[Natural Law]

"It’s worth noting ..."

The only thing worth noting is that evidence that St. Peter was not impeccable, a fact known to Jesus when he was appointed first Pope in Caesarea Philippi, is being unsuccessfully used in an attempt to impeach his Papacy. Were you to attempt to try this in any court of relevance you would be disqualified for lack of standing.

Peace be with you

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Were you to attempt to try this in any court of relevance you would be disqualified for lack of standing.”

---

Only of the court were run by Papists. Besides, that was only one part of the argument, you ignored the combined whole.

[BipolarBob]

"a fact known to Jesus when he was appointed first Pope in Caesarea Philippi, is being unsuccessfully used in an attempt to impeach his Papacy. Were you to attempt to try this in any court of relevance you would be disqualified for lack of standing."

Would Matthew 23:9 be admissible in your court? I mean, the fact that Pope means father or papa. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for one is your Father, He who is in heaven". In fact most of what Jesus denounced the Pharisees over could be applicable to Catholics today, with their legalistic and overly complicated explanation of everything they do that does not correspond to the simple teachings of Christ.

[Elsie]

Were you to attempt to try this in any court of relevance you would be disqualified for lack of standing.

"No other Rock."