There Is No Proof Of Peter Ever Going To Rome

[thessalonian]

So the end of keeping people out of the RCC and removing them from her justifies the means is what you are telling me.

 

[thessalonian]

This thread bugs me. Why Lewis, did you post articles that support the position that Peter did go to Rome? There of course will always be no proof for those who don't want to believe something. We've all tried to convince an aethist of Christianity. We of course have all presented what we though were splendedly convincing arguements on what we believed that noone could refute only to have the other party come up with something they think is plausable to "prove" us wrong. So that noone can prove it to you doesn't mean much. :-?

 

[Solo]

Part II: Did Peter Act Like a Pope?

Since there is no evidence that the office of Pope even existed in the early church, obviously neither Peter nor anyone else could hold the office. But let us confirm our conclusions by looking at the Bible teaching specifically about Peter to see if he acted like a Pope.

A. Peter Had No Authority above Other Apostles.

• "The Catholic Church believes that St. Peter was the chief Apostle, exercising by Christ's appointment the supreme power of governing His church. The Vatican Council says: 'If anyone says that Christ the Lord did not constitute the Blessed Peter prince of all the Apostles and head of the whole church militant ... let him be anathema'" (Question Box, p. 145).

But notice what God says:

• All apostles received direct guidance of the Holy Spirit - Acts 2:1-4; Ephesians 3:3-5; John 16:13; John 14:26
  Why would apostles need guidance from a Pope if they were guided directly by the Spirit? Paul expressly stated that his teaching was not based on anything learned from man but on direct revelation from Jesus - Galatians 1:11-12, Galatians 1:16-17; Galatians 2:6-9,Galatians 2:11-14.
  
  All apostles received the power to "bind and loose."
  
  Some claim that Jesus, in Matthew 16:19, gave exclusively to Peter the power to bind and loose, but Matthew 18:18 shows that others also had the same power.
  
  John 20:22,23 - All apostles had power to forgive or retain sins, but only as guided by the Holy Spirit. No apostle could originate laws but could only reveal the laws God made. They did this by revealing and preaching the gospel. If men obey, their sins are forgiven; if not, their sins are retained - Romans 1:16; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:36-41; etc.
  
  The gospel was the "keys" or authority by which apostles opened the door for men to enter the church. Peter was the first to preach to Jews (Acts 2) and to Gentiles (Acts 10), but all apostles had authority to preach the gospel. No passage anywhere says the other apostles submitted to Peter's authority.
  
  Paul affirmed he was equal with other apostles in every way - 2 Corinthians 11:5; 2 Corinthians 12:11.
  
  All apostles were ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). If Peter had authority over all apostles, Paul would have been behind him, but Paul denies this.
  
  There is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, but much proof shows the others had all that Peter had.

B. Peter Did Not Fit the Pattern of Modern Popes.

• Peter was a married man, but modern Popes are not permitted to marry.
  
  Matthew 8:14 - Jesus healed the mother of Peter's wife.
  
  1 Corinthians 9:5 - Peter (Cephas) continued to have a wife (woman) after the church began. The footnote in the St. Joseph New Catholic Edition of the Bible adds, "There is no question of a right to marry. The Apostles had that right...." This expressly included Peter.
  
  1 Peter 5:1-3 - Peter was an elder or bishop, and bishops were married (Titus 1:5,6; 1 Timothy 3:2). The footnote on 1 Tim. 3:2 in the St. Joseph New Catholic Edition says: "...priestly celibacy as a law is of later ecclesiastical institution." In other words, Peter and all first-century bishops had the right to be married. The law against such marriages was made by the Catholic church after the Bible was complete.
  
  Hebrews 13:4; 1 Timothy 4:1-3 - Marriage is honorable for all people. That includes apostles and all church officials. To teach that certain people may not marry is a doctrine of apostasy.
  
  The Catholic doctrine of celibacy would eliminate from serving as Pope the very man they say was the first Pope! The doctrine of celibacy is expressly stated in the Scriptures to be heresy.
  
  Peter refused to allow men to bow to honor him religiously, but modern Popes accept and encourage this.
  
  Acts 10:25,26 - Peter forbade Cornelius to worship him or to bow before him. Peter's reason was that he was a man. Are not modern Popes men too? Why should modern Popes accept that which Peter refused?
  
  The Bible never allows anyone to bow to any man as an act of honor for his religious office (Matt. 4:10; Apocalypse. 22:8,9). Yet modern Popes allow and expect this.
  
  Peter was never addressed by titles of exaltation such as are used to honor modern Popes.
  
  Peter is never called "Pope," "Chief Pastor," "Prince of the Apostles," "Head of the Church," "Ruler of the Church," "Supreme Pontiff," etc. He was called simply an apostle and servant (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1) and fellow-presbyter (1 Peter 5:1).
  
  Some argue that Peter avoided these titles because he was humble and modest. But if he was the first Pope, why don't modern Popes imitate his humility and modesty?! The fact is that Peter refused such titles because Jesus forbade it.
  
  Matthew 23:9 expressly forbids calling any man "father" as a title of religious honor. Yet the word "Pope" originally meant "Father" (Catholic Dictionary, p. 667). Modern popes and priests wear the very title that Jesus forbade!
  
  Clearly, if the apostle Peter were alive today, he would never be accepted as Pope. Yet Catholics claim he was their very first Pope!

C. There Is No Valid Scriptural Proof that Peter Ever Acted as Pope.

• Those who claim Peter was Pope are responsible to prove their claim is valid. We have already examined their use of Matt. 16:18 and John 21:15ff. Now consider some other passages they cite:
  
  Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prayed for Peter so he could strengthen his brethren.
  
  Some actually claim this proves Peter was Pope (Question Box, p. 147). But other people besides Peter strengthened or confirmed brethren (Acts 18:23; 14:21f; 15:32,41). Were these people all Popes too?
  
  Jesus prayed for other apostles and disciples besides Peter (John 17:9,11,15,20). Did that make them all Popes?
  
  The next verses in Luke 22 (v33,34) show that Jesus did not pray for Peter to exalt him as Pope, but for just the opposite reason. Jesus knew Peter was about to deny Him!
  
  Peter took the lead in many events in Acts.
  
  This includes the choosing of Matthias (Acts 1:15-26), preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2), healing a lame man (Acts 3,4), the death of Ananias & Sapphira (Acts 5), preaching to the first Gentiles (Acts 10), etc. Some claim this proves he was Pope (Question Box, p. 148).
  
  But Paul was at least as dominant in Acts 13-28 as Peter was in Acts 1-12. Was Paul Pope too?
  
  Peter was truly an important man, just as Paul was. In all groups some people are more outspoken than others, and this was surely Peter's case. But none of these passages say or imply he was Pope or head of the church. The fact a man is able to speak well does not prove he has authority over others.
  
  It is claimed Peter presided over the Jerusalem meeting about circumcision (Acts 15).
  
  It is claimed that he spoke first and he settled the issue (Question Box, pp. 148, 152).
  
  However, Paul and Barnabas were sent to the meeting to speak to the apostles and presbyters (v2) - no distinctions were made among the apostles. If Peter was the head, why doesn't it say they went to confer with "the Pope, the apostles, and the presbyters"?
  
  Peter did not speak first. There had been long debate before he spoke (v7). And his speech did not settle the issue. People kept silent after he spoke only so they could listen to other speakers (v12)! The final course of action was suggested by James (v13,19ff). And the whole procedure was directed by the Holy Spirit (v28), which led all apostles as we have already shown.
  
  It is claimed that, in lists of apostles, Peter is named first because he was Pope (Question Box, p. 148).
  
  But in the following lists, he is not named first: Gal. 2:9; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; John 1:44. Does this prove the people listed before Peter had authority over him? Being first in a list does not prove one is a Pope.
  
  The lists where Peter is named first clearly state the office to which he was appointed - like other men, he was chosen to be an apostle (Luke 6:13-16; Matt. 10:2ff). If Peter was chosen to the office of Pope, why is this never stated anywhere?
  
  It is claimed that Jesus gave Peter a special name because he would be Pope (Question Box, p. 148).
  
  But Jesus gave a special name to James and John (Mark 3:16,17). And God gave special names to Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 17:5,15), Jacob (Gen. 32:28f), and others. Were all these people Popes too?
  
  Be honest now. Isn't this weak and flimsy evidence on which to base such a major doctrine? The Bible clearly identifies the work and position in the church of Jesus, apostles, bishops, etc. If the office of Pope is really the foundation of the church, why don't we have clear Scriptural evidence for it?

D. A Better Case Could Be Made to Prove Paul Was Pope.

• Both we and Catholics deny that Paul was ever a Pope, but if we used the kind of reasoning that is used to "prove" Peter to be Pope, we could make a better case that Paul was Pope.[list:55b3a]
• Paul was not married (1 Corinthians 7).
  
• Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.
  [/*:m:55b3a]
• Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); Peter never rebuked Paul.
  [/*:m:55b3a]
• Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).
  [/*:m:55b3a]
• Paul was not behind any apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter never made such a claim for himself.
  [/*:m:55b3a]
• Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books. Peter wrote only 2 little ones.
  [/*:m:55b3a]
• Peter cited Paul's letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15,16), but Paul never cited Peter's letters as authority.
  [/*:m:55b3a]
• Scripture expressly tells us Paul was in Rome, but never says Peter was there.
  [/*:m:55b3a]
• Paul's labors exceeded those of other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:23).[/*:m:55b3a]

Now if, despite all these facts, we properly conclude that Paul was not a Pope, then surely we can see that the evidence offered for Peter as Pope is equally unconvincing.[/*:m:55b3a][/list:u:55b3a]

[To be Continued ----------Part 3 to follow]

Bible Study Retrieved from http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bi ... s_pope.php

 

[thessalonian]

Whole lotta nonsense goin on. Just a quickie.

Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); Peter never rebuked Paul.

How do you know Peter NEVER rebuked Paul. One could read the whole new testament in about 40 hours. Do you think that Peter and Paul were together a bit more than that? Clearly they were. More likely Peter's rebuke by Paul was more significant because it was a subordinate to a leader. I don't recall anyone being rebuked in Bill Clinton's office for sex scandal but Bill sure got it.

Is this a protestant thing that a subordinate can't rebuke a leader. If it is your going to have to correct alot of people. For instance Mr. Atonement the other day said he would rebuke the pastor for not preaching straight out of scripture.

Mr. Solo uses alot of distortions and false arguements that try to make Catholicism look ignorant. For instance he claims that Jesus prayed for Peter because Peter decieved him and illudes to the straw man that we think it is because Peter was Pope. That is a silly claim. We know darn well it was because Peter would deny him. But he was going to restore the other twelve who also the scriptures tell us fall away.

Mr. Solo says nothing about the "coincidences" of Peter being named many times more than the nearest of the apostles, John at 30. Coincidence? Random chance? Not likely. What is the meaning Mr. Solo? Peter speaking up every time the Apostles are asked a question and not one saying "peter why don't you let me talk". Again random chance? Mr. Solo points out some "lists" of which only 1 is an actual list that does anything for his arguement (sad that you had to cast a cloud over your arguement by including the others that are obviously a strech for your arguement) at all where Peter is not first named. But this he only uses to hide that FACT that Peter was named first in many other places by different authors. Again, coincidnce? Random Chance? Here they are:

Matt 8:14
Mt 10:2
Matt 17:1
Mark 5:37
Mark 9:2
Mark 13:3
Mark 14:33
Luke 6:14
Luke 8:51
Luke 9:28
John 21:2

I would challenge anyone to go back and look at solo's 4 passages that he says do not list Peter first. Only one is a truly legit case. The others are nonsense. Again we have four Gospel authors all listing him first. Random chance? Coincidence?

I would love to stay and refute some of the other nonsense, such as about Paul being more qualified as Pope because he wrote more. So the chief engineer in a company should be the CEO? Silly arguement. Maybe later.

 

[ThreeInOne]

The truths that I share concerning the Roman Catholic cult are posted for the purpose of leading lost souls to the redemption available through Jesus Christ, not the pope.

The Roman Catholic Cult is leading many, many souls to hell, and is a satanic organization. The False prophet will rise from the Roman Catholic papacy.

EXACTLY!
:smt038

 

[thessalonian]

Solo claims these are lists of Apostles that don't name Peter first.

Gal. 2:9; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; John 1:44.

Look em up for yourself if you don't believe me.

The first one is semi valid. The 2nd and 3rd are not lists of Apostles and the point of them has nothing to do with apostles, the third is simply telling who phillip was in relation to Peter and Andrew and I think it was James. So you get 1/2 a point for this one against about 10 lists from the 4 different Gospel writers that for some reason put peter first when naming apostles. Why is that? Random chance? Not likely.

 

[Solo]

Part III: Are Modern Popes Successors of Peter?

The Catholic Church tries to prove it is the true church by tracing a succession of Popes back to Peter. It is claimed that Peter was the chief apostle and that Popes are his successors as head of the church. However, we have shown that Jesus' church had no office of Pope, nor did Peter serve as Pope. Further, we have quoted Catholic books that admit there were times when no one knows who was Pope, so how can they know the succession? There can be no valid succession of Popes.

But let us confirm this conclusion by considering other Bible teaching specifically regarding the issue of succession. Note that God warns about false apostles (2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Apoc. 2:2). Are modern Popes true apostles or false apostles?

A. No Men Today Can Be Successors of Apostles.

There is no Scriptural proof that the powers of apostles were handed down.
Surely such a major doctrine must be taught in the Bible, but where is it? Those who believe it must prove it, but they cannot.

Question Box defends the doctrine on pp. 153-156. But the only proof given is a statement from the Vatican Council, followed by three pages of quotations from uninspired men. There is not one reference to any Bible passage! Why not? Because the doctrine is not in the Bible.

Apostles had to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ.

Peter and all apostles were eyewitnesses (Acts 2:32; Acts 3:15; Acts 4:33; Acts 5:32; Acts 10:39-41; 1 Corinthians 15:4-8).

Acts 1:21,22 - The replacement of Judas is the only Bible case in which an apostle was replaced. The replacement had to be an eyewitness.

Paul was an eyewitness (1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:8; Acts 22:14-15; Acts 26:16). He was a witness "last of all" and "out of due time" (Jesus' appeared to him exceptionally late).

Serving as an eyewitness was part of the calling of an apostle. Have all Popes seen Christ? If they have, then Paul was not last of all and was not exceptional. But if Popes have not seen Christ, then they do not have the qualifications required to succeed the apostles!

Apostles did miracles to confirm their apostleship.

Peter and other apostles raised the dead and instantly, totally healed all kinds of diseases (Acts 3:1-10; Acts 9:32-42; Acts 5:12-16; Acts 13:6-12).

2 Corinthians 12:12 - These were the "signs of an apostle." Their miracles proved they were from God (Mark 16:20; Acts 14:3; Hebrews 2:3-4; John 4:48; etc.). Do modern Popes do these signs? If not, why accept them as successors of Peter?

Apostles could impart miraculous powers to others.

Acts 8:14-19; Acts 19:1-7; Romans 1:8-11 - Peter and other apostles bestowed miraculous gifts by laying their hands on others. This is the only sense in which apostles passed power on to others. But those who received gifts in this way (such as Philip) did not become apostles and could not, in turn, pass the power on to others. Only Paul and the original apostles had this power (Acts 8:5-18).

Hence, apostles could impart spiritual gifts, but they had no successors who could do likewise, and nothing else about their position was imparted to others. Apostles lived on earth only one generation!

Do modern Popes impart miraculous powers to others? If not, how could they become successors of Peter or the apostles, and how could they make other people successors?

Apostles taught by direct guidance of the Spirit.

Peter and other apostles had this power (Matthew 10:19-20; John 16:13; Ephesians 3:3-5; 1 Corinthians 14:37).

Jude 3 - By this power they delivered the true faith to God's people once. It was not to be repeatedly delivered, just as Christ was not to be repeatedly sacrificed (cf. Hebrews 9:26-28; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 7:26-27; 1 Peter 3:18). All truth was delivered in the first century and recorded in the Scriptures (John 16:13; 2 Peter 1:3; Acts 20:20; Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 3:16=17).

When the delivery of the truth was complete ("perfect"), the gifts of direct revelation ceased - 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 (cf. James 1:25). No one today is directly guided by the Holy Spirit as apostles were, hence no one can be a true successor of the apostles.

The Catholic Church admits that Popes do not have these qualifications.
Though the Catholic church claims that Popes are successors of Peter and the apostles, yet they openly admit the following:

• "Peter, it is true, ... possessed also the gift of inspiration and the power of working miracles. These two latter gifts are not claimed by the Pope ... The Apostles were endowed with the gift of inspiration ... No Catholic, on the contrary, claims that the Pope is inspired or endowed with Divine revelation properly so called" (Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 89,99).

It is argued that these powers are not essential to the office of Pope. But read again the passages cited above and you will see that these powers were essential to the office of apostles. If Popes do not have these powers, how can they be successors of the apostles?

Modern Popes cannot be successors of apostles because they are not eyewitnesses of Christ, they do not possess miraculous powers, they cannot impart such powers to others, and they are not directly guided by the Spirit. They possess none of the unique qualifications of apostles!

How then does a man become Pope today? He is chosen by a body of men called Cardinals. Yet the Catholic Dictionary admits:

• "For a long time there was no such thing as a cardinal bishop..." It claims the first such men were named in 304 AD. Finally, a council in 1059 AD "decreed that Popes should henceforth be elected on the judgment of the six cardinal bishops..." (p. 118).

The Catholic Church claims that the succession of Popes is a chain that connects the modern church to the first-century church. But Popes were unknown in the Bible, Peter was not a Pope, modern Popes have none of the essential qualifications of the apostles they are supposed to succeed, and it is admitted that there are times at which no one knows who was Pope. Furthermore, the men who select the Pope were unknown in the Bible and in history for centuries after the church began. And the modern means of selecting Popes was not determined until a millennium after the church began! The whole "chain" is missing! And this is the evidence used to prove that the Catholic Church is the true church!

B. Successors to Apostles Are Not Needed Today.

The duties of apostles were accomplished for all time by the original apostles. The work of apostles does not need to continue on earth.

The apostles wrote what the Spirit revealed to them (1 Corinthians 14:37; Ephesians 3:3-5; 2 Peter 3:15-16; etc.).

These writings completely reveal all good works, everything we need to know to please God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3; John 16:13; Acts 20:20; Acts 20:27).

The miracles of the first century, recorded in the Bible, confirm that the message was from God (John 20:30-31; 1 Corinthians 15:4-8; note John 8:17-18; Matthew 18:16).

The Scriptures can be understood by all who study diligently with an open mind (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Mark 7:14; Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 14:33; Ephesians 3:3-5).

God now preserves the Scriptures for all generations (1 Peter 1:22-25; 2 John 2; 2 Peter 1:12-15; 2 Peter 3:1).

People displease God when they follow teachings that differ from the gospel (Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 9-11).

The apostles' work on earth was completed in the first century and was recorded in the Bible, just like the work of Jesus was. We do not need successors to the apostles living on earth today for the same reasons that we do not need successors to Jesus living on earth today. The work of the apostles is now accomplished by the Scriptures they wrote.

C. The True Church Cannot Be Identified by Tracing a Succession of Bishops.

We have seen that the Catholic succession is a "chain" which is missing essentially all its links. Consider also the following points:

The Bible warns of the danger of apostasy.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 - People would turn away from truth and would turn aside to fables.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 - They would depart from the faith and would require people to abstain from marriage and from certain kinds of foods. Catholicism has practiced both of these false doctrines.

Acts 20:28-30 - Bishops would teach error and lead people astray (Matthew 15:14; Matthew 7:15-23; Galatians 1:6-10; 2 John 9-11).

Note: If the bishops went into error, tracing a succession of them would not identify the true church! Yet in this study, we have identified several major points on which the Catholic hierarchy teaches error.

The true church can be identified by comparing it to the Bible.
God has preserved the gospel as the seed by which the church is reproduced (1 Peter 1:22-25; Luke 8:11). This seed produces today just what it did in the first century (Galatians 6:7). People who obey it are born again into God's true family, the church (Acts 2:38; Acts 2:47; Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 1:16).

But when people persist in following doctrines different from the gospel, they go into apostasy. To determine whether a religious group is the true church of Christ, we must compare its doctrine and practice to the New Testament (Acts 17:11; Matthew 7:15-23; Galatians 1:8=9; 2 John 9-11). If it has gone into apostasy, it cannot be Jesus' church.

Conclusion
We seek to help, not hurt, all who read this material. We urge you to study the Scriptures for yourself to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). If you find you have been in error, please contact those who gave you this booklet. They will gladly help you find Jesus' true church.

Topics for further Bible study
(Click for more information.)
Catholicism

The Inspiration of the Bible

The Preservation of the Bible

[url]http://www.gospelway.com/bible/religious_confusion.php[/url]

The Importance of Bible Knowledge

 

[thessalonian]

I thought it was my imagination and that perhaps my posts weren't getting to the board but I was just notified that my posts are being zapped and it is not my imagination. Perhaps the zapper is concerned with the content as they were related to the above post and not unrelated at all.

I said that the Catholic Church does not claim that the Popes and Bishops are Apostles. It is a distortion of the doctrine for anyone to say that because we say they are successors of the Apostles they are Apostles and should do everything an Apostle does. Those who are in congress and the presidency are in a sense successors of those who were members of the constitutional convention and writers of the declaration of independence. They do not write the constitution and declaration of independence but operate under their guidelines. This is the way the Catholic Church views the Popes and Bishops, as Successors of the Apostles.

 

[Solo]

Questions on Roman Catholicism

By Pastor Nick Bibile

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another.

Pope – Part 1

Many are praising the Pope for all the good work he has done. He was against abortion, homosexuality, he even visited the person who tried to assassin him in prison. He visited Israel, the Muslim Mosques and met with world religious leaders, he set high moral values. This is the great deception as people look to the man instead his beliefs in doctrine.

Let us expose very briefly the pope of Roman Catholicism in the light of God’s Holy Word, the Bible. If the Bible contradicts what Roman Catholicism is teaching, would you agree the Bible to be true or Roman Catholicism to be true. If you say Roman Catholicism to be true then God is a liar but if you say Bible is to be true, you are correct as God’s word is true and the final authority.

• 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:19-21)
  
  16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16)

Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.†(Matthew 24:35)

Is there a difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic?

Yes. Many are not aware that there is a difference between Catholicism and Roman Catholicism. According to Webster Encyclopedic dictionary the word Catholic means universal or general. In the beginning of the church there were no denominations but only one general church and was called Catholic not Roman Catholic.

Then how did Roman Catholicism begin?

The early church which was called Christian or Catholic was persecuted by the Roman Emperors. Christians were crucified, burnt alive and given to wild beasts to be eaten alive. Then there was a sudden change as Constantine the Roman emperor (A.D 313) granted liberty to all Christians as before Christians were persecuted and killed but now Constantine gave religious freedom to the people. He exempted Christian ministers from taxes and encourage to build churches. He moved his capitol to Byzantium and he called Constantinople, “New Rome.†Of the Empire.

Then Emperor Theodosius (A.S 378-398) made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and made church membership compulsory. Here we see the beginning of Roman Catholicism. All unconverted people attended church. We see the great apostasy of the church as the Roman Empire had conquered the church. The church became a political organization. Ministers became priests.

What is the meaning of Pope?

The word pope means Papa, Father. The Pope commands all to call him `Holy Father', and his priests feel insulted if persons do not address them as `Father'

Was Apostle Peter the First Pope?

Roman Catholic Church will list Peter as the first Pope but in truth for 500 years there were no Popes. It was first given to Gregory I by the wicked emperor Phocas, in the year 604. Gregory, however, refused the title, but his second successor, Boniface III (607) assumed the title, and it has been the designation of the bishops of Rome ever since.

Peter was not the first pope. According to the Roman Catholic Church the Pope is infallible, means he never makes mistakes. No one can rebuke the pope. However Apostle Paul rebuked Peter.

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Then Why Does the Roman Catholic Church List Apostle Peter as the First Pope?

The Church of Rome uses the following scripture to prove their case. Let us read.

• Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
  
  Well, doesn’t it look clear that the Church Built on Peter?
  
  No. It does not. Peter in Greek is Petros it means a small rock or a stone. Jesus in Matthew 16:18 said, Thou art Peter, meaning a small rock/stone. Then Jesus said upon this rock. Rock here in Greek is not Petros but Petra meaning a large rock and on that large rock he will build his church not on a stone. The church is not built on a little stone but on the large rock of Jesus Christ, if the church is built on a man’s foundation it will not last.
  
  Is there other holy scriptures in the Bible to say that Jesus is the Rock?
  
  Yes. Read the following.[list:435ff]1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
  
  Psalm 89:26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

Is the Church Built on the Foundation of Christ Jesus?

Yes, Read the scripture.

• 1 Corinthians 3: 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ok, now I understand from the Holy Bible the Church is not built of Peter but of Jesus Christ. But what about Jesus telling Peter the following?

• “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.†(Matthew 16: 19)

Can you answer?

Yes, certainly. The word keys are used as metaphorically as a key has to do with a door. Keys of the kingdom of heaven has to do with door of faith, the door for the gospel. It was first given to Peter and we see at the Pentecost how the Lord used Peter opening this door to the Jews in preaching the gospel (Acts 2:1) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1) But it was not only given to Peter but to the rest of the apostles, a commission to preach the gospel to all nations, then to all the believers. It was not given to one man but to the church in unity. Only Jesus has the keys to hell and death.

• Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Only Jesus has the authority to shut and open doors.

• Revelation 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

Then what about when Jesus said, “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.â€Â[/list:u:435ff]
Can you answer?

Here we see Jesus gave the church to exercise authority in reference to church discipline, this authority was not only to Peter but to the church. Compare Matthew 16:19 with the following scripture in context and you will see this has to do with Church discipline.

• Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Did Apostle Peter himself ever claim to be the Pope?

Peter said he was apostle and elder but not a pope. Read the following Scripture.

• 1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed.

According to Roman Catholicism Pope is the Head of the Church. What does the Holy Bible say?

The word of God is very clear, it is not the Pope who is the head of the Church but Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.

• Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
  
  Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.

The Pope is called the Chief Shepherd, what does the Bible say?

The Bible is again clear that it is not the Pope who is the Chief Shepherd but Christ Jesus is the Chief Shepherd.

• 1Peter 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

Pope is called the Holy Father. Now I see that that the Bible is true, what does the Bible say?

Many are calling him Holy Father. This is an abomination to God. Jesus said, "Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9) Here Jesus is not talking of our physical fathers but referring to a spiritual father, the only spiritual Father we have is God not the Pope.

What does Vicar of Christ means?

The word 'vicar' means 'substitute', i.e., one who takes the place of another. The Pope has taken the place of Christ. This is blasphemy towards God as Jesus Christ lives and all popes die like any other men. It is sad as we see many people kissing the feet of the pope and glorifying him. But God’s word is clear as only God is to be glorified.

• 
  Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Father, Son and the Holy Spirit]

• Father
  
  Pope is called the Holy Father, this is a title for God only (Matthew 23:9) Jesus also addressed to God the Father as he said;[list:435ff]John 17:11 - And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Son

Pope claims to be the Head of the Church but the Bible is clear that Christ is the head of the church

• Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.

Holy Spirit

Pope is called the vicar of Christ. Means a substitute for Christ. Christ said the only substitute is the Holy Spirit, when he said;

• John 14:16 - And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

[/list:u:435ff]The system of Roman Catholic church is very dangerous and very deceptive. Billions of people are deceived, Christians wake up! Expose the deceitfulness of Rome, do not be afraid to speak the truth.

Retrieved from http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Nick/Quest ... m_pope.htm