The papacy is a man made belief and it flies in the face of God and His word. I don’t believe Constantine is the founder of the RCC, he declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christ is and always has been the head of the church, He has supreme authority over it, not a man that is called the pope, who the RCC claims is infallible. That would disqualify Peter as even he is rebuked by Paul “during his papacy”. You do Peter a great injustice when you attribute him to being the first pope, he would quickly denounce that title. Instead of focusing on what your church says is true, why don’t you actually read the Bible, which has the final authority as it was written by God.
You're wrong again about basically everything in this reply.
"The papacy is a man made belief and it flies in the face of God and His word"
No, it doesn't. The papacy is just the bishop of Rome. Bishops are in God's Word. Peter's role as the earthly head of the church is explicitly described in Matthew 16:18. Straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ.
Constantine didn't "declare Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire", he only granted it legal status. Theodosius I was the one who made it the official religion, DECADES after Constantine's death.
"Christ is and always has been the head of the church"
Yeah, this isn't something any Catholic will disagree with. The pope is only its earthly leader.
"the RCC claims is infallible"
No, it doesn't. You're misrepresenting the concept of papal infallibility, which ONLY applies when the pope is speaking "ex cathedra" which happened like ONCE in 2000 years. Try again.
"That would disqualify Peter as even he is rebuked by Paul “during his papacy”."
No, it wouldn't. You need to study the NT if you don't realize that Peter clearly had authority over all other apostles. That aside, there have been countless examples of popes being corrected throughout history. Take a note from the original 1582 Douay Rheims Catholic Bible on this topic:
"And who is so dull that can not see, that the inferiour, though not by office and iurisdiction, yet by the law of brotherly loue and fraternal correption, may reprehend his superiour? Did euer any man wonder that a good Priest or any vertuous person should tel the Pope, or any other great Prelate, or greatest Prince in earth, their faults? Popes may be reprehended, & are iustly admonished of their faults, & ought to take it in good part, and so they doe & euer haue done, when it commeth of zeale & loue, as of S. Paul, Irenæus, Cyprian, Hierom, Augustin, Bernard: But of Simon Magus, Nouatus, Iulian, Wiclefe, Luther, Caluin, Beza, that doe it of malice, & raile no lesse at their vertues then their vices, of such (I say) God's Prelates must not be taught nor corrected, though they must patiently take it, as our Sauiour did the like reproches of the malitious Iewes; and as Dauid did the malediction of Semel. 2. Reg. 16."
"You do Peter a great injustice when you attribute him to being the first pope, he would quickly denounce that title"
Wrong. As stated earlier, the official title of the papacy is "bishop of Rome". "Pope" is basically just Italian slang for "papa". It's a term of respect, and the concept of the apostles referring to themselves as spiritual fathers can be found in the Old and New Testaments. Peter himself even refers to himself as Mark's "father" (1 Peter 5:13).
"Instead of focusing on what your church says is true, why don’t you actually read the Bible, which has the final authority as it was written by God."
Instead of making baseless assumptions about me and the RCC, how about you actually learn what you're talking about instead of repeating centuries-old, debunked talking points?
Where did people go to Peter and confess their sin to him? Where did he say he could absolve them of sin? Where is Mary worship in the Bible? Read your own tenets of your religion to see what the papacy is all about, it’s definitely not biblical.
"Where did people go to Peter and confess their sin to him?"
James 5:16? The NT repeatedly tells you to confess your sins.
"Where did he say he could absolve them of sin?"
You're right, Peter didn't say that. Jesus did. Matthew 18:18. But I guess according to you, when Jesus says "Truly" He really means "not really"...
"Where is Mary worship in the Bible?"
Catholics don't worship Mary, so this is the logical fallacy of a loaded question.
But it should also be noted that Luther's "sola scriptura" is absolutely non-Biblical. The RCC gave us the Bible in the first place, and nowhere in the Bible will you find a verse saying "if it is not written by the apostles it is not a doctrine to be followed". In fact, Paul says the exact opposite in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
"Read your own tenets of your religion to see what the papacy is all about, it’s definitely not biblical."
This is an absolutely comical exchange. Stop lecturing ME on a faith you clearly know nothing about.
The papacy is a man made belief and it flies in the face of God and His word. I don’t believe Constantine is the founder of the RCC, he declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christ is and always has been the head of the church, He has supreme authority over it, not a man that is called the pope, who the RCC claims is infallible. That would disqualify Peter as even he is rebuked by Paul “during his papacy”. You do Peter a great injustice when you attribute him to being the first pope, he would quickly denounce that title. Instead of focusing on what your church says is true, why don’t you actually read the Bible, which has the final authority as it was written by God.
You're wrong again about basically everything in this reply.
"The papacy is a man made belief and it flies in the face of God and His word"
No, it doesn't. The papacy is just the bishop of Rome. Bishops are in God's Word. Peter's role as the earthly head of the church is explicitly described in Matthew 16:18. Straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ.
Constantine didn't "declare Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire", he only granted it legal status. Theodosius I was the one who made it the official religion, DECADES after Constantine's death.
"Christ is and always has been the head of the church"
Yeah, this isn't something any Catholic will disagree with. The pope is only its earthly leader.
"the RCC claims is infallible"
No, it doesn't. You're misrepresenting the concept of papal infallibility, which ONLY applies when the pope is speaking "ex cathedra" which happened like ONCE in 2000 years. Try again.
"That would disqualify Peter as even he is rebuked by Paul “during his papacy”."
No, it wouldn't. You need to study the NT if you don't realize that Peter clearly had authority over all other apostles. That aside, there have been countless examples of popes being corrected throughout history. Take a note from the original 1582 Douay Rheims Catholic Bible on this topic:
"And who is so dull that can not see, that the inferiour, though not by office and iurisdiction, yet by the law of brotherly loue and fraternal correption, may reprehend his superiour? Did euer any man wonder that a good Priest or any vertuous person should tel the Pope, or any other great Prelate, or greatest Prince in earth, their faults? Popes may be reprehended, & are iustly admonished of their faults, & ought to take it in good part, and so they doe & euer haue done, when it commeth of zeale & loue, as of S. Paul, Irenæus, Cyprian, Hierom, Augustin, Bernard: But of Simon Magus, Nouatus, Iulian, Wiclefe, Luther, Caluin, Beza, that doe it of malice, & raile no lesse at their vertues then their vices, of such (I say) God's Prelates must not be taught nor corrected, though they must patiently take it, as our Sauiour did the like reproches of the malitious Iewes; and as Dauid did the malediction of Semel. 2. Reg. 16."
"You do Peter a great injustice when you attribute him to being the first pope, he would quickly denounce that title"
Wrong. As stated earlier, the official title of the papacy is "bishop of Rome". "Pope" is basically just Italian slang for "papa". It's a term of respect, and the concept of the apostles referring to themselves as spiritual fathers can be found in the Old and New Testaments. Peter himself even refers to himself as Mark's "father" (1 Peter 5:13).
"Instead of focusing on what your church says is true, why don’t you actually read the Bible, which has the final authority as it was written by God."
Instead of making baseless assumptions about me and the RCC, how about you actually learn what you're talking about instead of repeating centuries-old, debunked talking points?
Where did people go to Peter and confess their sin to him? Where did he say he could absolve them of sin? Where is Mary worship in the Bible? Read your own tenets of your religion to see what the papacy is all about, it’s definitely not biblical.
"Where did people go to Peter and confess their sin to him?"
James 5:16? The NT repeatedly tells you to confess your sins.
"Where did he say he could absolve them of sin?"
You're right, Peter didn't say that. Jesus did. Matthew 18:18. But I guess according to you, when Jesus says "Truly" He really means "not really"...
"Where is Mary worship in the Bible?"
Catholics don't worship Mary, so this is the logical fallacy of a loaded question.
But it should also be noted that Luther's "sola scriptura" is absolutely non-Biblical. The RCC gave us the Bible in the first place, and nowhere in the Bible will you find a verse saying "if it is not written by the apostles it is not a doctrine to be followed". In fact, Paul says the exact opposite in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
"Read your own tenets of your religion to see what the papacy is all about, it’s definitely not biblical."
This is an absolutely comical exchange. Stop lecturing ME on a faith you clearly know nothing about.