saint peter and paul catholic church

And I know God is no respecter of persons, but just bare with me for a second. I've heard several reverend's say that Paul is the second most important figure (under Jesus Christ himself) in Christianity. I know Cathoolics say Peter was the first Pope, or "The Rock" of Christiaity. But if it werent for Saint Paul's evangelist efforts there may not be any Christianity. So who would Catholics say is greater:
Saint Peter who is "The Catholic Church" / "The Rock", or Paul who was the Christian workhorse that brought the gospel to the gentiles?

Both are revered equally in the Catholic church. Peter as the first elder/bishop of Rome (though that's debatable) and Paul as the man who paved the way to Rome. There is commendation of both of them in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians (extra-biblical text by a successor of Peter in the Roman church).

Whoever said that Peter and Paul disagreed on the Jewish mission, I would direct them to Paul's epistle to the Romans where he says that in every city, he goes "first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles." Peter and Paul were agreed on the pattern of evangelism, although they had different areas of ministry (In Galatians, Paul tells us that it was agreed that Paul and Barnabas should focus on the Gentile mission while Peter, James, and John should focus on the Jewish mission).

Hope that is helpful!

2008-07-12 22:15:02 by TheTruth

Fr. Fernando M. Suarez Homily and General Healing Prayer Sts. Peter and Paul Parish Bauang, La Union 16 June 2011

Galatians 2:14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all You are a Jew yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew , How is it it then that your force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs.

Only the Roman Pontiff is rightly called universal; the Pope can be judged by no one; no one can be regarded as a catholic who does not agree with the Roman church; the Roman Church has never erred and never will err till the end of time; the Roman Church was founded by Christ alone; the Pope alone can depose and restore bishops; he alone can make new laws, set up new bishoprics, and divide old ones; he alone can translate bishops to another see; he alone can call general councils and authorize canon law; he alone can revise his own judgments; his sentence cannot be repealed by anyone and he alone can review the judgments of all; he alone can use the imperial insignia; he can depose emperors; he can absolve subjects from their allegiance to impious rulers; the Pope is the only man to whom all princes bend the knee; all princes should kiss his feet; his legates, even those in inferior orders, have precedence over all bishops; an appeal to the papal court inhibits judgment by all inferior courts; a duly ordained pope is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter."

- Pope Gregory VII

Catholics claim peter was ther first pope. Catholics claim the pope is infalliable when it comes to doctrine. But we see Paul correcting Peter from the begining. How can that be?
http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_ro man_catholics_pope_as_christ.shtml
Omnie read vs 14 you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs.

Sounds like teaching to me.
Omnie read vs 14 you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs.

Sounds like teaching to me.
Omnie read vs 14 you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs.

Sounds like teaching to me.
I didnt mean to submit the last message 3 times, sorry
Max all i did was quote the pope, maybe he or you need better understanding. And his quote is clear.
Spider man the process is the Cathlic Church makes comments that are false then back tracks trying to correct them.
This is just one example

You make a lot of assumptions about the Pope that the Catholic Church never has. Paul was rebuking Peter about his actions and not about doctrine.

Here is what Pope Benedict XVI said (on October 1, 2008) about Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:14:

The second episode is the well known incident in Antioch, Syria, that attests to the inner freedom Paul enjoyed: how should one behave when eating with believers of both Jewish and Gentile origin? Here the other epicentre of Mosaic observance emerges: the distinction between clean and unclean foods which deeply separated practising Jews from Gentiles. At the outset Cephas, Peter, shared meals with both; but with the arrival of certain Christians associated with James, "the Lord's brother" (Gal 1: 19), Peter began to avoid contact with Gentiles at table in order not to shock those who were continuing to observe the laws governing the cleanliness of food and his decision was shared by Barnabas. This decision profoundly divided the Christians who had come from circumcision and the Christians who came from paganism. This behaviour, that was a real threat to the unity and freedom of the Church, provoked a passionate reaction in Paul who even accused Peter and the others of hypocrisy: "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (Gal 2: 14). In fact, the thought of Paul on the one hand, and of Peter and Barnabas on the other, were different: for the latter the separation from the Gentiles was a way to safeguard and not to shock believers who came from Judaism; on the contrary, for Paul it constituted the danger of a misunderstanding of the universal salvation in Christ, offered both to Gentiles and Jews. If justification is only achieved by virtue of faith in Christ, of conformity with him, regardless of any effect of the Law, what is the point of continuing to observe the cleanliness of foods at shared meals? In all likelihood the approaches of Peter and Paul were different: the former did not want to lose the Jews who had adhered to the Gospel, and the latter did not want to diminish the saving value of Christ's death for all believers.

It is strange to say but in writing to the Christians of Rome a few years later (in about the middle of the 50s a.D.), Paul was to find himself facing a similar situation and asked the strong not to eat unclean foods in order not to lose or scandalize the weak: "it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble" (Rm 14: 21). The incident at Antioch thus proved to be as much of a lesson for Peter as it was for Paul. Only sincere dialogue, open to the truth of the Gospel, could guide the Church on her journey: "For the kingdom of God does not mean food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rm 14: 17). It is a lesson that we too must learn: with the different charisms entrusted to Peter and to Paul, let us all allow ourselves to be guided by the Spirit, seeking to live in the freedom that is guided by faith in Christ and expressed in service to the brethren. It is essential to be conformed ever more closely to Christ. In this way one becomes really free, in this way the Law's deepest core is expressed within us: love for God and neighbour. Let us pray the Lord that he will teach us to share his sentiments, to learn from him true freedom and the evangelical love that embraces every human being.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi ct_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-x vi_aud_20081001_en.html

With love in Christ.

2008-10-23 12:31:20 by TULSA

Price: $17.75 $11.08

Was Peter the “rock” on which the church was built?

Matthew 16:18 (Jerusalem Bible) says: “I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.”

Notice in the context [verses 13, 20] that the discussion centers on the identity of JESUS (not Peter).

What was the belief of Augustine (who was viewed as a saint by the Catholic Church)? Notice what he wrote:

“In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus . . . In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”
—The Fathers of the Church—Saint Augustine, the Retractations (Washington, D.C.; 1968), translated by Mary I. Bogan, Book I, p. 90.

Whom did the apostles Peter and Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?

Acts 4:8-11 (Jerusalem Bible) says: “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of JESUS CHRIST the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence, today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone [“cornerstone,” The New American Bible].’”

1 Pet. 2:4-8 (Jerusalem Bible) says: “Set yourselves close to him [the Lord Jesus Christ] so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious CORNERSTONE that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the KEYSTONE, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.”

Ephesians 2:20 (Jerusalem Bible) says: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and CHRIST JESUS himself FOR ITS MAIN CORNERSTONE.”

How is it that the Catholic Church claims and teaches as doctrine that PETER is the "rock" that the Church is built on, when the Bible shows and teaches that the "rock" the Church is built on is JESUS CHRIST (not Peter)?
~Edit~: Very nicely said "slcbtf". Kudos to you. Your statement is in agreement with the Bible.

Personal prefrence. Someone at sometime decided to mislead the church body into perpetuating a lie. Christ is the Rock upon which His holy church is founded. Peter is one of those apostles who then create some of the foundation upon which the body of Christ is built. This aspect of Catholicism has a deep crevice running through it which negates its witnessing power of the truth of God's Word. It has allowed the creation of a hierarchy of Popes whom people turn to for solutions to their problems rather than turning to Christ for all of their help.

2010-01-19 08:05:10 by Mindy

Arrives "Ready to Hang" with Hanging Wire, Mounting Hooks, and Nails
Available in a Variety of Sizes
Museum Quality Canvas Print

or the other Protestant demoination
I think it would be fair to say even though they were previously Christains ministers in their Demoination,they had a power to choose if they wanted to remain celibate.Even Our Blessed John Henry Newman knew that even as an Anglican priest,God choose him to be celibate for his will and his Kingdom
Surely these former Anglican priest or former Protestant ministers who became Roman Catholic priest should have made a choice
Now here is the hard part
These married priest may have young family and may not be able to take care of their family
The family may be theown aside especially of the Roman Catholic priest is called to serve overseas
It may led to the increase in sex abuse cases.We all know if the priest is in a right frame of mind and hec hoose celibacy to serve the Lord with humility and convinction he would not be thinking of these things.Pope Paul VI and the Roman Catholic Church has proven this Fact right.I myself felt the same
It will not be fair to the preist who gave their lifes of God and for the service of God and seeing their own breathen being married.I am not suggesting our Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic celibate priest are celibate but we should the same rule for all
Eppistle to the Timiothy thus suggest that Bishops should at least be married once but that is the past and the worse-case scenario that Saint Paul envisioned
Celibacy ahs long been in the Church even the time of the Apostles when saint Peter Saint James all became celibate or gave up their wives to preach the good news of God.Saint Peter gave up his wife in Apostolic tradition and died for Cross a maytr death upside down
Could'nt the priest at least be celibate for life newly Catholic convert former Protetsant ministers who want to be Roman or Eastern Catholic priest
Sorry for the wrong part I am not suggesting our priest should remain married
Neither am i suggesting the celibate priest are jealous of the married priest
77 is a lot and the Catholic Church is quite open to letting former Protestant married minister becoming Roman and Eastern Catholic priest.I am worried

In the last twenty-five years at least seventy-seven married men have been ordained as Catholic priests in the United States.

All were ordained ministers in other Christian denominations.

Sixty-six of these married priests are former Episcopalians, seven are former Lutherans, three are former Methodists, and one is a former Presbyterian.

Like married deacons, if these men are widowed then they cannot remarry.

Here are a couple of interesting articles: http://www.corpus.org/Page.cfm?Web_ID=57 7
http://www.the-tidings.com/2007/030207/m arried.htm

With love in Christ.

2009-09-29 18:35:16 by Karol Wojtyła

There is historical evidence that Christians worshiped as Catholics before the 4th century. There are artifacts, relics, and missals that show that Catholicism was around before Constantine. There are even inscriptions in the Roman catacombs of Jesus, Mary, Peter, Paul, and many other saints when the Catholic Church was underground in hiding from persecution. There were altars built over tombs of the martyrs in the catacombs of which the priests would say Mass over.

I just don't understand why a lot of people these days think that the Catholic Church began with Constantine.

The answer to your question is basically because that is what they were told. History of course does not bear that out. The greeks owe much more to constantine than the western Church does.The ancient city Constantinople was named after him.The Greeks have him on there list of saints where as the West has his Mother only.Constantine wanted the Papacy moved to Greece and the Pope said no and that started the first real friction between the two great Faiths. Now if only some one can explain to me that according to Zena E the fact that most of the Bible was written in Greek rather than Latin changes any thing and proves a Religion is beyond me.Every one knows that Greek was a popular literature language during the time of Christ and the Apostles.But as the Roman Government grew so did the use of Latin but neither language proves or disproves who is more right as Jesus settled that a long time ago.None are only his followers and teachers. So as ST.Ignatius said in 107AD being to first publish the name Catholic in his letters.And lastly if Constantine could have been able to have started any Church it would have been the Arian Church as he was a believer and supporter of Arian teaching.

2010-01-30 09:38:59 by Al the traditional Catholic