Was Peter the First Pope?

[dan]

those scriptures have nothing to do with Peter being the first pope

That's the basis for the whole idea that Peter was the first Pope.

 

[Quiddity]

Are you saying the Catholic Church has never made a mistake?

Be more specific please....
If you mean mistakes in doctrinal teachings then that is exactly what we are saying. This is the same leap of faith that you may use to say that the Bible has no errors.

~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

Not even the Churches in the NT were considered "infallible". It is impressive that the Catholic Church has surpassed even the church in Jerusalem.

 

[Quiddity]

Not even the Churches in the NT were considered "infallible". It is impressive that the Catholic Church has surpassed even the church in Jerusalem.

You are right they didn't. Not even in the Catholic Church today this is true.

ND, individual churches in the Catholic Church are not infallible. Individual deacons, priests, bishops (aside from the Pope) are also not infallible. The only formula that works to get an infallible proclaimation is by:

1. The Bishops in union (Council)
2. The successor of Peter (Pope) speaks ex-cathedra

~Victor

 

[Scott1]

Not even the Churches in the NT were considered "infallible". It is impressive that the Catholic Church has surpassed even the church in Jerusalem.

Joking aside ND.... I'm still confused as to why you can't let this go....

• You quote me Scriptures to show my "errors".... but don't believe them to be infallible, so you could be wrong.
• You hope to restore the Church of the Bible.... but that could be wrong as well.
• You are quite certain that Peter was not the first Pope..... but you base this on Scripture that might be wrong.
• You base your entire belief system on a book that you admit is not immune from teaching error.

.... and yet you look down upon us for trusting God to guard us against error?

 

[Quiddity]

Scott, I would give you frubals if I knew how and if I knew what they were for...:biglaugh:
Well said..

~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

You're right Scott, my faith is a sham, I should be ashamed. Have a great day.

 

[chuck010342]

That's the basis for the whole idea that Peter was the first Pope.

what do you mean? There is no evidence in the scriptures for Peter being the first pope of Rome.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Chuck,

unless you capitulate the point, your faith will be attacked. It's not worth it.

 

[dan]

Be more specific please....
If you mean mistakes in doctrinal teachings then that is exactly what we are saying. This is the same leap of faith that you may use to say that the Bible has no errors.

~Victor

I never said the Bible had no errors. I know for a fact that it has errors.

 

[Scott1]

what do you mean? There is no evidence in the scriptures for Peter being the first pope of Rome.

chuck,

We have given Scriptural and historical evidence of why we believe in the primacy of Peter...

... instead of making post after post saying there is no evidence, why don't you provide evidence of your own?