An2elect2:
How can you compile a book you dont believe in? Your church places the bible below its traditions. For long your popes and bishops/cardinals and priest have disregarded the bible,hidden it from the masses and dismissed its relevance. You only pride yourselves as custodians of the bible but not doers of the word. You should hide your heads in shame for so did the pharisees pride themselves as keepers of the letter/law and not as those who obey

italo:
Find answers within.

Mr Italo are you not afraid to believe that a common human being like you holds the key to the kingdom of God, is the prime minister and vicar. buhahahahahaha. Here is some good bible exegesis of this. Not necessarily for you but for those who are seeking truth.

Your Church sees Peter as
the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church LOL (Matthew 16:18 ). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the
Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s
apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent
bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”Right?

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter
and the subsequent popes were and are infallible
when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their
position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 , Christ built His church upon Peter.Lolzzzz

But while Peter was central in the early spread of
the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew
16:18-19 ), the teaching of Scripture, taken in
context, nowhere declares that he was in authority
over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23 ; Galatians 2:1-14 ; and 1 Peter 5:1-5 . Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that
the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter
writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome ( 1 Peter 5:13 ). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome
come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the
primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture
shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the
other apostles ( Ephesians 2:19-20 ), and the “loosing
and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise
shared by the local churches, not just their church
leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19 ; 1 Corinthians
5:1-13 ; 2 Corinthians 13:10 ; Titus 2:15 ; 3:10-11 ).
Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to
keep the church from error, the authority of the
apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the
idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic
succession is “read into” those verses that the
Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine
(2 Timothy 2:2 ; 4:2-5 ; Titus 1:5 ; 2:1 ; 2:15 ; 1 Timothy
5:19-22 ). Paul does NOT call on believers in various
churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other
church leaders based on their authority as bishops
or their having apostolic authority, but rather based
upon their being fellow laborers with him ( 1
Corinthians 16:10 ; 16:16 ; 2 Corinthians 8:23 ).
What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings
would arise even from among church leaders, and
that Christians were to compare the teachings of
these later church leaders with Scripture, which
alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18 ; Psalm 19:7-8 ;
119:160 ; Proverbs 30:5 ; John 17:17 ; 2 Peter
1:19-21 ). The Bible does not teach that the apostles
were infallible, apart from what was written by them
and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to
the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus,
makes note of coming false teachers. To fight
against their error does NOT commend them to “the
apostles and those who would carry on their
authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and
to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32 ). It is
Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick
for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ), not
apostolic successors. It is by examining the
Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or
false ( Acts 17:10-12 ).
Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to
Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter
nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles.
Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the
Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or
power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does
Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic
authority would be passed on to successors. Yes,
the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the
disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the
early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10).
Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he
would be (Matthew 16:18 ). However, these truths
about Peter in no way give support to the concept
that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the
“supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his
authority would be passed on to the bishops of
Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true
Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord
Jesus Christ ( 1 Peter 2:25 ).

Rayhut:
An2elect2 read the history of Christian faith, stop believing in whatever your pastor is telling you,read,that is why you went to school,google is your friend

An2elect2:
You should pick up the bible and read for yourself then i'll take your advice serious

Rayhut:

Is it not what the Catholic Church want you to know that is in the Bible, believe in TRINITY where did it came from,non inclusion of gospel of Banabas in the Bible who excluded it from not been part of the Bible and other canonical books that the council of Nicaea decided that they not worthy enough to be part of Bible,did you know whether those books that was excluded is the correct one, my friend the Bible you are holding is what Catholic church dominated council of Nacea of 7 ecumenical churches overseen by emperor Constantine want you to know, had it been that they included the gospel of Banabas and told you in the Bible that Jesus is not the son of God you will still believe it, so stop arguing what pass you or above your human intelligent and intellectuals. There is God that Created heaven and Earth,do good things, Religion be it Christianity or Islam is dominated by human addition or subtraction.

An2elect2:
How can you compile a book you dont believe in? Your church places the bible below its traditions. For long your popes and bishops/cardinals and priest have disregarded the bible,hidden it from the masses and dismissed its relevance. You only pride yourselves as custodians of the bible but not doers of the word. You should hide your heads in shame for so did the pharisees pride themselves as keepers of the letter/law and not as those who obey

An2elect2:
What says the scriptures?

An2elect2:
Your hurt right? Well it does matter. That the catholic church is first is the foundation stone for every other false doctrine it propagates.
Simple. If this most important lie is exposed, if they come to realise that their mother church is not the mother afterall, they would have the option of deciding which authority to follow: the bible or rome. And most would would choose the surest and most reliable, the former.

Fow now, they are bond slaves of rome. Pity

An2elect2:
How can you compile a book you dont believe in? Your church places the bible below its traditions. For long your popes and bishops/cardinals and priest have disregarded the bible,hidden it from the masses and dismissed its relevance. You only pride yourselves as custodians of the bible but not doers of the word. You should hide your heads in shame for so did the pharisees pride themselves as keepers of the letter/law and not as those who obey

Raphael81:

oya go and die

An2elect2:


Thank you

but i am still alive in Christ

joefredd006:
Jeez! have you ever heard of the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the early church in Antioch, a communion of believers in Christ, baptised by the spirit, presided over by Apostle Peter. Have you heard of the various epistles to the various churches in Samaria, Ephesus, Thessalonia, and others presided over by the Apostles. This led to the coinage of the name 'catholic' (universal) as it was fast spreading. Still presided over by Apostle Peter and he went on missionary journeys to admonish the people of the 'new faith'

What about a statement like:
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on
this rock I will build my church, and the
gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matt 16:18)

Now have you asked yourself which church Christ was talking about. Coza, Redeem, Or Rhema. I guess not.

'...and the gates of Hades will not overcome it'' don't turn yourself into a gate of hell that questions a direct order.

Drop your phone once in a while, and pick up the bible. it surely has all the answers, even more than google

An2elect2:
Anybody without a button for brain can see that. Its just unfortunate that some of our brothers and sisters would not allow their egos bruised with truth. They'd rather die in the comfort zone that roman catholicism has provided than question the most unbelievable doctrine/tradition of this institution.

Questions you, catholic need to start asking yourself if you believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures.

1) Is there a history of christianity in the bible?
2) Where did the bible say it all started?
3) Does the bible recognise an institution OR a group of people washed by the blood of the lamb as the church?
4) Does the bible recognise any authority that concerns spirituality order than the bible itself
5) Who was Peter according to the bible?
6) Did the other apostles/believers consult Peter for spiritual direction/judgement.
7) Was Peter seen as a Jesus-representative/vicar by other believers. Or was he a fellow elder and believer who had many weaknesses like the others and had to rely solely on the grace of God?

Only you can be honest with yourself.