Note: The context indicates that the reference is to the final authority vis-à-vis spiritual questions. No man can assume this role.
2 - If Peter and the disciples had understood the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 as establishing Peter’s supremacy and leadership position, why a little later the disciples disputed who would be the greatest amongst them?
2 - If Peter and the disciples had understood the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 as establishing Peter’s supremacy and leadership position, why a little later the disciples disputed who would be the greatest amongst them?
Note: They would rather be disputing the number 2 position, not the number 1, since that would have been already assured to Peter by Jesus.
3 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why wasn’t he who presented the final decision of the Jerusalem Council, but James (see Acts 15)?
3 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why wasn’t he who presented the final decision of the Jerusalem Council, but James (see Acts 15)?
Note: He only delivered an introductory speech, but James was the Christian leader who spoke on behalf of the body of apostles, which can be concluded reading carefully the entire chapter, especially verses 12ff.
4 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why was he sent by the Church to Samaria with John (see Acts 8:14)? As the No. 1 leader of the Church, he would be sending missionaries.
5 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did he himself attribute to Christ the role of the basic rock, and never claimed to himself or mentioned any special leadership role in the Church (see 1 Peter 2:6-8)?
6 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why didn’t Paul confirm this in 1 Corinthians 10:4, as he assured that Christ is the rock?
7 - If Peter was the first Pope, how could Paul reprimand him so severely because he acted in a wrong way (see Galatians 2:11-14)?
Note: Nowhere in the writings of Paul does he confer any primacy to Peter whatsoever. On the contrary, when he had the opportunity to call Peter the Rock of the Church, Paul said that there's no other foundation other than Christ. I Cor 3:11.
8 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul say that the Church is built on the human foundation of the apostles and prophets, without discriminating Peter as the most important of these (see Ephesians 2:20)?
8 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul say that the Church is built on the human foundation of the apostles and prophets, without discriminating Peter as the most important of these (see Ephesians 2:20)?
Note: Christ in this text is presented again as the Church’s cornerstone.
9 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t Paul discriminate Peter as the principal one, as he made reference to Peter, together with James and John as the columns of the Church (see Galatians 2:9)?
9 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t Paul discriminate Peter as the principal one, as he made reference to Peter, together with James and John as the columns of the Church (see Galatians 2:9)?
Note: He mentions James in the first place.
10 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t the final authority of the Jerusalem church remain with Peter, but with the apostles, later substituted by “elders”?
10 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t the final authority of the Jerusalem church remain with Peter, but with the apostles, later substituted by “elders”?
Note: Besides having been “the apostles” who sent Peter to Samaria (Acts 8:14) to supervise the new Christian communities, they also did the same sending Barnabas to Antioquia (Acts 11:22), later Judas and Silas to the same place (Acts 15:22-27).
11 - If Peter was the first Pope, why were “James and the elders” the ones who recommended that Paul submitted himself to a purification rite in the Temple (Acts 21:18, 23-24)?
12 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul make clear in Galatians that he did not consider Jerusalem a divinely appointed administrative center for all the congregational activity?
11 - If Peter was the first Pope, why were “James and the elders” the ones who recommended that Paul submitted himself to a purification rite in the Temple (Acts 21:18, 23-24)?
12 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul make clear in Galatians that he did not consider Jerusalem a divinely appointed administrative center for all the congregational activity?
Note: After his conversion Paul did not go to Jerusalem, to seek guidance from Peter and the leadership of the Church there, but to Damascus.
13 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul, after his conversion, receive divine instructions through a native of Damascus, called Ananias, and not through Peter?
Note: In Galatians 1: 16, 17 he says clearly that after his conversion he did not resort to any human source of authority.
14 - If Peter was the first Pope, why did Paul travel to Jerusalem only three years later and declared that he only saw Peter and James, and no other apostle in his fifteen-day sojourn there?
15 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul set Antioch as the base of his operations, and although that city was near Jerusalem he did not see a reason to address himself to the capital of the Judea?
16 - If Peter was the first Pope, why don’t the stories of Paul’s missionary trips ever indicate that he undertook them under the recommendation of any “administrative board”, and with a route duly approved by an ecclesiastical leader (Acts 13, 15, 20, etc.--especially 15:36)?
17 - If Peter was head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul go back up to Jerusalem only after fourteen years, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus and not Peter, and that because he had a “revelation” from the Lord (see Gal. 2: 1, 2)?
18 - If Peter was the first Pope, why the only Biblical manuscripts after the fall of Jerusalem, from the apostle John, written decades after the desolation of Jerusalem, don’t ever mention any Church leader [or Pope] or Christian administrative center in his days, having a Peter as the top leader?
19 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why does John in the book of Revelation, portray Christ as sending messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor, not any Pope (Rev. 1 to 3), and in none of these messages is there any suggestion or indication that those congregations were under an external direction, but that of Christ Himself?
20 - If Peter was the first Pope, why, in the available writings of Christian authors from the second and third centuries, nothing is indicated regarding the existence of a centered administration to supervise the numerous Christian congregations, under the command of Peter?
Note: The history of the period discloses, in contrast, something much different--that the centered religious authority was the product of a post-apostolic and post-Biblical development.
14 - If Peter was the first Pope, why did Paul travel to Jerusalem only three years later and declared that he only saw Peter and James, and no other apostle in his fifteen-day sojourn there?
15 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul set Antioch as the base of his operations, and although that city was near Jerusalem he did not see a reason to address himself to the capital of the Judea?
16 - If Peter was the first Pope, why don’t the stories of Paul’s missionary trips ever indicate that he undertook them under the recommendation of any “administrative board”, and with a route duly approved by an ecclesiastical leader (Acts 13, 15, 20, etc.--especially 15:36)?
17 - If Peter was head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul go back up to Jerusalem only after fourteen years, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus and not Peter, and that because he had a “revelation” from the Lord (see Gal. 2: 1, 2)?
18 - If Peter was the first Pope, why the only Biblical manuscripts after the fall of Jerusalem, from the apostle John, written decades after the desolation of Jerusalem, don’t ever mention any Church leader [or Pope] or Christian administrative center in his days, having a Peter as the top leader?
19 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why does John in the book of Revelation, portray Christ as sending messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor, not any Pope (Rev. 1 to 3), and in none of these messages is there any suggestion or indication that those congregations were under an external direction, but that of Christ Himself?
20 - If Peter was the first Pope, why, in the available writings of Christian authors from the second and third centuries, nothing is indicated regarding the existence of a centered administration to supervise the numerous Christian congregations, under the command of Peter?
Note: The history of the period discloses, in contrast, something much different--that the centered religious authority was the product of a post-apostolic and post-Biblical development.
21 - If Peter was the Rock, why didn't Jesus plainly say, 'UPON YOU', will I build my Church?
Note: Obviously because Jesus was referring to another Rock, the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. He was obviously contrasting the character of Peter as expressed in the Gospels with the solid and unshakeable rock of Jesus.
22 - If Peter was a solid Rock, why did Jesus severely rebuke him shortly after? Matthew 16:22-23
Note: Jesus rebuked Satan who was speaking through Peter. So, if Peter had just been considered by Jesus as a 'rock', how could he have become so quickly an instrument of Satan?If Jesus had just established Peter as the foundation of the Church, this episode would clearly demonstrate that Jesus made a gross mistake, which is of course, absurd. Therefore, rock CANNOT be referring to Peter.
23 - If Peter was the Rock, why didn't Jesus commission Peter to build his church, instead of saying I WILL BUILD my church?
Note: Jesus is the builder and maker of the church and its foundation. "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." I Cor. 3: 11.
24. If Jesus' statement in Matthew 16 was so important to the establishment of the Church, why do all the other Gospel omit these words altogether?
Note: If all we had were the other 3 Gospels, the Catholic Church would not have ANY biblical basis for their Papacy. But then again, the Catholic hierarchy DOES NOT need the Scriptures to invent new dogmas, they resort to their own tradition to supplant the Scriptures.
25. If Peter was the solid rock, what does his denial of Christ reveal about Peter's total inability to be the foundation of anything?
Note: Apparently, Peter continued to show his unstableness as a sinner long after that night of denial, and had to be confronted by Paul because he was changing his approach to please different groups of converts. (See Galatians 2:11-14 for full account.)
___________________________
Since Peter was not the rock has been clearly demonstrated here, Jesus' statement "I will give you the keys of the kingdom" cannot refer to Peter either. Rather, Jesus says this again to all his disciples in Matthew 18:18 as the Church that Jesus HIMSELF would build. Because Peter had no primacy in the foundation and establishment of the Church in the early Church, the Papacy does not follow any so-called "line of apostles" after Peter and therefore their arrogance of the title of the Church that Peter built is based on a fallacy.
Furthermore, because the history of the Roman Catholicism clearly demonstrates how it has dishonored the name of Christ by replacing the true Gospel with its own saving rituals and false beliefs, claiming the Bible is insufficient to instruct in righteousness, persecuting those who would hold the Scriptures as their only norm of faith, claiming the Pope is God on earth, the Roman Catholic Church and its false system should here be interpreted as the "gates of hell", who act precisely against the true Church of Christ, those who have "kept the commandments and have the faith of Jesus" (Rev. 14:12) in all centuries, all over the world.
"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, MY PEOPLE, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Rev. 18:4.
"But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men." Mat 15:9:
9 comments:
Apollyon,
May I suggest you go to catholic.com and/or acquire some books on Catholic apologetics, as many of your common objections concerning the authority of Pope and other truths can be addressed. As it would be quite tedious to copy and paste responses to your copy and pasted objections.
Thanks
That's the argument every Catholic uses, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT CATHOLICS REALLY BELIEVE IN!
How can we NOT know when these Doctrinal statements came directly from Catholicism's God on Earth, the Pope? He is the utmost authority on doctrine and practice. Furthermore, the Pope gives his Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur to all kinds of books being printed by the Catholic Church, including one that calls Mary CO-SAVIOR with Christ.
Ratzinger called Mary "SALVATION OF THE PEOPLE OF ROME" in the 2005 funeral of Pope John Paul II. How hard to understand is that??
If we want to know what Catholics really believe in, the Pope is a good source. I want to see a Catholic defend their faith instead of pointing to the Catechism that they don't what really says.
Besides, very little of what Catholics believe CAN really be proven by the Scriptures.
I want to see a Catholic defend their faith instead of pointing to the Catechism that they don't what really says.
One of the beautiful things about the Church,is that God didn't leave us as orphans to fend for ourselves on what to believe. He gave us The Church. If the bible is the ONLY source of Truth, what about all of God's children who were living before the Bible was assembled by the Catholic Church - it was hundreds of years after Jesus gave Peter the keys until bibles were only scarcely available. What about those who can not afford bibles before the invention of the printing press 1500 YEARS after the ascension of Christ? What about the millions around the world today who are illiterate - who's authority of scriptural interpretation should they believe? Because even among the protestants, there is hardly a consensus of truth ranging from the Episcopalians to the evangelicals.
The bible is infallible and useful in teaching, but no where does it ever claim to be the sole source of Truth. We should be confident in God's gift to us in the Church that it is through both written and oral teachings that we are to base our faith.
The questions on Peter are now 23...
I agree, God left us his Word so we could find the way and not be orphans. Catholics claim to have been responsible for the Bible, some even say that the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) wrote the Bible.
The Scriptures according to Jesus are the only source of knowledge towards salvation. We can know God in Nature, but not of his plan of salvation.
What were the Scriptures for Jesus? The Torah for instance, which contained the Law of Moses and was written down for God's people. Also, we see Jesus reading from the Book of Isaiah in the synagogue which had been recorded and comprised the SCRIPTURES for him. Furthermore, he quoted the OT many times and had been taught the Scriptures by Mary and memorized many parts himself.
The letters of the apostles and the Gospels were written down and passed among the churches in the first century as the Scriptures, Peter mentions Paul's letters which he had read and Paul based his writings largely on the Gospels and the written Torah.
So the Scriptures were real, long before the church in the 2nd and 3rd century, still free from many heresies, compiled and canonized what we know today as the Bible. Of course, GOD was leading the process of preservation of the Scriptures.
The RCC in the middle ages made everything it could to block the knowledge of the Word of God by the people. Only Popes and priests could read the Bible.
Council of Toulouse - 1229 AD Canon 14.
We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; ... we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.
The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:
"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion."
Tha Bible was also in the INDEX of prohibited books.
From the Encyclical UBI PRIMUM of POPE LEO XII, MAY 5, 1824:
17. You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,[16] it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ's gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil!"
The Waldenses used to write down the Bible by hand and spread the word, risking to be burned at the stake.
"The Waldenses proclaimed the Bible as the sole rule of life and faith. They rejected the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and the mass, and laid great stress on gospel simplicity. Worship services consisted of readings from the Bible, the Lord's Prayer, and sermons, which they believed could be preached by all Christians as depositaries of the Holy Spirit. ... they were formally declared heretics by Pope Lucius III in 1184 and by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215." Columbia Encyclopedia
So no, the RCC tradition does not supplant the Bible nor do Popes have the right to change or alter it as they will.
["We confess that the Pope has power of changing Scripture and of adding to it, and taking from it, according to his will." Roman Catholic Confessions for Protestants Oath, Article XI]
Lastly, is the Sola Scriptura in the Bible? Apparently so.
John 5:39; "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to add: "Search the Scriptures AND TRADITION that is outside the Scripture." But he didn't, so I'd rather follow his advice.
Paul: "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2Ti 3:16,17
Note that it does not say that Scriptures has ALL knowledge, but what is has is SUFFICIENT to make the man of God perfect. If it's not sufficient, than the man of God is not perfect.
Did he mean the NT as well? Yes, because even his letters were already considered as Scripture by Peter, who considered them as normative for the Church. 2Pe 3:15-16
Tradition in the mind of Paul was the teachings passed on to him about the Jesus, namely, all the truth that is written in the New Testament scriptures in the first century AD. It's not a blank check to accept all kinds of traditions is it? Should we then keep the tradition observed for hundreds of years of burning heretics at the stake? Or the tradition of paying for indulgences or paying for people to pass from the Purgatory to Heaven? Do you still keep those traditions as authoritative?
Tertullian says that this tradition in the words of Paul isn't some secret doctrine, this isn't some oral tradition that contains some other revelation than what we have in Scripture.
Did Jesus support tradition that was not in Scriptures? Apparently NOT.
Matthew 15:1-6: "Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the TRADITIONS OF THE ELDERS? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by YOUR TRADITION?. For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
8-9: "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Jesus here is totally against a tradition that was NOT supported by the Scriptures. Would you agree that is clearly applicable to traditions created by the Catholic church? Can you think of any that are not in the Scriptures, such as bodily assumption of Mary or Papal Infallibility?
I Thessalonians 2:13: "We also constantly thank God that when you received from us (oral tradition) the WORD OF GOD'S message, you accepted it NOT AS THE WORD OF MEN, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe."
The tradition here is clearly the Gospel as preached by Paul.
In conclusion, it's fair to say that Jesus and Paul considered the Bible to be the ULTIMATE authority in questions of faith.
apollyon:
I'm your Huckleberry--I'm up for the challenge. Check out my blog starting the first of the week, (busy for a few days) I'll answer your questions.
But the thing is, if you really and I mean REALLY knew what Catholics believed, then this blog would NOT EVEN EXIST.
Each of your arguments can be proven to be false. Most of the arguments are absurd anyways.
You argue that we Catholics don't accept Sacred Scripture as the main foundation of the Christian faith, yet you yourself pick scripture apart and choose what bits and pieces you will and won't believe - you quote all these references and take them out of context and interpet them as being quite literal - well my friend, how about taking this set of verses literally? -
From the Gospel of John:
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Oh no, but Christ must have been speaking symbolicly, mustn't He...
Yes that's the argument we Catholics always hear. :-)
So MJ, you actually mean that we have to EAT a piece of Christ's flesh, maybe a piece of his hand, or heart? And really drink his blood, the REAL blood?? Hum.. interesting...
One question, in the Eucharist, are you eating bread or a piece of human flesh?
I think it's Catholics who don't REALLY know what they believe in...
Yes, Andre, we REALLY have to EAT Christ's Flesh and DRINK His Blood.
Isn't that what Hhe told the Pharasies? And they questioned Him, in disbelief? And He MORE adamantly repeated what He had said?
We receive the Eucharist at Mass - the Mass is a repeating of the Last Supper - which Christ commanded us to do. When we receive the Eucharist, we are in fact receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord under the appearnces of bread and wine. We're not actually seeing flesh and blood - we're seeing bread and wine - but we're in fact receiving the body, blood, soul and dinivity of Our Lord (under the appearances of bread and wine). It's called Transubstantiation. It's a supernatural mystery, one we cannot understand (our minds being finite), but it is what Christ commanded and what He promised. If we say it's not true, then we are calling Christ a liar...and of course, Christ cannot lie.
If I am reaffirming all this, how can you say that Catholics REALLY don't know what they believe?
Let's turn this around for a minute. What religion are you? Atheist? Agnostic? Baptist? Calvinist? Why don't YOU defend to ME what YOU believe Christ meant by those words. Why don't YOU explain the Last Supper to ME?
Well, answer me first, what part of the body of Christ are you eating, his hand, his foot, his leg?? What part? I can't imagine Jesus endorsing his own caniballism...
That heresy of transubstantiation is another invention of corrupt medieval priests who wanted all the power to themselves. Show me that in the Bible, show me that this is confirmed by the Apostles. It's nowhere to be found. But that makes no difference to you, you don't believe in the Bible, much less read it!
If you take that as literal, then you should also take his words in Matthew 5:
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Are you taking those literally too? Jesus is very clear here!!
As states previously, I welcome your comments, they validade the facts in this blog. Thanks for that!!
Post a Comment