking of 2-3 pregnant sentences, optimally without random scripture citing.

Thank you buddy.

reply to post by H1ght3chHippie


Most protestant's won't care about this issue. People in the Catholic church, on the other hand it, it is the basis of their entire religion. The whole premise that their is a Pope and he can tell people what to think, who should die, who goes to heaven, what you need to do for God is based on that first scripture from Matthew 16.

Non-Christian's who want to understand why the Catholic church is so brainwashed may be interested in this issue and just how flimsy the basis of their religion is.

Sorry about the extensive posting....I am making it thorough enough so that Catholics will have a complete picture and argument to tackle rather than a half done one.

The Catholic church basically says that Jesus appointed Peter to be the head of Jesus'church. These Matthew 16 verses has been abused along with lies about what Peter did with his life to say that not only did this mean Peter was the head and voice of Jesus on Earth after Jesus but that the church he founded was the Roman Catholic church.

The second post is dealing with where Jesus is referred to as the rock whom His church will be built on as well as raising issues that the Bible clearly points to none of the disciples being above another or that Peter was recognised as any kind of leader. Also important to the Catholics is the idea that their head is infallible which Peter is clearly shown not to be.

Post 3 is entirely about if Peter even went to Rome. Post 3 is showing that the Catholic church has lied to their own people just so they have power over them and in their demand to have power over all other Christian's and ultimately all man-kind

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
Maybe you can give a short summary of what precisely your thesis is, ...

His short summary would be the same here as what he posts everywhere else ..
'Catholic Church = Evil'

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
The chief scriptural basis the Catholic religion uses to justify their self-appointed ecclesiastical authority (over Christianity) comes to us from the passage above.

Not 'self appointed' .... GOD APPOINTED. Jesus Himself said it.
You gave the exact quote from Jesus.
Jesus appointed Peter to head His church on Earth.
Jesus said 'whatever you hold bound on Earth is bound in Heaven'.
Peter and the apostles started apostolic succession.
Therefore - it is held bound (accepted) in Heaven.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
So according to Catholic doctrine Peter would be God’s representative on Earth and yet almost instantly Peter is prevailed against by Satan and his thoughts are shown not to be of God but of men.

Obviously you dont understand what 'prevailed' means. Jesus said that evil would not prevail against His church. That means that evil would not win the war. It didn't mean that there wouldn't be battles. And your personal conclusion that, because Peter wanted to save Jesus then his thoughts were of men and not God .. IRRELEVANT. Peter was a sinner like everyone else and Peter made mistakes like everyone else. Peter was also the newly appointed head of Jesus church on earth .. appointed by Jesus Himself. Deal with it.

We are also told in Matthew 26:69-75 that Peter denies Jesus three times.

Again .. so what? Peter repented and when Jesus rose from the dead he THREE TIMES asked Peter to 'feed my sheep' and Peter replyed that he would. Jesus forgave Peter and gave him an opportunity to wipe the slate clean.

Is there any scriptural basis that Peter even travelled to Rome?

1 - Not everything that happens on the planet is recorded in scripture. History happens without it being in scripture.

2 - Peter didn't have to be in Rome to still be head of the Church and the first pope.

3 - Was Peter In Rome

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).

And Very Early References to Peter in Rome

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded]....

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Etc etc etc etc Early Church documents show Peter was indeed in Rome.
But like I said .. even if he wasnt' it wouldn't matter. He was appointed head
of the Church on Earth by Christ Himself. Christ said that evil would not
prevail against that Church. Prevail means WIN THE WAR .. it doesn't mean
that the people who run the church will be sinless or brilliant.

Peters Authority - Solid as a Rock

One of the clearest signs, therefore, of Christ’s self-knowledge as the Son of God is when he calls himself the Good Shepherd. In story after story Jesus uses the image of the Good Shepherd to refer to his own ministry. He explicitly calls himself the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11,14) who has come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24). He tells the story of the lost sheep, placing himself in the story as the divine Shepherd who fulfills Ezekiel’s prophecy (Lk 15). The author of the Letter to the Hebrews calls Christ the Great Shepherd of the Sheep (Heb 13:20). Peter calls Jesus the Shepherd and overseer of souls (1 Pt 2:25), and in the Book of Revelation, the Lamb on the throne is also the Shepherd of the lost souls (Rv 7:17).

When Jesus Christ, after his Resurrection, then solemnly instructs Peter to "feed my lambs, watch over my sheep, feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17), the ramifications are enormous. Throughout the Old Testament, God himself is understood to be the Good Shepherd. He promises to come and be the shepherd of his people through his servant David. When Jesus Christ, the Son of David, fulfills this prophecy, God’s promise is kept. Then before Jesus returns to heaven, he commands Peter to take charge of his pastoral ministry. Now Peter will undertake the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s place. ....

We see this in the passage in John 21. Jesus gives his pastoral authority to Peter with three solemn commands: "Feed my lambs, take care of my sheep, feed my sheep." Here Jesus delegates his authority three times in three different ways, using imagery found throughout the Old Testament. In so doing he clearly reveals his delegation of authority to Peter

During Jesus passion, Peter denied Him three times. Then repented.
After the resurrection, Jesus restored Peter three times by asking him to feed His sheep.

Jesus clearly put Peter in charge of His church on Earth.
Peter clearly started apostolic succession.
Peter most likely was in Rome .. but even if he wasn't, it changes nothing.
If you don't want to interpret scripture that way .... that's up to you.
But it's all there .. in scripture and early church documents. Deal with it.

reply to post by FlyersFan

IRRELEVANT ...Again .. so what?...Not everything that happens on the planet is recorded in scripture. History happens without it being in scripture.

I pretty much agree with you there on relevance in the entire scheme of things....however I do find it awfully hard to believe that for so important a doctrine that Jesus would not make it much clearer, repeat in many time and in many ways which is what His standard approach is with major doctrine.

Etc etc etc etc Early Church documents show Peter was indeed in Rome.

Forgive me if I bypass the importance of this just at the moment. The Church needs Peter to be in Rome for them to have a church in Rome so this needs to be confirmed in a much more independent and scholarly way

Peter didn't have to be in Rome to still be head of the Church and the first pope.

What we know from scripture is that that Peter spread the gospel widely amongst the Jewish population, if there was any supposed church he founded it would have been amongst them.

For me unfortunately the sources you cited (which I actually checked out myself before posting the thread) don't do it for me. They aren't independent enough nor to they answer the information from my sources that counteract them.

FlyerFans...I am more than happy to have a proper conversation on this issue. Personally I think it very important. I think if it is true everyone (Christian) should be Catholic and if it isn't true every Christian should be Seventh-day Adventist (which is the protestant church whose entire doctrine is backed up by scripture alone).

This is what I want you to specifically answer first FF, I want you to answer on the first half of my first post on the information up to "Now let’s play along for a bit to give the Catholic church a hearing out and see where it ends up ". Please thoroughly refute my argument presented for all information above that statement. And I want a serious answer and proper referencing and counteracting scripture (most other argument line is supplementary to that initial part).

I personally don't think it can be do, it is very clear to me having a good look at the context of the passage that the object of the passage is one recognizing Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of the living God and that truth which Peter voice is the rock (foundation stone) on which Jesus' church dealing with eternal life for man is based on. To not see that, which is just basic comprehension of language is to me wanting to see something that isn't there.

I think Ellen White's analysis on the passage in the text I got from the Desire of Ages in post 2 is an excellent summary or what is going on. Sure you might say that it is a biased source or whatever but she is just linking scriptural ideas together, fully referenced and if you want to argue with her verses used they by all means, I am all ears to hear. To me, this gives a much clearer picture of ideas being expressed than isolating 2 verses (from Matthew 16), providing no context and expecting people to swallow it where grammatically the idea could have been expressed so much clearer if what you think was said was actually what Jesus intended.

Jesus could have said He was going to build His church on Peter...He didn't...He said on "this" which is what...it is what we find out in v.15-17

I am very interested to here an honest and objective response to what I have said.

Do you not agree that Jesus could have expressed this much clearer (if your doctrine is true) and because of its importance should have repeated it in several places amongst the other gospels as well?

reply to post by FlyersFan


Well, after all my history books tell me about this institution, he's spot on !

I can't think of another cult that had led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions over centuries.

So what's the solution in terms of dealing with it ? Let me guess. Join another cult ?

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
I can't think of another cult that had led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions over centuries.

ISLAM comes to mind. Islam Through The Centuries
Mass slaughter .. enslavement .. subjugation of women ... bastardization of the Holy Gospels ... general dumbing down of the populations around the world .. etc etc . I'd say that cult is right up there with the worst of them.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

I did a fair amount of study on this in the old days. Though I would have left out Peter's mistakes, because the only bearing they have on your original argument, is to show that no man(according to scripture) can presume infallibility or perfection. Not even "God's Viceroy" on earth.

Biblically though, I think your grasp of this is sound overrall. However, this is an argument that has, and will rage for a long time to come. A lot of arguments could, and have been made on both sides of this debate with little fact to back them up. Mainly because there is little in the way of fact to work with.

So even this really comes down to interpretation and faith.

reply to post by H1ght3chHippie

I believe a one-sentence summary would be "The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has no vaild claim to control the rest of the church".
Very topical, in the present circumstances.
I have a thread of my own which complements this one, I think, by looking at a later stage of the history;
The spring-board of papal power

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
I can't think of another cult that had led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions over centuries.

Hundreds of millions?

Care to document that? (With actual historical proof, not ridiculous conspiracy theory claims.)

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
The whole premise that their is a Pope and he can tell people what to think, who should die, who goes to heaven, what you need to do for God

Kindly point to where in the Catechism anything even remotely along those lines appears. The Catechism is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, so any "whole premise" should appear, verbatim, within that document.

Funny thing is, the scriptures do not say Peter was ever the first Pope, least of all over Rome. Not just that but since Simon bar Jonah's tomb was found on the Mt. of Olives, it kinda exposes Rome's lie about him being buried in the Temple of Jupiter...er...i mean St. Peter's Basilica.

It was Peter's TESTIMONY that was the rock upon which Jesus' church was to be built, and it's against that rock that the gates of hell will not prevail.

Where the apostolic succession between Constantine and Peter, that's what I'd like to know how does that work? Thanks.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Funny thing is, the scriptures do not say Peter was ever the first Pope, least of all over Rome. Not just that but since Simon bar Jonah's tomb was found on the Mt. of Olives, it kinda exposes Rome's lie about him being buried in the Temple of Jupiter...er...i mean St. Peter's Basilica.

Hey Lonewolf how have you been,

Yeah I was thinking of you on this point as well because I know you have posted on it before. I didn't include it in the initial post because there seems to be a few arguments they can use to combat it, although they are weak. Another thing I didn't want to do is actually give their version of reality so much credence that we you get into a discussion where they might be able to make a few points on their own discoveries and have them somehow think that is enough for them to feel that authority is retained.

Peter's burial site does destroy them but the clear context of what the rock they would build on was is the scriptural nail in the coffin.

It is just ludicrous to me that if Jesus really mean what the Catholics think He said then this whole doctrine would have been made much clearer, repeated and all the other verses that counteract the supposed new way of doing things would not have been included.

Like 1 Timothy 3:2, A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

It makes no sense for these verses to be included in the Bible if God's supposed appointed church then just says nah, the priests aren't meant to marry, we saw so now.

reply to post by H1ght3chHippie

So what's the solution in terms of dealing with it ? Let me guess. Join another cult ?

The Holy Spirit works on people in different ways. There are plenty of Catholics who are doing good work inside their church and are valuable to the people around them. For their own good they should consider moving to another form of Christianity that much more closely represents Biblical teaching but this may be a net loss to the people around them.

There is nothing wrong with Christianity, it is just that binding yourself to false teaching can have impacts on the strength of ones own faith, and how that religion is represented to the wider community.

It is regrettable that Christianity is so heavily associated with the Catholic church in the general public's mind. The Catholic's, through this false appointed authority, have drastically altered Christianity from what the Bible teaches to the point that really blurs the line of whether it should be called Christianity at all. At least when the general public hears of things going on in the Catholic church I just wish it was better understood just how far removed and apostate they from scriptural teaching. Christianity has suffered for too long the black mark of bad advertising that comes from being too closely associated to the "Church's" example