Pope Leo is one of the Catholic Church's biggest problems

32,720 Views | 699 Replies | Last: 5 hrs ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18a, 4/22/26
This is from a Christian writer who accepts Catholic views on history:

Popes like this one are the reason there are Protestants

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/04/popes_like_this_one_are_the_reason_there_are_protestants.html

The renaissance popes were incredibly corrupt and do was much of the church at all levels. Generally speaking, this corruption sparked Martin Luther's actions.

This writer begins with an error, but otherwise is mostly accurate. His historical errors:
1. Jesus Christ did not begin the Catholic Church. He began His Church which includes all Christians regardless of location or denomination, was decentralized & localized, and there were no popes. This was what it looked like for the first few centuries.
2. I don't know if what we are experiencing today is another Great Awakening (I hope so!) and I don't know if it's Catholic led. The baptisms I've seen as part of the modern revival movement were by immersion and that's not a Catholic thing as far as I know.
Reply Quote
6
3 edits
BigGameBaylorBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:44a, 4/22/26
Protestant author says Pope Leo is bad because he attacked Trump, which is wrong because *checks notes* Trump doesn't respond well to attacks?
Sic 'em Bears and Go Birds
Reply Quote
8
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigGameBaylorBear • 9:22p, 4/27/26
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Protestant author says Pope Leo is bad because he attacked Trump, which is wrong because *checks notes* Trump doesn't respond well to attacks?


Trump is easy to attack.

The pope is wrong because he says wrong things, not because he doesn't like Trump.
BTW, not everything this pope says is wrong. He just makes up some erroneous conclusions.
Reply Quote
3
Johnny Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 12:31p, 4/28/26
historian said:
This is from a Christian writer who accepts Catholic views on history:

Popes like this one are the reason there are Protestants

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/04/popes_like_this_one_are_the_reason_there_are_protestants.html

The renaissance popes were incredibly corrupt and do was much of the church at all levels. Generally speaking, this corruption sparked Martin Luther's actions.

This writer begins with an error, but otherwise is mostly accurate. His historical errors:
1. Jesus Christ did not begin the Catholic Church. He began His Church which includes all Christians regardless of location or denomination, was decentralized & localized, and there were no popes. This was what it looked like for the first few centuries.
2. I don't know if what we are experiencing today is another Great Awakening (I hope so!) and I don't know if it's Catholic led. The baptisms I've seen as part of the modern revival movement were by immersion and that's not a Catholic thing as far as I know.

The Catholic claim that Jesus himself founded the Catholic Church is based on their interpretation of a Biblical quote from Jesus found in Matthew 16:18 - "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." They believe that Peter is "the rock" being referred to and authority is being conveyed to him that is perpetuated to the "bishops of Rome" (i.e., the popes) thus making Peter "the first Pope" of the Catholic Church. The general Protestant interpretation (which I personally believe) is that "the rock" being referred to is Peter's answer/confession to Jesus' question to his disciples about who they (i.e., the disciples) say that Jesus is - Matthew 16:15: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" and that Jesus pronouncement in verse 18 establishes HIS Church that includes the body of ALL believers. And per that interpretation the author of the article is incorrect to claim that Jesus himself established the Catholic Church and individuals established all the other denominations. Jesus established His Church and all denominations, including the catholic denomination, were established by individuals.
Reply Quote
6
BellCountyBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:41p, 4/28/26
Thank God for Martin Luther.
Reply Quote
8
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Johnny Bear • 1:11p, 4/28/26
I agree completely. Catholics who rely on that one text conveniently ignore or forget that immediately after Jesus told His disciples that He was going to be killed by the authorities and Peter vehemently argued that it could not happen. Christ's response was, " Get thee behind me Satan!"

Neither Peter nor anyone else understood Jesus's mission on earth: that His crucifixion was ordained by God (& prophesied about centuries earlier in numerous specific details), that it was necessary for God's plan for humanity, and that He would rise again. Even after He told them this repeatedly and after His death, they were afraid & confused. They did not begin to understand (to the extent it's possible) until Pentecost.
Reply Quote
1
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BellCountyBear • 1:13p, 4/28/26
Yes, Martin Luther was a hero of the faith but so were many others such as William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, John Calvin, and many others. Several of these were martyrs for the faith like Stephen and other first century Christian's.
Reply Quote
1
BigGameBaylorBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BellCountyBear • 1:30p, 4/28/26
BellCountyBear said:
Thank God for Martin Luther.


Sic 'em Bears and Go Birds
Reply Quote
2
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 1:52p, 4/28/26
historian said:
I agree completely. Catholics who rely on that one text conveniently ignore or forget that immediately after Jesus told His disciples that He was going to be killed by the authorities and Peter vehemently argued that it could not happen. Christ's response was, " Get thee behind me Satan!"

Neither Peter nor anyone else understood Jesus's mission on earth: that His crucifixion was ordained by God (& prophesied about centuries earlier in numerous specific details), that it was necessary for God's plan for humanity, and that He would rise again. Even after He told them this repeatedly and after His death, they were afraid & confused. They did not begin to understand (to the extent it's possible) until Pentecost.

Catholics rely on the whole history of the early Church, not one Bible verse. Matthew 16:18 is just what we cite when Protestants demand a proof text.
Reply Quote
4
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 2:44p, 4/28/26
Historically, Rome did not play a central role in Christianity until the 4th century. Biblically, Peter stayed in and near Jerusalem preaching to Jews while Paul preached to Gentiles, making missionary journeys throughout the eastern Mediterranean and eventually to Rome. I don't know of any scripture that discusses Peter leaving the Holy Land or anywhere near Rome.

Catholic tradition might say otherwise but Catholic tradition has plenty of questionable ideas and a few outright lies. For example, the Donation of Constantine granting the Vatican to "the bishop of Rome" (the pope) was proved to be a fraud 500+ years ago.
Reply Quote
1
BigGameBaylorBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 3:37p, 4/28/26
historian said:
Historically, Rome did not play a central role in Christianity until the 4th century. Biblically, Peter stayed in and near Jerusalem preaching to Jews while Paul preached to Gentiles, making missionary journeys throughout the eastern Mediterranean and eventually to Rome. I don't know of any scripture that discusses Peter leaving the Holy Land or anywhere near Rome.

Catholic tradition might say otherwise but Catholic tradition has plenty of questionable ideas and a few outright lies. For example, the Donation of Constantine granting the Vatican to "the bishop of Rome" (the pope) was proved to be a fraud 500+ years ago.


The writings of early church fathers from the second and third century imply Peter was in Rome.

Peter himself signs a letter from "Babylon" but many scholars agree that Babylon is symbolic code for Rome, not actual Babylon
Sic 'em Bears and Go Birds
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Fre3dombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigGameBaylorBear • 10:29p, 4/28/26
BigGameBaylorBear said:
historian said:
Historically, Rome did not play a central role in Christianity until the 4th century. Biblically, Peter stayed in and near Jerusalem preaching to Jews while Paul preached to Gentiles, making missionary journeys throughout the eastern Mediterranean and eventually to Rome. I don't know of any scripture that discusses Peter leaving the Holy Land or anywhere near Rome.

Catholic tradition might say otherwise but Catholic tradition has plenty of questionable ideas and a few outright lies. For example, the Donation of Constantine granting the Vatican to "the bishop of Rome" (the pope) was proved to be a fraud 500+ years ago.


The writings of early church fathers from the second and third century imply Peter was in Rome.

Peter himself signs a letter from "Babylon" but many scholars agree that Babylon is symbolic code for Rome, not actual Babylon


He was crucified upside down there and I've stood above his bones.
Reply Quote
2
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fre3dombear • 11:16p, 4/28/26
No one knows for sure if that story is even true. And it is certainly unlikely that anyone knows where his bones are buried. The same is true of most of the disciples. The historical records are limited. It's like many of the relics. Relics proliferated during the Middle Ages and were almost certainly fakes. Too many people treated someone's bones or a piece of wood as holy when they ard not. It became a form of idolatry. There were enough pieces of the "true cross" to build a house! The first century Christian's had no reason to keep the cross Jesus died in and probably had no means to do so.

The same is true of the authentic sites of Jesus's life in Israel today. There is a church in Bethlehem built where Jesus was born. Likewise there is a church built on the site of the crucifixion. The problem is that centuries later no one knew exactly where those events took place. There is a story that Pilgrims from Europe who visited the Holy Land centuries later would go to those cities and ask the locals for the locations. The Muslims who controlled the place had no idea and did not care but they knew they could make money from tourists. I don't how much truth there is to such accounts but it's very plausible. It's more believable than thinking that after numerous wars and conquests that the locations would be known with such precision. That was another form of idolatry.
Reply Quote
6
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 6:36a, 4/29/26
historian said:
Quote:
The same is true of the authentic sites of Jesus's life in Israel today. There is a church in Bethlehem built where Jesus was born. Likewise there is a church built on the site of the crucifixion. The problem is that centuries later no one knew exactly where those events took place.


You realize that the time from the crucifixion to Saint Helena's visit is not that much longer than the time from the American Revolution to our modern day, right? It's pretty much inconceivable that the early Christians in Jerusalem had lost the memory of these events and where they happened in that short a period of time. Furthermore, there's the miracle of the Holy Fire that happens every Eastern morning at the tomb. Had Saint Helena misidentified the location, that probably wouldn't be happening.

Islam didn't show up till the 7th century.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigGameBaylorBear • 10:17p, 4/29/26
BigGameBaylorBear said:
BellCountyBear said:
Thank God for Martin Luther.




I will say it again

Pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism and Post-Vatican II Catholicism are two different religions

It's gonna be interesting to see how that plays out over the centuries
Reply Quote
2
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 10:22p, 4/29/26
historian said:
Historically, Rome did not play a central role in Christianity until the 4th century. Biblically, Peter stayed in and near Jerusalem preaching to Jews while Paul preached to Gentiles, making missionary journeys throughout the eastern Mediterranean and eventually to Rome. I don't know of any scripture that discusses Peter leaving the Holy Land or anywhere near Rome.

Catholic tradition might say otherwise but Catholic tradition has plenty of questionable ideas...


For what it's worth I don't think any of the Eastern Churches (that eventually broke with Rome)….like the Eastern Orthodox or the Coptic Orthodox…dispute that Peter did go to Rome and died a martyrs death there.

And those Churches have long feuded with Rome over theology and the powers that should be granted to the Pope.

But they have always agreed with the Catholics about that historical event
Reply Quote
Fre3dombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 10:33p, 4/29/26
historian said:
No one knows for sure if that story is even true. And it is certainly unlikely that anyone knows where his bones are buried. The same is true of most of the disciples. The historical records are limited. It's like many of the relics. Relics proliferated during the Middle Ages and were almost certainly fakes. Too many people treated someone's bones or a piece of wood as holy when they ard not. It became a form of idolatry. There were enough pieces of the "true cross" to build a house! The first century Christian's had no reason to keep the cross Jesus died in and probably had no means to do so.

The same is true of the authentic sites of Jesus's life in Israel today. There is a church in Bethlehem built where Jesus was born. Likewise there is a church built on the site of the crucifixion. The problem is that centuries later no one knew exactly where those events took place. There is a story that Pilgrims from Europe who visited the Holy Land centuries later would go to those cities and ask the locals for the locations. The Muslims who controlled the place had no idea and did not care but they knew they could make money from tourists. I don't how much truth there is to such accounts but it's very plausible. It's more believable than thinking that after numerous wars and conquests that the locations would be known with such precision. That was another form of idolatry.


Ok. What's it like Living life saying Nu uh to most everything? Live a little. Enjoy. Be happy. Not everything is a fight or an argument. Find common ground. Live and learn. Youre missing out on so much history ironically.
Reply Quote
Fre3dombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 10:37p, 4/29/26
Redbrickbear said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
BellCountyBear said:
Thank God for Martin Luther.




I will say it again

Pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism and Post-Vatican II Catholicism are two different religions

It's gonna be interesting to see how that plays out over the centuries


You are not well informed on pre and post Vatican II.

If you had said TLM vs NO, then sure. Much to discuss there.

Please enumerate a few things you think are in this new religion vs the old religion? Are all Catholics now practicing this new religion? How are you measuring this assuming you can enumerate the differences.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Johnny Bear • 10:48p, 4/29/26
Johnny Bear said:
historian said:
This is from a Christian writer who accepts Catholic views on history:

Popes like this one are the reason there are Protestants

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/04/popes_like_this_one_are_the_reason_there_are_protestants.html

The renaissance popes were incredibly corrupt and do was much of the church at all levels. Generally speaking, this corruption sparked Martin Luther's actions.

This writer begins with an error, but otherwise is mostly accurate. His historical errors:
1. Jesus Christ did not begin the Catholic Church. He began His Church which includes all Christians regardless of location or denomination, was decentralized & localized, and there were no popes. This was what it looked like for the first few centuries.
2. I don't know if what we are experiencing today is another Great Awakening (I hope so!) and I don't know if it's Catholic led. The baptisms I've seen as part of the modern revival movement were by immersion and that's not a Catholic thing as far as I know.

The Catholic claim that Jesus himself founded the Catholic Church is based on their interpretation of a Biblical quote from Jesus found in Matthew 16:18 - "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." They believe that Peter is "the rock" being referred to and authority is being conveyed to him that is perpetuated to the "bishops of Rome" (i.e., the popes) thus making Peter "the first Pope" of the Catholic Church. The general Protestant interpretation (which I personally believe) is that "the rock" being referred to is Peter's answer/confession to Jesus' question to his disciples about who they (i.e., the disciples) say that Jesus is - Matthew 16:15: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" and that Jesus pronouncement in verse 18 establishes HIS Church that includes the body of ALL believers. And per that interpretation the author of the article is incorrect to claim that Jesus himself established the Catholic Church and individuals established all the other denominations. Jesus established His Church and all denominations, including the catholic denomination, were established by individuals.
not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)
Reply Quote
2
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fre3dombear • 11:30p, 4/29/26
Fre3dombear said:
Redbrickbear said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
BellCountyBear said:
Thank God for Martin Luther.




I will say it again

Pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism and Post-Vatican II Catholicism are two different religions

It's gonna be interesting to see how that plays out over the centuries


You are not well informed on pre and post Vatican II.

If you had said TLM vs NO, then sure. Much to discuss there.

Please enumerate a few things you think are in this new religion vs the old religion? Are all Catholics now practicing this new religion? How are you measuring this assuming you can enumerate the differences.


I think we could have a whole thread about the differences between what it was pre-Vatican II and what it had become post Vatican II







Reply Quote
2 edits
Fre3dombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 11:35p, 4/29/26
Redbrickbear said:
Fre3dombear said:
Redbrickbear said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
BellCountyBear said:
Thank God for Martin Luther.




I will say it again

Pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism and Post-Vatican II Catholicism are two different religions

It's gonna be interesting to see how that plays out over the centuries


You are not well informed on pre and post Vatican II.

If you had said TLM vs NO, then sure. Much to discuss there.

Please enumerate a few things you think are in this new religion vs the old religion? Are all Catholics now practicing this new religion? How are you measuring this assuming you can enumerate the differences.


I think we could have a whole thread about the differences between what it was pre-Vatican II and what it had become post Vatican II









Easily
Reply Quote
Johnny Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 10:34a, 4/30/26
4th and Inches said:
Johnny Bear said:
historian said:
This is from a Christian writer who accepts Catholic views on history:

Popes like this one are the reason there are Protestants

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/04/popes_like_this_one_are_the_reason_there_are_protestants.html

The renaissance popes were incredibly corrupt and do was much of the church at all levels. Generally speaking, this corruption sparked Martin Luther's actions.

This writer begins with an error, but otherwise is mostly accurate. His historical errors:
1. Jesus Christ did not begin the Catholic Church. He began His Church which includes all Christians regardless of location or denomination, was decentralized & localized, and there were no popes. This was what it looked like for the first few centuries.
2. I don't know if what we are experiencing today is another Great Awakening (I hope so!) and I don't know if it's Catholic led. The baptisms I've seen as part of the modern revival movement were by immersion and that's not a Catholic thing as far as I know.

The Catholic claim that Jesus himself founded the Catholic Church is based on their interpretation of a Biblical quote from Jesus found in Matthew 16:18 - "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." They believe that Peter is "the rock" being referred to and authority is being conveyed to him that is perpetuated to the "bishops of Rome" (i.e., the popes) thus making Peter "the first Pope" of the Catholic Church. The general Protestant interpretation (which I personally believe) is that "the rock" being referred to is Peter's answer/confession to Jesus' question to his disciples about who they (i.e., the disciples) say that Jesus is - Matthew 16:15: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" and that Jesus pronouncement in verse 18 establishes HIS Church that includes the body of ALL believers. And per that interpretation the author of the article is incorrect to claim that Jesus himself established the Catholic Church and individuals established all the other denominations. Jesus established His Church and all denominations, including the catholic denomination, were established by individuals.
not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)

I respect your opinion, but that is the first time I've heard anybody site that passage in connection with the "Christ conveyed the power to Peter to establish what would become the Catholic Church" belief.

Many people interpret that passage to likely be about Jesus fully restoring Peter back to right faith relationship and commitment to doing his part to carry out Jesus earthly mission going forward (which Peter subsequently did do) following Peter's denial of Christ prior to the crucifixion and resurrection. Per this interpretation, the reason Jesus asked the "do you love me?" question followed by the "feed my sheep" admonition 3 times is because Peter denied knowing him 3 times.

I'm not nor have I ever been a Catholic, but having had an older sister that converted to Catholicism, plus having a spouse that grew up Catholic, along with having other Catholic friends, and even encounters with Catholic clergy, the Matthew 16:18 verse is what I've always heard as the Biblical text for the belief about Jesus establishing what would become the Catholic Church through the conveyance of authority to Peter. I realize all that is anecdotal, but it is based on my interactions with many Catholic sources throughout my life.
Reply Quote
3
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigGameBaylorBear • 11:24a, 4/30/26
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Protestant author says Pope Leo is bad because he attacked Trump, which is wrong because *checks notes* Trump doesn't respond well to attacks?

LOL!!! Not sure if the Church of Trump is not quite as popular as it was a year ago. He and his disciples are still passing around the collection plate for sure.
Call it a tax, the people are outraged! Call it a tariff, the people get out their checkbooks and wave their American flags!!!
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Johnny Bear • 1:21p, 4/30/26
Johnny Bear said:
4th and Inches said:
Johnny Bear said:
historian said:
This is from a Christian writer who accepts Catholic views on history:

Popes like this one are the reason there are Protestants

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/04/popes_like_this_one_are_the_reason_there_are_protestants.html

The renaissance popes were incredibly corrupt and do was much of the church at all levels. Generally speaking, this corruption sparked Martin Luther's actions.

This writer begins with an error, but otherwise is mostly accurate. His historical errors:
1. Jesus Christ did not begin the Catholic Church. He began His Church which includes all Christians regardless of location or denomination, was decentralized & localized, and there were no popes. This was what it looked like for the first few centuries.
2. I don't know if what we are experiencing today is another Great Awakening (I hope so!) and I don't know if it's Catholic led. The baptisms I've seen as part of the modern revival movement were by immersion and that's not a Catholic thing as far as I know.

The Catholic claim that Jesus himself founded the Catholic Church is based on their interpretation of a Biblical quote from Jesus found in Matthew 16:18 - "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." They believe that Peter is "the rock" being referred to and authority is being conveyed to him that is perpetuated to the "bishops of Rome" (i.e., the popes) thus making Peter "the first Pope" of the Catholic Church. The general Protestant interpretation (which I personally believe) is that "the rock" being referred to is Peter's answer/confession to Jesus' question to his disciples about who they (i.e., the disciples) say that Jesus is - Matthew 16:15: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" and that Jesus pronouncement in verse 18 establishes HIS Church that includes the body of ALL believers. And per that interpretation the author of the article is incorrect to claim that Jesus himself established the Catholic Church and individuals established all the other denominations. Jesus established His Church and all denominations, including the catholic denomination, were established by individuals.
not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)

I respect your opinion, but that is the first time I've heard anybody site that passage in connection with the "Christ conveyed the power to Peter to establish what would become the Catholic Church" belief.

Many people interpret that passage to likely be about Jesus fully restoring Peter back to right faith relationship and commitment to doing his part to carry out Jesus earthly mission going forward (which Peter subsequently did do) following Peter's denial of Christ prior to the crucifixion and resurrection. Per this interpretation, the reason Jesus asked the "do you love me?" question followed by the "feed my sheep" admonition 3 times is because Peter denied knowing him 3 times.

I'm not nor have I ever been a Catholic, but having had an older sister that converted to Catholicism, plus having a spouse that grew up Catholic, along with having other Catholic friends, and even encounters with Catholic clergy, the Matthew 16:18 verse is what I've always heard as the Biblical text for the belief about Jesus establishing what would become the Catholic Church through the conveyance of authority to Peter. I realize all that is anecdotal, but it is based on my interactions with many Catholic sources throughout my life.
yeah, the rock passage is all I have heard from catholics.

It just struck me as a better verse to present if trying to say Jesus gave him authority over the church. It is my own opinion and nothing else.
Reply Quote
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:10p, 4/30/26
This quote pretty much puts to rest the idea that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

"The blessed apostles [St. Paul and St. Peter], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric."

- Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
St. St. Irenaeus.

Linus is the first Bishop of Rome
Anacletus the second
Clement the third.

Saint Peter and Saint Paul co-labored as evangelists in Rome, but neither took the episcopal office instead appointing Linus to that position.

Reply Quote
1 edit
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:17p, 4/30/26
Gotta say…the old Catholic mass has that aura and mystery


Reply Quote
1
TenBears
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:26p, 4/30/26
Zero doubt in my mind that if Jesus came back tomorrow and picked up where he left off, 3/4 of the RNP board would declare him a weak on crime socialist with TDS,
Reply Quote
6
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 5:23a, 5/1/26
4th and Inches said:

not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)


In general, this verse is taken as a restoration of Peter's apostleship after his denial of Christ, not the appointing of Peter as a Pope.

Reply Quote
3
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 7:07a, 5/1/26
Realitybites said:
4th and Inches said:

not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)


In general, this verse is taken as a restoration of Peter's apostleship after his denial of Christ, not the appointing of Peter as a Pope.

yes, it definitely has that meaning of restoration

Peter was one of the 3 inner circle of Jesus.

Peter was given a name change that means rock(foundation)

Peter was told specifically to tend the flock of Jesus and feed the flock of Jesus.

I see why they stand on Matthew16:17-18 verse. Maybe the feed my sheep is a witness verse to the authority given to Peter that is beyond a welcome back to the apostle group. Jesus is passing his earthly duty of being shepard after it was foretold of the scattering of the sheep in Matthew 26:31
Reply Quote
1
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 7:19a, 5/1/26
4th and Inches said:
Realitybites said:
4th and Inches said:

not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)


In general, this verse is taken as a restoration of Peter's apostleship after his denial of Christ, not the appointing of Peter as a Pope.


yes, it definitely has that meaning of restoration

Peter was one of the 3 inner circle of Jesus.

Peter was given a name change that means rock(foundation)

Peter was told specifically to tend the flock of Jesus and feed the flock of Jesus.

I see why they stand on Matthew16:17-18 verse. Maybe the feed my sheep is a witness verse to the authority given to Peter that is beyond a welcome back to the apostle group. Jesus is passing his earthly duty of being shepard after it was foretold of the scattering of the sheep in Matthew 26:31

I agree, it can be both.
Reply Quote
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 12:06a, 5/2/26
Jesus Himself is the head of His church, which consists of all Christians everywhere. There is no scripture in which He created a pope or any hierarchy. That is a man-made invention. And the long history of popes involved in politics illustrates why it is problematic. Far too many over the past 1500 years neglected their spiritual responsibilities for efforts to increase their power often through sinful means.
Reply Quote
5
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fre3dombear • 12:52a, 5/2/26
Such great irony in that post, and most of it unseen by the author.
Reply Quote
1
J.R.
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 1:46a, 5/2/26
Realitybites said:
4th and Inches said:

not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)


In general, this verse is taken as a restoration of Peter's apostleship after his denial of Christ, not the appointing of Peter as a Pope.


This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BellCountyBear • 5:44a, 5/2/26
BellCountyBear said:
Thank God for Martin Luther.


Check out Lutheran Satire. They have some brilliantly funny stuff on there, better than the Babylon Bee actually.
Reply Quote
1
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 5:51a, 5/2/26
J.R. said:

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.


I agree that a lot of us are going to be surprised in the afterlife.

That having been said, this isn't really nitpicking.

Just take the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran teachings about the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Evangelical teaching that rejects it. Here you have the three oldest faith traditions in Christendom teaching one thing consistent with a plain reading of the Bible and people coming in 1600 years after the fact who say "nah, not really."



Whether or not you can actually commune with Jesus in communion or not is something quite fundamental to the Christian faith.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.