Msgr Pope ping
Oh I get it. It’s like saying, “If no one is God, then everyone is God.” If we deny that there’s no “Pope”, the supposed successor to the Apostle Peter, then everyone is “Pope”. Since that would be wrong and everyone can’t be “Pope” or “Papa”, then there must be legitimate a Pope in Rome. Hey, I have an idea. What if I deny the premise and refuse to accept that everyone must be “Pope” if I den that there’s to be a Pope in Christianity. Or better yet, What the only true “Papa” is the Father in Heaven and what if I don’t deny Him at all! Then I wouldn’t be making myself Pope and everyone wouldn’t be Pope. Folks, the article shows the convoluted thinking of the Catholic Church. It’s how they make Mary a perpetual virgin. It’s how they make Mary’s own conception a miracle to spare her the hereditary sin of her parents. It’s how they decide babies are sinners and for centuries taught babies who died without Catholic baptism were in “limbo”. It’s how they justify the need for a multitude of saints to pray to. Catholicism “jumped the shark” a long time ago when they got in bed with the Roman Caesars.
Msgr. Pope failed to make the obvious joke.
Hmmmm...I must confess I never thought about what the word "pope" actually meant. Now that I know this verse sprang to mind:
Meaning a perpetual assuredly infallible (conditionally) papal office, to whom all the church looks to. But which is invisible in the NT church. While being the street-level leader among the 12 and exercising a general pastoral role, yet nowhere is the church corporate exhorted to look to Peter as its supreme infallible head, and as rendering the final decree on issues, much less in Rome, or referred to as such, not even in the church epistles where he is rarely mentioned, or in Peter's own epistles ("a servant," "an elder," "an apostle") or in the letters to the 7 churches.
Submission to the pope as supreme is not even set forth as a solution to church problems, and where he is shown conferring sanction then he is the second among others "who seemed to be pillars," and is publicly rebuked, (Gal. 2) while in Acts 15 it is James who provides the final decree on what should be done, confirmatory of Peter's proposal and the doctrine of Paul.
And instead of the pope being the more sure word, Peter sets for Scripture as being that. (2Pt. 1:19-21) While the RC magisterium effectively presumes to be the supreme authority, its words are not wholly inspired of God.
And in critical addition, the Holy Spirit nowhere shows or teaches successors to the foundational apostles, with the only one being for Judas in order to maintain the foundational number - that being 12, and only 12, contra Rome, and which was by the non-political OT method of casting lots, which Rome has never used.
In addition, even Catholic scholarship supplies evidence contrary to the myth of a perpetual infallible papacy to whom all the church looked to. Among others , Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] on Priesthood, Canon, and the Development of Doctrine in his work, “Papal Primacy”:
"The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative." “If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.” (page 3, top)
It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century. (Schatz, 4). More :
Furthermore, the claimed apostolic successors of Rome are not actual apostles, as they fail of the requirements of personal discipleship, and degree of supernatural attestation, and of virtue, under which the unity of the NT church was realized, with manifest apostolic power, purity, passion and performance which supernaturally attested and established the apostles as being of God.
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (1 Corinthians 4:19-21)
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, .... (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
The deformation of the church was progressive , with a key pope even in the century employing a murderous mob to secure his seat, and politically expanding the papacy .
Increasingly errors were established as doctrine, with traditions of men being perpetuated, and faith becoming much institutionalized, and carnality in both rule and morals increasing. Reformation, if imperfect, was thus necessitated.
Yet the church never ceased to exist as the body of Christ, which is visibly manifest wherever by faith which worketh by love, as long as humble faith existed in Christ to save, as "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18) However, the visible church is never perfect, and is not the bride of Christ, nor is the church of Rome even one church in reality, but exists in sects and schism.
For indeed, Catholicism's unity is largely on paper and merely organizational, but while overall Christianity exists as a divided kingdom, yet there is a blessed spiritual unity among born again believers due to a shared personal conversion an and relationship with Christ as per Jn. 17:21,23, and which is greater than their external divisions which is transcends.
The Protestant experiment tried to replace the Pope with Scripture and gave it sole authority.
As usual, RCs must resort to using a straw man to justify RC unScriptural presumptions. SS does not make Scripture the sole authority, and leaving every man to fend for himself what Truth is, but holds Scripture as the only supreme infallible authority as the wholly inspired and thus assured, word of God, and thus the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. Which it is abundantly evidenced to be.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
In contrast, Rome cannot claim plenary inspiration for the supreme authority for RCs, while just what is infallible and its meaning and that of other magisterial teachings can require varying degrees of interpretation.
Nor does SS leave the believer to fend for himself, or the church without ecclesiastical authority, but as Westminster affirms,
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)
But not as enjoining unconditional obedience as to an assuredly infallible magisterium, which Rome presumes, and which is the Real Issue .
But Protestants cannot agree on what Scripture says and have no earthly way to resolve their conflicts. While they say that authority resides in Scripture alone, the fact is, in claiming the anointing of the Holy Spirit and thus the ability to properly interpret Scripture, they really place the locus of authority within themselves and become the very pope they denounce. Having denied that there is a pope they become pope. If no one is Pope, everyone is pope.
This also is a miscontruance, as to be a pope is to claim the anointing of infallibility, which is only what cults effectively claim, leaving the RC objection to be that of lay people correctly discerning what Truth is in contradiction to the magisterium. Which is what RCs argue is necessary.
For the RC polemic is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Would you not agree that this is your real argument?
I have read that some objectors think Catholics arrogant in asserting that we have a pope whom we trust to be anointed by God to teach us without error on faith and morals. But which is more arrogant: to claim there is a pope (not me), or to in fact act like one myself?
This is based upon the straw man that SS adherents are claiming assured personal infallibility, which is what makes the pope the RC pope (which even the EOs reject), or that SS rejects the teaching office, both of which are manifestly false.
The faithful believer is to seek to persuade souls by "manifestation of the Truth." (2Cor. 4:2) Thus the real objection objection remains that of Scripture being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience, and to the laity being able to correctly judge what is of God in contradiction to the magisterium. Therefore you need to justify the real RC argument as described above, rather than engaging in the use of straw men.
So here is God’s methodology when it comes to adequately revealing and guaranteeing the truths of the faith: He anoints Peter.
Out of which is extrapolated the perpetuated infallible Petrine papacy, but which is not taught or necessary, but is based upon the unScriptural premise that, as said, an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Moreover, as Steve Hays states ,
In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain [see link]. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position.
[Of which dogmatic development of doctrine see links.]
A direct appeal to Mt 16:18 greatly obscures the number of steps that have to be interpolated in order to get us from Peter to the papacy. Let’s jot down just a few of these intervening steps:
a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to “Peter.”
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.”
d) This office is “perpetual”
e) Peter resided in “Rome”
f) Peter was the “bishop” of Rome
g) Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome
h) There was only “one” bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.”
j) Peter “ordained” a successor
k) This ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day.
Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps: More .
So, Francis strengthens and unites the Catholic Church.
Not a true statement. Something is clearly off.
It has failed? 100's of millions would disagree... Isn't their division within the Catholic Church as well...
The Church needs a visible head.
Isn't the living Christ head of the church or is he still hanging on the cross?
The Bible alone does not suffice, for there are endless disagreements on how to interpret it.
Even within the Catholic Church the Bible has different interpretations
Someone must exist to whom all turn and who all agree will resolve the differences after listening.
Why, our salvation is not dependent on consensus...
This is simply sophistry, as it is employed to refute what really is the position of Scripture being the sole supreme infallible standard on Truth as literally being the plenary inspired assured word of God - which cannot be said of the supreme standard for RCs - while using a definition of Protestant that is so wide you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian sodomite Episcopalian 747 thru it!
Such is the result of abandoning the position and esteem of Scripture which defined Protestantism.
However, those who most strongly hold to the supremacy of Scripture as the wholly inspired and assured word of God are much more unified i n basic key beliefs than the fruit of Rome, even surpassing weekly mass goers. Thus both Rome and liberals have treated such "fundamentalists" as their greatest ideological enemies.
And while this is far from comprehensive unity which has ever been a goal not realized, "unity" in Rome is largely on paper or merely organizational, while the greatest scope of unity is found in cults, which also basically operate out of the RC model of sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme authority.
And under which cultism the members are to ascertain the veracity of church teaching by searching the Scriptures, as assurance is based upon the premise of the anointed assured veracity of the magisterium, for if it was by Scripture then they would be as evangelicals.
However, what RCs can disagree on is extensive , from just how many infallible teachings there are, and what level each teaching falls under, and thus what level, of assent is required, to what the meaning of these are.
The real question remains, did the church begin under the premise of an anointed assured veracity of the magisterium as the steward of Divine revelation, or upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
And if Athanasius were around today, he would (or would he)probably declare that all of the separate Catholic rites (not the right word, but I’m referring to Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox; Russian Orthodox; Armenian; & etc as heresies, as he did those who followed Arius and other small Christian sects/groups in the 3rd & 4th Centuries.
And then we have the seeking for “one” church to be the official church of the renewed Roman Empire under Constantine and finally Theodosius.
But bottomline for me is all Christians are saved by the Grace of Salvation through Jesus, who was sent here by His Father to rescue us/our souls from perishing on this spec of galactic debris.
Just as Sheen before him, Pope proves that a brilliant mind can still be a bound one—i.e. bound to the traditions of men. One wonders how this supposed “Papa”, Peter, would later come to be publicly rebuked by the apostle Paul “because he stood condemned”. Perhaps because God (contra the Catholic Church) “shows no partiality”?
If the blind lead the blind, will they not both fall into a ditch? Pope takes a stab at Protestants and their “sola Scriptura”, but it is in fact Scripture which authoritatively counters the error of Rome.
“You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.”—Jesus!
Nonsense.
Unity is by being in Christ and through the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 5:23-24 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Ephesians 1:15-23 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Colossians 1:9-20 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Christ is the head of the church and nobody needs a *visible* person to follow because Christ dwells in our hearts through faith.
We walk by faith, not by sight.
The premise is not simply a that a visible head is essential, but one that uniquely possesses assured infallibility, to whom all the church looks to as its supreme exalted leader and magistrate as the first in a line of such.
Which as said, simply not seen in the NT, whose leadership was that of manifestly God-ordained apostles, plural, in distinct obvious contrast to that of Rome.
But in addition to what has been said already, while looking to a visible head as supreme, versus Scripture is conducive to unity, the problem is that it more easily leads to unity in error, taking the problem of errant personal interpretation to a corporate level.
Presuming what an SS adherent cannot, the pope can decree Truth by fiat, even that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is not seen in Scripture, and even lacks early testimony in tradition, and was already crowned and has the uniquely Divine ability to hear incessant multitudinous prayers addressed to her, which is contrary to what Scripture shows and teaches, besides other sanctioned excessive attributions to Mary, thinking of mortals "above that which is written." (1Cor. 4:6)
In addition, as RC teaching if often open to varying degrees of interpretation, the flock looks to the pope and lesser prelates for interpretation, which can be contrary to each other.
In one century obedience to the pope can require torture the physical extermination of theological dissidents, while in another torture is stated to be intrinsically evil.
And in one century remaining in the bosom of the RC church is necessary for salvation, with submission to the pope being infallibly and unequivocally decreed as a requirement, while in another century properly baptized Prots are affirmed to be born again brethren. More .
And as such statements are manifestly interpretive, and as faith is known by what it does, (Ja. 2:18) thus RCs understand what their church teaches by looking to how the current teachers apply it (unless they are to rely upon their fallible human reasoning, contrary to what RC leaders effectually teach) .
And l which thus leads to the current pope and his manifest interpretation of past teaching. But which results in division among RCs, as using their fallible human reasoning which they reject Prots for using, conservative camps of RCs assert the very popes RCs tell us to look to as being contrary to what is really RC teaching.
In the light of which RCs will resort to the "only when infallible" clause, but again, just what is assuredly infallible (which is not even the arguments behind an infallible teaching) and its meaning is open to some degree of interpretation. Thus even here we have RCs affirming conservative baptized Prots as brethren, while others deny they have the Spirit and are part of the body of Christ, as they see this as contrary to past RC teaching.
Ping!
Oh boy!
Yet another "We're Number ONE!!!" thread!!
|
Is Peter the 'rock'?
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....
NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. NIV Luke 6:48
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. NIV Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
4. As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, " 8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for. But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS??? NIV Genesis 49:24-25 24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb. NIV Numbers 20:8
"Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior. NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
30. How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? 31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede. NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me. NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
3. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, 4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.' NIV Psalms 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. NIV Psalms 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV Psalms 18:46
The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! NIV Psalms 19:14
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. NIV Psalms 28:1
To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
NIV Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me. 3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me. NIV Psalms 42:9
I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" NIV Psalms 62:2
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:6
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:7
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge. NIV Psalms 71:3
Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress. NIV Psalms 78:35
They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. NIV Psalms 89:26
He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' NIV Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, 15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." NIV Psalms 95:1
Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. NIV Psalms 144:1
Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. NIV Isaiah 17:10
You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress. NIV Isaiah 26:4
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. NIV Isaiah 30:29
And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel. NIV Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." NIV Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish. |
And now you know the Biblical position!
Well ain't that just Dandy!!
Matthew 23:9
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father.
While it might be 'affectionate'; it SURELY is not BIBLICAL!
Thank GOD! the Catholic folks are all in one accord!
I guess it'll be a bit longer yet before the tares and wheat are separated.
THEN we'll see if your grand assertion here is valid.
Mark 10:35-45
35And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” 41And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. 42And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,d 44and whoever would be first among you must be slavee of all. 45For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
In this passage; Jesus states that LEADERSHIP is NOT His to confer; but Catholic teaching says that Jesus DOES grant it to Peter.
(Oh, yeah... HE says something about SLAVERY, too.)
HMMMmmm...