Posted on 09/10/2008 12:36:35 PM PDT by Gamecock
Our Catholic FRiends would have the Christian church believe that Peter was named the first Pope when in the following passage:
Matthew 16: 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered 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 tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
So 5 minutes later, the "first pope" hears Jesus foretell what he will suffer in Jerusalem. Let's see how the Pope Peter responds:
Matthew 16:22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.”
So the first Pope argues with God, makes a false prophecy and the Christ immediately responds with:
23 ..... “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
Seems to me that this contradicts the Catholic stance that Peter was the "first Pope."
nope, not at all, you are comparing apples and oranges...when Christ names Peter, Peter (and by the way, the changing of the name in biblical history denotes the change in status and importance)that doesnt mean he made him perfect, it means he changed his name and then chastized him for not being right...
hardly the mountain you are making of that molehill.
INDEED.
And given their real beginnings in 300-400 AD, they’ve evidently been practicing that left-footed leadership style mostly ever since then.
Very, very weak argument.
You will know them by their fruits. Catholics are a bunch of legalistic elites and Christmas and Easter Christians. Very few of them actually live their faith.
Can’t work through your hatred, can ye!
INDEED,
Of course that gives them a 1,100 year head start on protestant religions.
Oh, by the way look at the church fathers and tell me what religion they were practicing.
Good For You
Having trouble shaking that five-hundred-year-old grudge?
You’re known by your fruit.
Catholics are a bunch of legalistic elites and Christmas and Easter Christians. Very few of them actually live their faith.
Interesting that I pose an observation based on Scripture and then am accused of hatred.
***Very, very weak argument.***
To say that Jesus named Peter first Pope based on that passage in weak indeed.
NOT
NEAR
as weak as the fantasy that Christ gave Peter
GOD’S NAME
of the Rock.
CORRECTION:
NOT
NEAR
as weak as the fantasy that Christ gave little pebble
GOD’S NAME
of the Rock.
First, Peter's statement wasn't a prophecy. Nowhere does the text says it was. This is your own personal fabrication which you concocted in order to force-fit your pet theory to a non-fact.
Second, "Satan" here is not used as a personal name, but as an abjective: "tempter." Nor does the command "Get thee behind me" means "Get out of the way" but literally, "fall in line behind me" with the implied invitation to follow him. In fact, the context of the verses demonstrate it, since Jesus then launched into an explanation as to what it means to follow Him.
The whole statement may be dynamically translated as follows:
"Shut up, you tempter! You think like men and not like God! Get back behind me and follow me. Follow my lead."
Finally, we do have not one, but the first two Papal Encyclicals: they are called 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
What a pathetic caricature of the Catholic position this post was! I seldom respond to this kind of drivel but today I said, well, what the heck.
-Theo
Precisely!
A lot of the early church ‘fathers’ were as mangled in their theology as the Vatican magicsterical 300-400 years later.
Let me see...
1.Christ acknowledges that Peter has revealed the Truth about the Son of Man by God the Father
2. He then changes his name to Rock, something that is extremely significant and only happened to two other men before in the Old Testament
3. Gives Peter alone the "Keys to the Kingdom"
4. Gives his promise that the Church built upon Peter shall never be defeated.
5. Christ then takes all that away because Peter didn't want Christ to suffer.
6. Christ, in Luke 22:31-32 "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." - It is pretty difficult to confirm your brethren if you don't have some sort of authority or special office over them
7. In John 21:15-17 "When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. "
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that #5 doesn't seem right.
BTW, These are only some of the reasons that Catholics believe in the Papacy.
This is an unbelievably weak objection. Why do you think it even applies?
Nobody claims that Popes don't sin, or never do/say foolish things.
And in any case, what makes you think that we believe Peter was already the first Pope in Matthew 16? The whole passage is phrased in the future tense ... "I will do thus-and-such". Address Peter's behavior after the resurrection, and better yet, after the descent of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.