[boatbums]

WRT the Peter vs. Rock argument, where Catholicism erred - nearly from the start of the bishop of Rome's dominance - was in concluding that Jesus' statement of building His church upon Peter and not Peter's statement of faith meant that whoever the bishop of Rome was from that time onward was automatically conferred the same authority as Peter. They actually HAVE to read it that way since Peter died not that much longer after Jesus ascended and they must prove "apostolic succession" even though they have very spotty records of who was or was not occupying that seat over the centuries.

Catholics have to retrofit the supremacy of the Popes of Rome back to Peter in order to assert their authority. But what we do know about apostolic succession is that it was NOT a handing down of a position of Apostle - automatically conferring all the power and authority of the Apostle Peter to whomever got elected - but a handing down of the message of the Gospel.

[verga]

Catholics have to retrofit the supremacy of the Popes of Rome back to Peter in order to assert their authority. But what we do know about apostolic succession is that it was NOT a handing down of a position of Apostle - automatically conferring all the power and authority of the Apostle Peter to whomever got elected - but a handing down of the message of the Gospel.

Merely an expression of opinion with no basis in either fact or reality.

[Rashputin]

Catholics have to retrofit the supremacy of the Popes of Rome back to Peter . . .

ROTFLOL.

Jesus Christ Himself gives Peter a new name and hands him the keys exactly like other kings of Israel handed the keys to the person they wanted to handle things for them and the blabby anti-Catholic crowd responds with, "That's what Jesus Christ said but He didn't really mean it and He only accidentally gave Peter a new name and the keys"

That's huge double dose of Superslick Christian Liberty Grease with a giant self-delusion cherry on top.