Not Sir! You read this wrong. The reference to “Satan” was the Satanic temptation (that all humans even the Christ was faced with) that prompted Peter to steer the Christ away from the Crucifixtion.
Reminder, dear friend in Christ, the Catholic Church gave you the Bible. That said, let's take a closer look at Peter's reaction. No sooner is he named "prime minister", than Peter pulls the king aside and advises him to take a different road. As he had been praised by the Master, now he is rebuked. Jesus goes so far as to call him “Satan.” This illustrates well what the Catholic Church teaches about the subject. For Catholic doctrine does not proclaim that the pope can never make a mistake in personal judgment. It is only when he fully engages his authority as successor of Peter speaking from Peter’s seat of authority (“ex cathedra”) that the Church guarantees him to be acting under the charism of truth given by the Father through the Spirit.
When Peter publicly proclaimed “you are the Christ,” Jesus pointed out that this was not from him, but from the Father. When Peter privately said, “God forbid that you should suffer,” Jesus notes that the source of this was himself. And what’s worse, this human opinion was being used by a diabolic manipulator to tempt the Lord to choose comfort and honor over suffering and sacrifice.
Jesus will have none of it, of course. After all, He is the truth incarnate. And the truth is that glory comes only after sacrifice. And His own incomparable sacrifice will not make things easy for his disciples, but will blaze the trail of sacrifice that they too must walk. The sacrifice that he will offer will be Himself. The sacrifice they will be called to offer will be similar: “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, your spiritual worship.” (Romans 12:1-2).
Peter couldn’t quite get it. None of them could. This is entirely understandable. During the ministry of Jesus the apostles here and there experienced a passing inspiration from the Holy Spirit, but that Creator Spirit had not yet taken up residence within them. That only came when the fire descended on them in the upper room. Before Pentecost, they ran from suffering. After Pentecost they run towards it. Peter, who denied Jesus, ultimately gave his life for him. A successor of Peter, John Paul II, preached his most eloquent sermon by continuing to serve in the twilight years of his life, a living witness of loving self-giving which is a fruit of Pentecost. cf
Paul publicly rebukes Peter for binding the consciences of the Jerusalem converts concerning dietary laws.
No. This is the man Scripture says Jesus chose. That is all that matters.
God doesn't choose the man we think is the "best guy". He chooses the little and the insignificant, so everyone can see that the He is the one who is really at work.
I fear the Catholic church really needs to read Scripture
We've been reading it for 2000 years. Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe we have some deeper insights that look like nonsense to those whose acquaintance with Scripture is more superficial?
“What’s funny is that almost immediately after Jesus says these words, he calls Peter “SATAN!”
What else is funny is that the article makes this very point. You are not reading the article, you are responding to what you think Catholics believe.
Did you actually read the article or did your knee just jerk and words spewed forth?
Such an extensive polemic in seeking to establish Rome’s perpetuated Petrine papacy evidenced that,
1. Rome did not change the Bible as Islam and Dv Vinci code theorist contend, for if she at least one command in the churches epistles to submit to Peter as its supreme head, or mention of a particular ceremony for his office to be perpetuated (such as only for elders/bishops, same office) coud easily have been added, and saved her apologists their extraordinary effects at extrapolation.
2. Rome is so destitute of the necessary substance to establish her perpetuated Petrine papacy that she must resort to such extensive attempts, seeing the Pseudo-Isidorean (False) Decretals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidore) were exposed.
The issue is not Peter’s leadership, but its manner, degree, and an perpetuation. Considering how major a doctrine Rome’s papacy is - and it is indeed major - and how faithful the Lord is to give us much evident substantiation for major doctrines (which while some dispute, have clear evidence for them) then to postulate the Roman papacy out of Mt. 16 when the Bible does not truly substantiate it, blasphemously implies neglect by the Holy Spirit! In reality, Rome’s papacy comes more from the Roman Empire and it’s Caesar - a “Caesario-Papacy”, even as Boniface basically claimed.
The responses against her attempts, like those against essential doctrines, have the consistent weight of Scripture behind them.
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?amount=0&blogid=1&query=jimmy+akin
http://www.christiantruth.com /
http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm