[Remy Lebeau]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

Looks like the Mary worshipper doesn't want to answer the question. I wonder why not?

*ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE QUESTION - ONCE AGAIN - DELETED*
Now. Address the rest of my "dribble"

I'm going to ask you again:

Do you or do you not believe that God supports pedophilia, pedophiles and their protectors?

Yes, you do.

Or

No, you don't.

Yes or No, papist?

Enough trying to talk around the issue, ring kisser. Give me a simple yes or no. Failure to answer "yes" or "no" will result in you being placed on moderation. We will not continue to tolerate discussions with brick walls. You will speak honestly and openly or you will not speak at all and/or we will speak for you.

[Catholic - Not Christian]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

Yes, Heaven forbid I ask a Catholic to read. I know you like someone else to read stuff and give you the gist of it, like your priests do with the Bible. Well sorry, but that is not going to cut it. Just like you can't write a decent English essay from just reading the Cliff notes, we cannot have a decent discussion if you expect me to just do all of your research for you. So why don't you rub those two brain cells of yours, do some reading, gather an opinion, and then we can have an intelligent conversation.

You know? A brother of yours here just suggested I post a wall of text such as that of James Peter. When James Peter had done this previously, he was laughed at and his text denied to be read. (if you don't believe me, I will link you to the page) So we have a double standard here. You expect me to go read numerous websites and then come back here? You see, I have read three "chick tracts" already, but they fail to offer me anything but, "Reject the Catholic Church! It is Satan!"

And that's it.

There's nothing but that slammed in my face repeatedly. There's no fact. Barely even a scripture quote. Its propaganda made up by someone with some leftover anger toward the Church or something. It's opinions being restated over and over until you believe it. That's what propaganda is. That's what these "chick tracts" are.

Now, if there is one issue specifically that you wanted me to see from this set of links, bring it to the table or you can link me to that page and say, "see how yadayadayada...." And I will be more than happy to discuss.

But I am a college student, I simply do not have the time to read through it all and try to address it all at once. I'm sorry...

See, it's just this sort of attitude that bothers me. When I was growing up in my Catholic family, I always noticed how lazy and indifferent the majority of Catholics were. They just really did not seem to care at all about what their church taught, and all did what they wanted. Not all mind you, but most of them. They would not say the responses in mass, they would sit down when they were supposed to kneel because they got tired. The choir would sing, but nobody sang along. They got communion every week, even though you are only allowed to take it in a state of grace. They would eat before going to mass even though you were supposed to have fasted an hour before receiving communion. They never went to confession, saying they confessed to God and that was good enough for them. They would leave before mass was over so they could beat the traffic. A lot of them just showed up at mass when it was convenient for them, some only on Christmas and Easter (and not even on the other Holy Days of Obligation). A lot of them also tended to be liberals with political views that went far away from the official Catholic teachings. These people would never discuss religion out of church, never tried to convert people, acted downright ashamed of their faith.

Sadly, much of this is true. The Catholic Faith is difficult. And look at where we are today! America literally preaches individualism. What we want is how it should be. Hence, this is how I view protestant religions, they couldn't accept something from the Church, so they left and made their own. They need a sense of security, so they feel if they can find some passage in the Bible and change what the interpretation had been for over 1500 years and even remove some of the books, then they have established that false sense of security. People hear what they want to hear and do what they want to do. They don't like it, they don't do it. Then they seek a way to justify themselves.

I can speak personally about a Baptist friend of mine that has recently given up on God, not because she thinks He doesn't exist, but she simply doesn't want it anymore. And she justifies her actions by giving a name for herself: agnostic. And because their are others that do the same thing, she is also lulled into that false sense of security. As is the case, in my opinion, with all protestants, and all catholics that do not follow the teachings in full. They tell themselves that everyone else is doing it, so it must be okay for me too. But the way is narrow and few will find it.

Then of course there was the minority who actually did do things right, and they were probably even worse. These are the kind of people who would keep rosaries in their cars as good luck charms, who would actually talk to their little statues as though they could hear them, who would make the sign of the cross in vain at any moment of slight discomfort or distress.

Again, if you felt these actions to be wrong, you were not forced to do them. In fact, the rosary is not even part of Church dogma. You don't have to own one or pray it. I never placed a rosary in my car. I have two, and they are hanging from a crucifix on my dormitory wall. I always felt it a disrespect to hang them around your necks as I have seen some people do (likely non-catholics, but besides the point)
As for the sign of the cross, what did you see so wrong with that? The sole purpose is to remind us of the trinity. That is all. People take comfort in the trinity. But I will not deny that some do not recognize this and simple do it because they feel they must or they should. They probably do it just because everyone else seems to be doing it. But this does not make it wrong. If you did it for the sake of receiving comfort, would it be so wrong?

Of course, the priests and were no better. They never corrected any of their congregation on these matters. No, they remained silent, and were ordered to by their superiors NOT to tell people if they sinned. The priests are taught to keep all their homilies to be happy and positive, lest they should lose any collection plate money. Catholics will actually call the office of their bishop if they feel their priest is being to preachy. They are spineless cowards, these priests and bishops, who ignore Christ's commands:


Matthew 18: 15Moreover 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.
16But 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. 17And 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 an heathen man and a publican.

You have your traditional catholics, your liberal catholics and many that fall in between. I don't know what type of preaching each one would like to hear, but some are picky. Of course this will happen with such large congregations. Especially as we do not choose our pastors from a list of applications. They are chosen for us.
I have heard preachings from priests all across the board. Many are not skilled in the act of giving homilies and can be rather boring. But remember, that the homily is not the great focus of the catholic mass. It is the Eucharist.
But let me ask you a question: When you sit at Church on sunday, you go entirely to hear what the preacher has to say. Did you ever ask yourself what authority this man/woman has to tell you how to interpret scripture? They give you their private interpretation and only that. They simply cannot give you anything else. They do not have the Catechism to follow or any set of Church teachings. All they have is their own private interpretation. By what authority to they preach their private ideas about scripture? Because they studied it in school? Is this what the Bible commands? Is this how the Apostles gained authority? No.

Catholics go to mass every week because Jesus is waiting for them there in the Presence of the Eucharist.

Now, as for sin and confession. If you were catholic once then you should remember. Confessions are private. This is the first option for sin, private. And this is enough 95% of the time. I have seen a few instance in which a family with a high position in the Church (Director of Altar Servers for ex.) simply dissapeared one day because they were approached and asked to step down. This was not made public in front of the Church as it was not needed to do so. I have yet to see such a case where a man's sins must be made public.

These lazy men you have in charge, happy to sit in the lap of luxury on their parishioners dime, but not willing to stir the pot by telling the truth. Letting liberal priests and nuns who run more and more rampant spouting off all kinds of blasphemies like support of gay marriage, birth control, abortion, you name it. No wonder you people can't even find young people anymore who want to sign up for vocations!

A priest is lazy in no way whatsoever. Everything in their lives is given up for the sake of God. They are on call 24/7 365 days a year. If I need to make a confession at 3am, I can do it. If my priest is needed in southeast asia, he can go there. Their lives are the lords, they are his servants. They will do anything.
Would you now bring up the few bad priests? Yes, they exist. But again, if your landover church held the billions that the catholic church does, and were as hated and persecuted as we are, then you might find extensive media coverage of a bad landover pastor too.
But it is important that the faith of all are not judged on the faith of few.

See, it is not just on the basis of my interpretation of the Bible that I disagree with Catholics. It is their total attitude. Jesus said by its fruit we shall know a tree - well, I see no good fruit from the Catholic tree. I much happier being in a church that actually cares about what God wants.

"the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students
everyday at the cost of 10 billion dollars, and a
savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion
dollars. Graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%,
all at a cost to Catholics. To the rest of the Americans it's free.

The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an
enrollment of 700,000 students. The Catholic Church has a non-profit
hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment
of 1 out of every 5 people -- not just Catholics -- in the United States
today.

But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every
way the Catholic Church in this country. They have blamed the disease
of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as
blaming adultery on the institution of marriage."

But anyway, as for your talk about the primacy of Peter in the church, and that Peter was held above the other Apostles, and that there can only be on Holy Catholic church, how do you interpret this:

Matthew 18: 18Verily 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. (And yes, here He is talking to all of the Apostles, note the beginning of this discourse at the start of chapter 18).

All of the Apostles were given the power to forgive sins. Peter was not greater in this respect. I think I already posted these verses, but I will do so again just in case:

The Primacy of Peter

Isaiah 22:15-25 - Prophecy of the Catholic Papacy foretold in the Old Testament
Matthew 16:18 - Upon this rock (Peter) I will build my Church. And the gates of Hell can never overpower it
Note: Many scholars believe Our Lord most probably spoke Aramaic because it was the native tongue for Jesus' immediate disciples. In Aramaic there is only one word for "rock": Kepha. So he would have said: "Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you but my Heavenly Father. So I say to you thou are "Kepha" and upon this "Kepha" I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." Conversations about Petros and Petra therefore are probably irrelevant. St. Jerome, who translated the text to Greek would never give a female ending to a masculine person, Peter.
Matthew 16:19 - I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven
Luke 22:32 - Peter's faith will strengthen his brethren. (Note: The word "you" {I have prayed for "you"} in Greek is in the personal tense, not the plural "you" like 'all you apostles' tense.)
John 21:17 - Given Christ's flock as chief shepherd
Mark 6:7 - angel sent to announce the Resurrection to Peter
Luke 24:34 - Risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - Peter headed meeting which elected Matthias to replace Judas
Acts 2:14 - Peter lead Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - Peter received the first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - Peter inflicted the first punishment: Ananias and Saphira
Acts 8:21 - Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - Peter received a revelation to admit the Gentles into the Church
Acts 15 - Peter lead the first Catholic council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter spoke saying: "My brothers, he said, .... But we believe that we are saved in the same way as they are: through the grace of the Lord Jesus." The entire assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul describing all the signs and wonders God had worked through them among the gentiles." (pronounces the first dogmatic decision)
Galatians 1:8 - after his conversion, Paul visits the chief Apostle
Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13 - Peter's name always heads the list of Apostles
Luke 9:32, Luke 8:46, Mark 16:7 - Peter and his companions
Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:69 - Peter spoke for the Apostles

Peter is mentioned 191 times in the New Testament. All the other apostles names combined are mentioned only 130 times. And the most commonly referenced apostle apart from Peter is John, whose name appears 48 times.

19Again 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. 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Any gathering of even two or three. Seems to support the Baptist position of small individual local churches more than the hierarchical global church.

This states the minimum. Two or three, it does not exclude larger numbers. Otherwise, larger Churches than two or three would be unbiblical.
However, Jesus prayed that His Church be one:

John 10:16 - there shall be one fold and one shepherd
John 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one
John 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one
Romans 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ
Romans 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Romans 16:17 - avoid those who create dissensions
1 Corinthians 1:10 - I urge you that there be no divisions among you
1 Corinthians 12:13 - in one spirit we were baptized into one body
Ephesians 4:4-6 -There is one Body, one Spirit, just as one hope is the goal of your calling by God. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all, over all, through all and within all.
Philippians 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing
Colossians 3:15 - the peace into which you were called in one body
St. Cyprian (c. 250AD) - "God is one and Christ in one, and one is His Church, and the faith is one, and His people welded together by the glue of concord into a solid unity of body. Unity cannot be rent asunder, nor can the one body of the Church, through the division of its structure, be divided into separate pieces." (On the Unity of the Church, 23)
Tertullian (c. 197AD) - "We are a society with a single religious feeling, a single unity of discipline, a single bond of hope," (Apology 39, 1)
St. Hilary (c. 4th century) - "In the Scriptures our people are shown to be made one, so that just as many grains collected into one and ground and mingled together, make one loaf, so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we know there is one holy, in which our whole company is joined and united" (Treatise 62, 13)

Speaking of your church hierarchy, I'm a little confused by how the Pope is elected. It is by the will of God, am I correct? But the Cardinals vote for him. So the Cardinals decision is inspired by God? Yet as I understand the vote need only be 2/3 for a Pope to win. What of that other 1/3 of the Cardinals? Were they not inspired by God to make the right choose? Was Satan possessing them? Often even I hear they may take a long while to reach a decision until they get a majority vote. So some of those Cardinals must be switching their votes around? What took them so long to pick the guy God wanted? For that matter, why do they vote? Don't you guys use the picking up Matthias as the new apostle as the basis of Apostolic succession? If that's the case, why don't you do like they did and draw lots?

I will admit. I do not know much about the process of electing the Pope.

However, what else matters except the end result? That the right man is chosen in the end?

I would like to compare this to when the NT was chosen around the early fourth century. There was disagreement then as well. Much of it. And it was not a process in which everyone had the same idea as to what it should be. Obviously some people changed their minds. Does this make the end result any less important? Because a few people disagreed, should we not trust their judgment as divinely inspired either?

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

You know? A brother of yours here just suggested I post a wall of text such as that of James Peter. When James Peter had done this previously, he was laughed at and his text denied to be read. (if you don't believe me, I will link you to the page) So we have a double standard here. You expect me to go read numerous websites and then come back here? You see, I have read three "chick tracts" already, but they fail to offer me anything but, "Reject the Catholic Church! It is Satan!"

And that's it.

There's nothing but that slammed in my face repeatedly. There's no fact. Barely even a scripture quote. Its propaganda made up by someone with some leftover anger toward the Church or something. It's opinions being restated over and over until you believe it. That's what propaganda is. That's what these "chick tracts" are.

Now, if there is one issue specifically that you wanted me to see from this set of links, bring it to the table or you can link me to that page and say, "see how yadayadayada...." And I will be more than happy to discuss.

But I am a college student, I simply do not have the time to read through it all and try to address it all at once. I'm sorry...

I told you the issue. The Catholic "church" was created (by men) longer after the Bible was written (by God).

Sadly, much of this is true. The Catholic Faith is difficult. And look at where we are today! America literally preaches individualism. What we want is how it should be. Hence, this is how I view protestant religions, they couldn't accept something from the Church, so they left and made their own. They need a sense of security, so they feel if they can find some passage in the Bible and change what the interpretation had been for over 1500 years and even remove some of the books, then they have established that false sense of security. People hear what they want to hear and do what they want to do. They don't like it, they don't do it. Then they seek a way to justify themselves.

I can speak personally about a Baptist friend of mine that has recently given up on God, not because she thinks He doesn't exist, but she simply doesn't want it anymore. And she justifies her actions by giving a name for herself: agnostic. And because their are others that do the same thing, she is also lulled into that false sense of security. As is the case, in my opinion, with all protestants, and all catholics that do not follow the teachings in full. They tell themselves that everyone else is doing it, so it must be okay for me too. But the way is narrow and few will find it.

I really don't know what you are trying to say here. If a person truly and honestly believes in the bottom of their heart that the Church is wrong, do they not have an obligation to leave the church? Would it not be hypocritical of them to remain a Catholic if, even after extensive study, they still adamantly and firmly just could not accept it and thought there was another truth?

By the way, I don't think over a billion qualifies as "a few".

Again, if you felt these actions to be wrong, you were not forced to do them. In fact, the rosary is not even part of Church dogma. You don't have to own one or pray it. I never placed a rosary in my car. I have two, and they are hanging from a crucifix on my dormitory wall. I always felt it a disrespect to hang them around your necks as I have seen some people do (likely non-catholics, but besides the point)
As for the sign of the cross, what did you see so wrong with that? The sole purpose is to remind us of the trinity. That is all. People take comfort in the trinity. But I will not deny that some do not recognize this and simple do it because they feel they must or they should. They probably do it just because everyone else seems to be doing it. But this does not make it wrong. If you did it for the sake of receiving comfort, would it be so wrong?

It's silly superstition.

About the rosary - I believe your church believes in the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima? Did not she say to the shepherd children (supposedly) that we must pray the rosary every day? Why aren't you teaching what the Mother of God told you?

You have your traditional catholics, your liberal catholics and many that fall in between. I don't know what type of preaching each one would like to hear, but some are picky. Of course this will happen with such large congregations. Especially as we do not choose our pastors from a list of applications. They are chosen for us.
I have heard preachings from priests all across the board. Many are not skilled in the act of giving homilies and can be rather boring. But remember, that the homily is not the great focus of the catholic mass. It is the Eucharist.
But let me ask you a question: When you sit at Church on sunday, you go entirely to hear what the preacher has to say. Did you ever ask yourself what authority this man/woman has to tell you how to interpret scripture? They give you their private interpretation and only that. They simply cannot give you anything else. They do not have the Catechism to follow or any set of Church teachings. All they have is their own private interpretation. By what authority to they preach their private ideas about scripture? Because they studied it in school? Is this what the Bible commands? Is this how the Apostles gained authority? No.


Catholics go to mass every week because Jesus is waiting for them there in the Presence of the Eucharist.

Now, as for sin and confession. If you were catholic once then you should remember. Confessions are private. This is the first option for sin, private. And this is enough 95% of the time. I have seen a few instance in which a family with a high position in the Church (Director of Altar Servers for ex.) simply dissapeared one day because they were approached and asked to step down. This was not made public in front of the Church as it was not needed to do so. I have yet to see such a case where a man's sins must be made public.

Let me ask - is it a sin not to go the church on Sunday? Now, do any Catholic churches have people who don't go to church every Sunday? Is ANYTHING ever said to these people, as individuals, about what they are doing?

A priest is lazy in no way whatsoever. Everything in their lives is given up for the sake of God. They are on call 24/7 365 days a year. If I need to make a confession at 3am, I can do it. If my priest is needed in southeast asia, he can go there. Their lives are the lords, they are his servants. They will do anything.
Would you now bring up the few bad priests? Yes, they exist. But again, if your landover church held the billions that the catholic church does, and were as hated and persecuted as we are, then you might find extensive media coverage of a bad landover pastor too.
But it is important that the faith of all are not judged on the faith of few.

Yes, when you allow your church to balloon to the billions, you lose all control over it. Thus why we follow the example of the Bible - each community has their own church which they govern on their own.

"the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students
everyday at the cost of 10 billion dollars, and a
savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion
dollars. Graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%,
all at a cost to Catholics. To the rest of the Americans it's free.

The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an
enrollment of 700,000 students. The Catholic Church has a non-profit
hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment
of 1 out of every 5 people -- not just Catholics -- in the United States
today.

But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every
way the Catholic Church in this country. They have blamed the disease
of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as
blaming adultery on the institution of marriage."

So basically Catholics like to set up their brainwashing facilities and free hospitals that take away money from poor insurance companies, just like the Democrats. What's your point?

All of the Apostles were given the power to forgive sins. Peter was not greater in this respect. I think I already posted these verses, but I will do so again just in case:

The Primacy of Peter

Isaiah 22:15-25 - Prophecy of the Catholic Papacy foretold in the Old Testament
Matthew 16:18 - Upon this rock (Peter) I will build my Church. And the gates of Hell can never overpower it
Note: Many scholars believe Our Lord most probably spoke Aramaic because it was the native tongue for Jesus' immediate disciples. In Aramaic there is only one word for "rock": Kepha. So he would have said: "Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you but my Heavenly Father. So I say to you thou are "Kepha" and upon this "Kepha" I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." Conversations about Petros and Petra therefore are probably irrelevant. St. Jerome, who translated the text to Greek would never give a female ending to a masculine person, Peter.
Matthew 16:19 - I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven
Luke 22:32 - Peter's faith will strengthen his brethren. (Note: The word "you" {I have prayed for "you"} in Greek is in the personal tense, not the plural "you" like 'all you apostles' tense.)
John 21:17 - Given Christ's flock as chief shepherd
Mark 6:7 - angel sent to announce the Resurrection to Peter
Luke 24:34 - Risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - Peter headed meeting which elected Matthias to replace Judas
Acts 2:14 - Peter lead Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - Peter received the first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - Peter inflicted the first punishment: Ananias and Saphira
Acts 8:21 - Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - Peter received a revelation to admit the Gentles into the Church
Acts 15 - Peter lead the first Catholic council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter spoke saying: "My brothers, he said, .... But we believe that we are saved in the same way as they are: through the grace of the Lord Jesus." The entire assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul describing all the signs and wonders God had worked through them among the gentiles." (pronounces the first dogmatic decision)
Galatians 1:8 - after his conversion, Paul visits the chief Apostle
Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13 - Peter's name always heads the list of Apostles
Luke 9:32, Luke 8:46, Mark 16:7 - Peter and his companions
Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:69 - Peter spoke for the Apostles

Peter is mentioned 191 times in the New Testament. All the other apostles names combined are mentioned only 130 times. And the most commonly referenced apostle apart from Peter is John, whose name appears 48 times.

So were or were they not all given authority to bind and loose? Does this refer just to confession? Is that what it says?

Peter is not the Rock. His FAITH in Jesus is the rock. Peter in Greek is Petros - a small stone. The word Jesus uses is Petra - a large rock. The foundation of the church is confessing Jesus is the Christ.

Deuteronomy 32: 3Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
4He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

1 Corinthians 10:4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Ephesians 2: 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Acts 4: 11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.



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

1 Peter 2:3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

And since you seem to care so for what those early church fathers state, how about this:

Chrysostom says thus: “Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Hilary (who ironically you also quote) says: To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, “Thou art the Son of the living God.” Therefore, the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church.

Was Peter supreme among the apostles?


Luke 22: 24And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
28Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Does that put Peter in a special spot?

And it's not just Protestants saying this. What do you think the great schism between the east and west was about? So much for your strong undividable church.

You quote Acts 15 saying that shows Peter had authority. But Paul and Barnabas are the first to talk and James has the last word.

Acts 15: 13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

How about this which Paul wrote:

Galatians 2: 9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

It was customary to place the name of the most important person first, but Paul didn't seem to think Peter was anymore important in the church then James or John. Peter also is not held in supremecy in any of the following verses:

1 Corinthians 1: 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3: 22Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;

John 1: 44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

And hey, if Peter was only preaching to those of the circumcision, what was he doing being bishop in Rome? Seems being in charge of the ministry to Jews does not make him head of the universal church. Looks like God divided authority up between them.

Paul doesn't seem to hold Peter as having any special authority, and often disagrees with him:

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

Paul considered himself Peter's and the other apostles equal:

Galatians 2: 8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

2 Corinthians 11: 5For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

2 Corinthians 12: 11I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.

Jesus left no man with authority over the others, only He was supreme:



Matthew 23: 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (hey, what's the origin of the word Pope?)
10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Peter was not infallible:

Galatians 2: 14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


Matthew 16: 21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

John 21:20Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.


Matthew 26: 69Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
70But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
71And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
72And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
73And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
74Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. 75And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Peter was ordered about by the others;

Acts 8: 14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

I understand you people often kneel before Popes and kiss their rings. Well, here's what Peter says:



Acts 10: 25And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.



Peter did not claim to have the power to forgive sins, but left that power to God:

Acts 8: 22Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

Peter never refered to himself as having a special position:

1 Peter 1: 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

However, what else matters except the end result? That the right man is chosen in the end?

1 Peter 5: 1The 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:

2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

Wasn't Peter married?

1 Corinthians 9: 5Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Christ's vicar on earth is the Holy Spirit

Matthew 28: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.



John 16: 7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Yes Jesus told Peter to strengthen His brethren and feed His sheep, but not because only He would have these duties. It was for Peter was the one who stumbled most by denying Christ three times. Jesus needed to reinforce these lessons to him specifically:

Luke 22: 32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Jesus was the chief shepherd:

1 Peter 5: 4And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

And yet...

"The Vatican Council defines as an article of faith that ... Christ 'conferred upon Peter alone the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor [shepherd] and Ruler over all the flock'" (Question Box, p. 147).

And Peter was not the only one told to feed the flock:

Acts 20: 28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Peter was not the only one to strengthen the brethren:

Acts 18: 23And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.

In the lists of the Apostles, Peter is not singled out as special.

Matthew 19: 28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.



Jesus is the only head of the church:



Ephesians 1: 22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Colossians 1: 19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Ephesians 5:22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

There is no office of Pope in the Bible. Only three offices in the church are named: Apostles, Elders/Bishops, and Deacons.

Ephesians 4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

1 Corinthians 12: 28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Acts 15: 2When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.


Consider this, of your supposed great unbroken line of Papal successsion:

"In the first twelve centuries of her existence the Church was disturbed some twenty-five times by rival claimants of the Papacy. The strife thus originated was always an occasion of scandal, sometimes of violence and bloodshed ... For forty years (in the 14th century) two and even three pretenders to the Papacy claimed the allegiance of Catholics: whole countries, learned men and canonised saints, ranged themselves on different sides, and even now it is not perhaps absolutely certain who was Pope..." (Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, p. 869).

And if you're going by number of times a name is mentioned, well Paul's name is mentioned many more times. Maybe Paul is the 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.
* Paul was not married (1 Corinthians 7).
* Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.
* Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); nowhere in Scripture did Peter rebuke Paul.
* Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).
* Paul was not behind any apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter never made such a claim for himself.
* Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books. Peter wrote only 2 little ones.
* Peter cited Paul's letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15,16), but Paul never cited Peter's letters as authority.
* Scripture expressly tells us Paul was in Rome, but never says Peter was there.
* Paul's labors exceeded those of other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:23).
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."

I would like to compare this to when the NT was chosen around the early fourth century. There was disagreement then as well. Much of it. And it was not a process in which everyone had the same idea as to what it should be. Obviously some people changed their minds. Does this make the end result any less important? Because a few people disagreed, should we not trust their judgment as divinely inspired either?

The Bible canon was already generally agreed upon by the 2nd century. That your church later made an official decision on this means nothing.