Questions about Role of Peter & Successors

Mr. Bloom,

In response to question #1, (see previous) I first say this; There is no Biblical evidence that Peter was appointed as the head of The Church. This is clear in how Peter viewed himself, as a fellow Elder, he did not let any man bow down to him and none of the other Apostles were aware of his headship over them. Why is that? The Scriptures are very clear about this. Paul viewed himself as an equal to all the Apostles. Why? If Peter was the head of the Church, Paul should have known this. Instead, Rome makes it's claims even though the Scriptures are silent about their claims and not only silent, but the Scriptures point us in the opposite direction.

And what did all the Apostles have in common? They were all men who had integrity. They were all sinners, this we know, but they were men who represented Jesus Christ as effective witnesses by how they lived their lives. Why would God lower His standards to the "Successors of Peter?" Why wouldn't the "Vicars" be men of integrity? Why would many of them be the exact opposite of what the Apostles were? The reason is this; they weren't who they claimed to be and they aren't who Rome claims they were. Just another ploy by man to control other men.

Please explain at what your so amazed at regarding #2. To just make a blanket statement is hollow. Then you mention merit. Is the merit your speaking of free will? Or does it go much further than that? Do the merits of others help us get to heaven? Do the excess merits of dead people help us get purified in "Purgatory?" Is the righteousness of others, besides Christ, needed?

Please don't try to cloud the issue about one choosing to do good or evil. That Mr. Bloom, has nothing to do with how one is saved. Or are you saying that a person can be saved by being "good." If so, then how good does one need to be? I think the Bible is very clear on this as well. God's view of good is perfection and no one except Jesus Christ has been able to live a perfect life. Which is why we needed a perfect Savior to begin with. In fact, the Scriptures tell us that we can't even come to Christ unless God enables us.

In response to your #3, please not "the missing word" argument! Is there a training book of responses I sould know about? The Bible clearly defines God as triune. Jesus speaks to His Father and sends the Holy Spirit. He wasn't talking to himself and he wasn't sending himself to earth when he left and calling himself another name. To try to compare the Trinity, God, with the establishment of a religious human king, that is no where to be found in the context of the Scriptures, is nothing more than deception on your part. How weak of an argument you make for your claims of earthly kingships.

#4. Ever hear of penance? Are we to count our sacrifices as merit for our salvation? Is not the sacrifice of Jesus enough sir? Is there something lacking in the propitiation Christ made in our place? Is there something of our own in which we must add? Is even our faith our own? Or is our faith also a gift from God?

Please list the "ananthamas" your referring to regarding Moses and show me where Moses claims to have control over ones salvation.

Paul, Peter and the other deciples established churches with Jesus Christ as their head. They never exalted Peter or any one else as head of the churches they planted.

Funny you should mention Ireanaeus. He sure made some wild claims of bishops of Rome. Peter never appeared on the original list but instead Clement was the first bishop listed. Too bad there isn't a bishop in Rome recorded in history before the middle of the second century. That's a fact. And we're only talking about a bishop in Rome, not the bishop "of" Rome, which would rule over all the other churches. That wouldn't take place for a few more hundred years.

And if you think I'm just making this up, visit the Vatican and go to this list of Popes they have etched in the walls where the history of the popes are located. Your going to find a couple of hundred years with no names. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why?

Remember this sir, I don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm right, you do. The catholic church is the one which claims papal infallibility and apostolic succession, not me. I claim Jesus Christ as Lord and head of the church I attend, not man.

And don't give me that nonsense about being a simple parish priest. You have more time than anyone you preach tolearn what the Bible teaches. You will have no excuse when you stand before God and give an account for what you believe and what you've taught others. You chose to serve God. Don't cop out and say I'm only a simple priest. I'm just a layman saved by God's grace and I spend as much time as I can studying God's Word, not the teachings of men. I'm not saying we can't learn from what others write about God's Word, but we are to compare everything we read to the Word of God. Stop making excuses and learn what God's Word teaches and start preaching it, because the good works Gospel you've been preaching is really no Gospel at all.

Read Galatians

I purposely left out all Bible references. You know which ones I've referred to above. Find them and read them. And while you are at it please find the passage where Christ tells us in His own words that "no" man is to be called "Father" in a spiritual sense. It's incredible that out of 1000's of names, Rome choose "father" to describe its priests. Does that not make you think?

Mr. Bloom, stick to Scripture. If you follow anything else first compare it with Scripture. If it doesn't add up you then have to ask yourself where it came from and why. You'll be surprised and in some case horrified at the answers. I once followed "man's" teacings. Then one day I read the Bible. Well Mr. Bloom, God wants you to know that the Bible won.

Peace in Christ "Only",


PS..In response to your opinion of Richard Bennett, I say that if you put 1/10th the time that he has in both roman catholic doctrine and in Scripture your answer would have been much different. Mr. Bloom, don't sell yourself short. You cannot simply go through life teaching others about God without first learning all there is to know about Him yousrself. It's not to be found in catholic doctrines and canon laws sir, it's in His Holy Word. It's in His Bible.


Dear Peter,

Thank you for taking time write such a lenghthy email. I will post it on my site - altho at the moment am not able to address all the important issues you raise. Hopefully, with time, we will be able to discuss them in an orderly and respectful manner. By studying and praying over them we could both learn something. What do you think?

Before diving in, could I make sure we have cleared up at least one misunderstanding. In question #1, I asked how you got the idea "Rome says there can be 'no' sinful popes." Was that just a mistatement or do you really believe that is Catholic teaching?

You connected that statement with papal infallibility and the anathemas of the Council of Trent. (Trent, I am sure you know, did not define the doctrine.) About anathemas (curses) you can find a list of twelve that Moses pronounced at Deut 27:14ff. - and others throughout the Pentateuch.

I am a simple priest, Peter. I have no learning or accomplishments to rely on - only the Divine Mercy.

Christ alone - in His fullness,

Fr. Bloom

P.S. Please see Call No Man "Father"? and give me your evaluation. If you have time, also Catholic Answer Tracts on Primacy of Peter and his Successors


From Scott: I even find a scarcity of evidence in his being a "Bible believing Christian."

Are Alberto Rivera & Richard Bennett Fake Priests?

Boston Globe's Misleading Article on Catholic Church

The Bogus Knights of Columbus Oath