Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There is an answer so simple that it is hard to believe so many Christians miss it. Firstly the statement that Jesus would found his church on Peter the Rock is euther entirely fictitious, inserted by a later writer or it is a fairly frivolous pun on Jesuses part The second possibility would coincide with the likely origin of the name given to Simon by Jesus It was a NICKNAME and corresponds with our nickname "Rocky" I think I first tumbled to just how powerful a possibility this is one day when visiting St Peters in Rome I stood in front of the high altar near the tomb of Peter Suddenly I realised that what all that what surrounded me was about was that Peter was Jesuses mate.  Behind all the pomp was a friendship between two men that endured even beyond the execution of one of them – whatever the truth of the Resurrection. Jesus called him Rocky because Simon was as steady and reliable as a rock – a man you wanted beside you in good times and bad.  Someone to eat and drink with, someone you could give a nudge and crack a joke or a bottle of wine with. Jesuses disappointment that Peter momentarily denied him is probably quite real – as is the story that Jesus told him he would – not as a prophecy so much as a recognition of how scared Peter would be if Jesus himself were arrested.  Peter was the next most likely target as his mate Rocky. So much silly fantasy – so much manipulation and big naming – all over what is quite likely a simple case of Jesus giving a friend a nickname as a display of affection.

This post is the best I’ve seen in some time . . . . DEAR GOD !!! TALK ABOUT MANIPULATION !!!  Did Peter yell, "Adrienne" too !? Everything in the Bible about Peter is real EXCEPT the part where Christ gives him the keys to the kingdom . . . . . . . This shows HOW SAD this has all gotten that when He talks about his "brothers" it means JUST THAT . . . . There were tons of kids running around all from Mary and Joseph . . . . Not the fact that THAT was a nickname like African American men call each other brother out of solidarity.  But something that is said and then backed up in the SAME STORY by other sentances to which one could say "hey wait . . does He mean ?" After the first sentance and then after the 10th you can say . . . I guess so . . . Seems to point to it. . . . . God save us . . . . . God Bless Randy  

Response:

It seems to me, just a layperson, that Jesus intended Peter to be the rock. Why else would He have named him so? Simon became Kephas ("Rock" Aramaic) which in Greek became Petros ("Rock") from which we get Peter.

There is an answer so simple that it is hard to believe so many Christians miss it. Firstly the statement that Jesus would found his church on Peter the Rock is euther entirely fictitious, inserted by a later writer or it is a fairly frivolous pun on Jesuses part The second possibility would coincide with the likely origin of the name given to Simon by Jesus It was a NICKNAME and corresponds with our nickname "Rocky" I think I first tumbled to just how powerful a possibility this is one day when visiting St Peters in Rome I stood in front of the high altar near the tomb of Peter Suddenly I realised that what all that what surrounded me was about was that Peter was Jesuses mate.  Behind all the pomp was a friendship between two men that endured even beyond the execution of one of them – whatever the truth of the Resurrection. Jesus called him Rocky because Simon was as steady and reliable as a rock – a man you wanted beside you in good times and bad.  Someone to eat and drink with, someone you could give a nudge and crack a joke or a bottle of wine with. Jesuses disappointment that Peter momentarily denied him is probably quite real – as is the story that Jesus told him he would – not as a prophecy so much as a recognition of how scared Peter would be if Jesus himself were arrested.  Peter was the next most likely target as his mate Rocky. So much silly fantasy – so much manipulation and big naming – all over what is quite likely a simple case of Jesus giving a friend a nickname as a display of affection.

Response:

It seems to me, just a layperson, that Jesus intended Peter to be the rock. Why else would He have named him so? Simon became Kephas ("Rock" Aramaic) which in Greek became Petros ("Rock") from which we get Peter. Also, Jesus was alone with Peter when he promised to give him the "keys". and used a singular tense "I will give YOU the keys…" Jesus later gave the Authority to the other Apostles (Matt. 18:18) but did not mention the "keys". You also mention 1  Peter 5:1, where Peter expresses humilty. Definatly a Christian quality, but he was not denying his authority. St. Paul, as well refers to himself a "a lowly Deacon" (1 Cor. 3:5) Jesus explains it well in Matt. 20:26-27. The Scriptures also give many instances where Peter is given a "special authority" Peter is mentioned by name 195 times, the next being John, who comes up only 29 times. You’ll also notice that Peter is always mentioned first when the Apostles are named, or it’s just "Peter and the others" It was Peter who walked on the water with Jesus (although he did start to sink!) It was Peter that Jesus told to "feed my sheep and tend my Lambs" (Jn. 21:15-17) It was John who arrived at Jesus’ tomb first, but he stood aside for Peter (Jn. 20:6) It was to Peter that the Resurrection was revealed (Mk. 16:7, Lk. 24:34) And, possibly not relevant, but worth mentioning is that Jesus preached to the crowds from Peter’s boat. (Lk. 5:3) Later, in Acts, Peter speaks for the 12 when they are arrested (Acts 4). He received the vision from the Lord, and welcomed the Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10) as well as Paul (Gal. 1:18) He settled all disputes at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) As for Paul scolding Peter (Gal. 2:11-14), it was (put very simply) over Peter serving Kosher to some visiting Jewish Christians, after he said such things were no longer neccessary. If you ask me, Peter wanted to avoid problems, given that some Jewish Christians were still following the old ways, and Paul really shouldn’t have talked, given what he wrote in Romans 14:15-21 (check it out.) The Bible does not say that Peter went to Rome; (It doesn’t say that he didn’t, either) but look at 1 Peter 5:13 "The chosen one at Babylon sends you greetings…" Early Christrians refered to Rome as ‘Babylon’. Most importantly, Tradition holds that Peter went to Rome, ministered there for over 20 years, and died by (inverted) crucifixion in the Circus of Nero. Tradition is the oral history and teachings of the Church passed down for over 300 or so years before the bible was compiled. God bless, G. —

Response:

I apologize. I agree with your comments, I should have said IKHDY. Mike

No problem….. Peace Be With You! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – TDP, you are completely ignorant of the Catholic Churchs teachings on Papal Infallibility. You commentary shows it. Anyone who takes just a little time to study this will find that the principle of Papal Infallibility has only been used twice. You confuse the concept with impeccability, a claim never made by the Church. I bet you will be surprised to know that Pope John Paul II goes to daily confession. Do your homework before you rant against God’s Church and violate at least one of the ten commandments (false witness) What are you talking about…I’m defending the Church.  This guy say’s Peter wasn’t the the first Pope. Of course he was.  I’m replying to IKHDY.  He say’s Peter wasn’t mentioned in Paul’s epistles.  How dare you call me ignorant. The only thing I’m ranting about is, IKHDY continues to hammer the Church and I’m tired of it.  Absolutely I know about The Infallibilty of the Pope. And no, I’m surpriised the Pope goes to daily confession.  I would hope he does.  You need to re-read what I wrote.  In fact I don’t even understand your reply. It makes absolutely no sense!  Peter is mentioned 191 times in the New Testament.  No other Apostle comes close. Mike Tennyson RCC Examined-14 Peter Roman Catholicism endeavors to defend the papacy by claiming that Peter was the first pope and was personally appointed by Christ. They base this claim upon their interpretation of Matthew 16:13-19 in which Jesus responds to Peter’s confession that He is the Christ by declaring that upon this rock He will build His Church and will give the keys of the kingdom to Peter to bind and loose upon the earth. The papacy claims that Peter is the rock, and the keys represent the pope’s absolute authority and infallibility over the Church. However, Jesus was not saying He would build His church upon Peter, but upon the simple foundational confession of faith which Peter made that Jesus is the Christ. The church is not built upon Peter, but Christ–Christ is the rock, not Peter (I Cor. 3:11, 12; Eph. 2:20, 21). The "keys" symbolize the authority to open the way of salvation through the preaching of the gospel to all those who are bound in darkness and sin. Peter was first entrusted with the keys because he was the first to give this confession of faith in Jesus and was instrumental in initially opening the door of salvation to the Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2), as well as the Gentiles at Cornelius’ house (Acts 10). However, all true disciples possess the keys when proclaiming the way of salvation to unbelievers and offering them spiritual liberty through Christ (Matt. 18:18). Furthermore, the Scriptures disprove Catholic claims concerning Peter. Neither the Bible nor Peter ever claim to be a pope, head over the church, or in a superior position over the other apostles. He simply referred to himself as an elder among many (I Pet. 5:1). Peter challenged the dictatorial nature of the papacy by warning ministers not to lord over the flock. (I Pet. 5:3). Peter refused to receive homage from men (Acts 10:25-27). Peter proved he wasn’t infallible when Jesus sharply rebuked him for challenging the need of the crucifixion (Matt. 16:23), and Paul scolded him for his vacillation, inconsistency, and spiritual hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-14). Peter was married (Matt 87:14; Lk. 4:38; I Cor. 9:5). When Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, he greeted many believers but never mentioned Peter (Rom.16); LOL!… So what….Peter is mentioned 191 times in the New Testament, by far more than any of the other Apostles.  You just don’t get it do you.  You know better than the Church don’t you? and what is more, apart from Catholic tradition, there is no biblical, historical, or credible archaeological evidence that Peter ever went to Rome or presided as its supreme bishop. All refernces are from RCC Bibles only.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The material that IKnowHimDoYou is posting is in fact not his or her own writing but anonymous material gleaned from Internet sources and already dealt with on a specific set of webpages As follows (see below for large reference) What we have is the usual attempt to use cuttin and pasting from the Internet in order to promote anti Catholic, antisemitic and neo nazi views Iknow Shit hasn’t been cleverer to get away with it this long It is just that his material is mostly too idiotic to bother with This wanker a Christian – kiss my butt! http://www.catholicsites.com/beggarking/answer/

That’s a great website Sliver Blaze,  I’ve had it in my favorites for 3 years or so,  it will also give the order of Mass with scripture to back it up. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Catholics are accustomed to being the favorite target of bigots. The Catholic