[soc.religion.christian] Peter could not be a pope.

drakenk@infonode.ingr.com (Keith Drake) (01/22/91)

 Could Peter have been a pope?

Truth has nothing to hide or fear.Lovers of error are the only ones who should
be afraid to examine their beliefs or refuse to be questioned about scriptural
authority(1 John 4:1). Those with prejudiced hearts are the only ones who 
should get angry when dicussing doctrinal differences(Matt.13:13-15). And
those who reject the truth and believe a lie are the only ones who will 
refuse to change when shown they are in error(2 Thess. 2:9-11).

 The cornerstone of catholicism is their claim for authority. Not only does
the catholic church claim to be the sole authority to give interpretation
of the scriptures,but also claim that church traditions are heaven approved
and actually take precedence over New Testament scripture. On what basis
do they make such bold assertions? Catholics believe that Peter was the first
pope and the mantle of authority was passed by divine appointment to his
succesors.
 If the claims of the catholic church are true we have wasted our time studying
the scriptures. Whether or not the RC is the one true church,as they claim,
or whether it is an apostate church,stands or falls on the divine authority
 of the papacy.

 1 Christ is the only head of the church both in heaven and on earth.

 a. All authority was given to him.

  1.Matt. 28:18-20 His authority
  2. Eph. 1:22-23 All things subject to Christ.

 b. When did Christ establish the office of pope or vicar?

  1 This question is fundemental. The books of Ephesians and Colossians were
written about 62-64 A.D.,some thirty years after the ascension of Christ.
If Peter was the visible head on earth as catholics claim,then Christ did
not have all power on earth nor was he head over all the church as the inspired
scriptures declared. When did this occur?
  2. Other offices in the church with their qualifications and duties are
plainly mentioned(Eph. 4:11,1 Tim. 3). But where does the Bible speak about
the office and functions of a pope? Why is the Bible totally silent about it
if it is such an important role?

2. 7 reasons why Peter could not have been a pope.

A. Christ is the only foundation of the church.
 
    1. 1 Cor. 3:11- No other foundation laid.
    2. The Bible is a book of harmony. Any explanation of a passage that
     contradicts other scriptures is wrong.
2. The other apostles were given the same authority to bind and loose,Matt. 18:18
   1. Peter was not given supremacy over the other apostles. Although Jesus
spoke directly to Peter in Matt. 16:19, he gave the same authority to the
other apostles in Matt. 18:18.

 C. The other apostles did not honor Peter as one having supremacy.

    1. If the disciples understood Peter was given supremacy why was there
strife amongst them over who would be greatest?(Luke 22:24-30.)
      a.The mother of James and John asking that her sons be given positions
of authority.(Matt. 20:20-28) This occured after the occasion when catholics
calim Peter was given the position of pope.Matt. 16:18-19
      b. If Jesus meant for Peter to be pope why did he not clearly settle
the issue then and there instead of telling the apostles that no one was to
exercise authority over the others?

    2. Paul said he was not inferior to any of the apostles(2 Cor. 11:5;12
:11). Could this be true if Peter were pope?
    3. James spoke the final word and was agreed upon by the apostles and 
elders with the whole church when the problem over circumcision arose(Acts
15:13-22).
    4. All the apostles given equal authority(Matt.19:28)
    5. Peter was never adressed with titles of primacy. He was never called
pope,vicar,reverend,right reverand,or father. Jesus said: "And call no man
on earth your father,for one is your father who is in heaven. Neither be 
called masters;for one only is your master,even Christ"(Matt. 23:9-10).
  D. Peter exalted Christ as the chief shephard,1 Peter 2:25;5:4

    1. Catholics contend that Jesus made Peter the chief shephard when he 
told him to feed his sheep,John 21:15-17.
     a. If this was true Peter never claimed to have this power in any of the
scriptures. Nor did any other inspired writers make that claim for him.
     b. When they contend that Jesus meant feed my clergy,it is an assumption
not proven by scripture. For example,elders are told to feed the church(
Acts20:28; 1 Peter 5:2) Would this make them popes? Certainly not.
    2. Peter recognized Christ as the chief shephard which would mean Christ 
is the head of the church(Matt. 28:18 Eph.1:22-23).
      a. 1 Peter 2:25
      b. 1 Peter 5:4

   E. Peter refused worship at the house of Cornelius.Acts 10:25-26
     1. When Cornelius fell down at his feet Peter took him up saying"Stand
up,I also am a man."
     2. Does the current pope of the RC church tell men not to humble themselves
to him?

   F. Peter was a married man,Matt. 8:14-15; Mark 1:30-31; Luke 4:38.
     1. Peter and all the other apostles had the divine right to be married.
1 Cor. 9:5.
     2. If Peter had lived in modern times he could not be pope because of
his marraige.

   G. Peter had to be rebuked, Gal.2:11-14.
       1. Peter had human weaknesses. When he acted a hypocrite,Paul withstood
him face to face,because he was to be blamed.
       2. Who would rebuke the current pope?




  Traditions of the church are additions to the bible and therefore false.
 Since Peter was not a pope,those who claim to be his successors are false.

 Actually the RC church cannot produce a clear chain of popes for the first 600
years after Peter. Tertulian,Irenaeus,Eusebius,Jerome,and other early historians
 differ in their catalogues of the supposed successors of Peter before Boniface
III was appointed universal bishop by the emperor Phocas. He was the first
to be given this title. In fact,less than 20 years earlier Pelgius II and 
Gregory the Great both strongly fought for the title and position. Yet both
are included in the catalog which catholics today claim is the unbroken line
of popes to Peter.
  600 years after Christ and after Peter is much to late to appoint a universal
bishop and then claim he was ordained by Christ. Those who will carefully
examine both the scripture and early church history will agree that Christ
did not establish the office of pope and no order of succession was established.
In fact,no absolute proof exists that Peter was ever in Rome;only tradition
affirms this.
 The apostles claimed that any change in the scriptures would be false(Gal
1:6-8,Cor.4:6,2 Tim.3:16-17,Rev.22:18-19).
 Catholics have no other authority but tradition for these doctrines and 
practices:Purgatory,Incense,Images,Holy Water,Auricular Confession,Infant
Baptism,Prayers of the beads,Prayers to Mary,observance of holy days.
 Since no scripture backs up these ,they become just like the religion of the
pharisees about which Jesus said"....in vain they do worship me,teaching
for doctrines the commandments of men."Matt 15:7-9 


 The scriptural testimony is overwhelmingly that Peter could not have been 
a pope.And if Peter was not given this position then the whole superstructure
of RC falls. Every sincere RC should test the foundation of authority where
their faith rests. If satan were to deceive you what more deceptive than the
church itself(2 Cor. 11:13-15). Do not put your trust in traditions of men
but rather in the holy inspired scriptures(1 John 4:1). 
 
-- 
N. Keith Drake       (205) 730-5515   |     He who will not learn 
drakenk@infonode.ingr.com             |     except of himself 
!uunet!ingr!b25!rd3537!keith          |     has a fool 
Intergraph Corp.                      |     for a teacher.

[Frankly I'd rather not have our time used for attacks on other
Christian groups.  People who are interested in other traditions would
do better by starting out to understand them, and evaluating them only
once they are sure they know what is actually being said.  However I
don't feel quite within my rights to censor postings just because I
don't like them.  Presumably one of our Catholic readers will be
willing to explain Keith's misunderstandings of what the Catholic
Church actually claims about Peter.  --clh]