The catholic church: answering common objections

Participant

Quote (karmarie @ Aug. 28 2009,23:54)

Catholic teaching : Outside the (Catholic) Church there is no salvation.

I used to sit in church, which stunk like polish, and look at the mother Mary statue, and Jesus on the cross, and I felt nothing at all. No salvation. I felt coldness and emptyness .

Then, 20 years later, I found God alone, at home, with the bible.

My family are Catholic, my dad gives out the communion, my mother plays the keyboard, my cousin is a Priest and runs a shelter.

Peace and love

I don't know what happened to the first part of my post, but let me just tell you that my Husband Mother was a stern Catholic and when She fond out what the Bible said , She told my Husband, if that what it says then trow the Bible out. My Mother
asked questions and got a lot of literature, about what we learned, and some She understood I think. She and my Stepfather never went to Church to begin with. Because the Catholic Church did not want to marry them, since He was from a town close to Russia. So they got married in the Chamber of the Church. That Church did really uncalled for things. The Catholic on the board will not belief how they persecuted and killed so many Christians, because they owned a Bible.
Peace and Love Irene

August 28, 2009 at 9:18 pm#142865

karmarie

Participant

Wow.

My mum was a Baptist, I enjoyed the church actually (Baptist) but when my Dad returned from no church attendance to his Catholicism the church had a meeting with them and told my mum she had to be a Catholic too. She had to give some sort of a vow to go under the Popes authority and submission or something, and she said she only goes under Jesus authority and submission. Haha.

August 28, 2009 at 9:55 pm#142868

Participant

Hi CA:

No, I am not a JW, and no, Mary is not my mother, but the mother of my Lord Jesus. My mother has passed away. God is my Father having adopted me into His family, and therefore, Jesus is my elder brother.

I have listened to the series on the pope and apparently, the Catholic basis the whole issue of his authority based on the revelaton given in the following scriptures:

Quote

Mat 16:13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Mat 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And the apparent interpretation of the Catholic church is that the Lord is saying that the Apostle Peter was the rock that upon he would build the church, but the Apostle Peter is only part of the building. In this revelation, God our Father reveals to humanity that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and when he speaks to Peter about him being “Petra”, he says uses the word “also” which he indicates that the rock that to which he is referring is that he is the Christ and Peter is an Apostle.
And the keys of the Kingdom that are given to the Apostle Peter, is the Word of God, and his authority as an Apostle to the Nation of Israel after the Lord's Ascension into heaven.

And certainly, the Lord has appointed Apostles as part of the “fivefold ministry”, but if the pope is to suceed anyone as the authority in the church it would be as the sucessor to the Apostle Paul who is the Apostle to the gentile nations, and not the Apostle Peter.

I would also give the following scriptures for your consideration.

Quote

1Cr 10:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Quote

1Cr 3:5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

1Cr 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

1Cr 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

1Cr 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.

1Cr 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

1Cr 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Quote

Eph 2:19 ¶ Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];

Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

On a personal note, I am currently awaiting to be ordained as a Bishop in the church with an anointing similar to the Apostle Peter, and that anointing was such that when the Apostle Peter came down the street, the people would bring their sick folk so the if even his shadow would fall on them they would be healed.

If the Pope was the authority in the Lord's church, God would confirm what he was teaching with the same type of miracles and healing that He confirmed what Jesus and the Apostles taught. I don't see this happening.

Love in Christ,
Marty

August 28, 2009 at 11:21 pm#142883

Participant

Quote (karmarie @ Aug. 29 2009,09:18)

Wow.

Good for your Mother. She must be very nice and knows our Savior Jesus Christ. We need more People like your Mother.
Is She still alive? If She is, do say Hello to Her for me. Our Son and 2 of our Grandsons go to a Baptist Church, I did visit for awhile with them. But they all believe in a trinity, and that contradict what I believe.
Peace and Love Irene

August 28, 2009 at 11:42 pm#142885

Participant

Hi CA:

Relative to the discussion explaining and defending the Catholic church's position on saints, all I can say that this is nonsense and total confusion.

We as children of God are to imitate Christ not someone who is striving to imitate him, and the departed saints are asleep in Christ, and cannot pray for anyone.

Love in Christ,
Marty

August 29, 2009 at 1:16 am#142898

Participant

Hi CA:

I listened to the teaching on purgatory, and again all I see is total confusion.

There is not purgatory. The teacher refers to the following scripture:

Quote

Hbr 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Hbr 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Hbr 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

This states “in the days of his flesh” he suffered and we also as Christians walking in his footsteps will also suffer in the days of our flesh as we learn to apply the word of God to our daily lives. If we sin there are conscequences to sin, even though God may forgive us, and so this is the fire that we will have to face for our sins, and if we are going to make any resistution, it will have to be here on this earth before we die. There is no purgatory.

Quote

1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

Christ is our example and suffered in the flesh, and this scripture also states that we as Christians will also suffer in the flesh as we learn to obey him in this world. When our body dies, we are no longer in the flesh.

Love in Christ,
Marty

August 29, 2009 at 1:57 am#142904

Participant

Quote (942767 @ Aug. 29 2009,13:16)

Hi CA:

I listened to the teaching on purgatory, and again all I see is total confusion.

There is not purgatory. The teacher refers to the following scripture:

Quote

Hbr 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Hbr 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Hbr 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Quote

1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

Love in Christ,
Marty

Marty! Good posts but don't be to disappointed that He does not agree with you. He is a Catholic. If God does not call Him out of that Church, you can talk to Him until you blue in the face. I know, I tried with our Son who goes to a Baptist Church and beliefs n the trinity.
Peace and Love Irene

August 29, 2009 at 2:16 am#142908

Participant

Hi CA:

Regarding the Eucharist, I will just give you the following scripture, and you will see that when Jesus talks about eating his flesh, he is talking about obeying the Word of God that he was teaching in the flesh and not his literal flesh.

Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Jhn 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Quote

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

He explains to them that he is not talking about eating his flesh literally, he is speaking about obeying what he was teaching while he was in the flesh.

Love in Christ,
Marty

August 29, 2009 at 3:45 am#142913

Participant

Hi 94,
Feeding avidly on his words of spirit and life.

The flesh offers nothing so salvation through the catholic mass is a gross deception.
Joining with others to mock the ways and the words of the Lord God is not good for anyone's well being.

August 31, 2009 at 12:34 am#143210

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 29 2009,15:45)

Hi 94,
Feeding avidly on his words of spirit and life.

The flesh offers nothing so salvation through the catholic mass is a gross deception.
Joining with others to mock the ways and the words of the Lord God is not good for anyone's well being.

Hi Nick:

Let's join in prayer asking God to give them revelation knowledge of the truth so that they might be blessed.

Love in Christ,
Marty

August 31, 2009 at 2:31 am#143225

Participant

Quote (942767 @ Aug. 29 2009,09:55)

Hi CA:

I have listened to the series on the pope and apparently, the Catholic basis the whole issue of his authority based on the revelaton given in the following scriptures:

Quote

Mat 16:13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Mat 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I would also give the following scriptures for your consideration.

Quote

1Cr 10:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Quote

1Cr 3:5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

1Cr 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

1Cr 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

1Cr 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.

1Cr 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Quote

Eph 2:19 ¶ Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];

Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Love in Christ,
Marty

1. If Mary is not your mother, then you are not a disciple of Jesus Christ (See Rev. 12). For she, as the second Eve, is the mother of all the living (those who shall inherit eternal life).

The Apocalypse Of Saint John – Chapter 12

The vision of the woman clothed with the sun and of the great dragon her persecutor.

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

1 “A woman”… The church of God. It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady. The church is clothed with the sun, that is, with Christ: she hath the moon, that is, the changeable things of the world, under her feet: and the twelve stars with which she is crowned, are the twelve apostles: she is in labour and pain, whilst she brings forth her children, and Christ in them, in the midst of afflictions and persecutions.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days. 7 And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: 8 And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is call
ed the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.

11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time. 13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child: 14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. 18 And he stood upon the sand of the sea.

August 31, 2009 at 2:33 am#143226

david

Participant

Quote

If Mary is not your mother, then you are not a disciple of Jesus Christ (See Rev. 12).

Obviously, that is not the “woman” Rev is referring to.

August 31, 2009 at 2:43 am#143230

Participant

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 31 2009,14:31)

942767,Aug. wrote:

Hi CA:

2. Thanks so much for listening. Though it seems you missed the bit about the “key of David”.

Your reference to the word “also” is duly noted. However, I don't see your point. Grammatically “also” has only to do with the fact that this is the second statement Jesus is making to Peter. The first statement was in the form of a question. The second (also) was in the form of the bestowal of an office. Which is clear by the successive “I will give unto thee (singular – to Peter only…go check your Greek) the keys.”

So your conclusions are unwarranted and not in keeping with an honest keeping with the text. THIS IS THE TEXT that forced me, a staunch anti-Catholic, to re-consider the Catholic claim.

Grammatically, historically, linguistically, and logically there is no other meaning that can be attributed to this passage save that Jesus was conferring an office of high honor upon Simon Peter connected with authority that would be backed by heaven. It should go without saying that a high degree of accountability goes with such an office as well.

So there really is no wiggle room here.

I encourage you to really be honest before God and put your dislike of what you have heard about the Catholic faith aside. For this is the necessary conclusion of this passage.

August 31, 2009 at 2:51 am#143231

Participant

For those of you who haven't listened (which I hope you still do), here is what we are referring to here expressed in brief:

Peter the Rock

One of the points I try to emphasize when giving a seminar is that you can begin to be an effective apologist right away; you don’t have to wait until you become a theological whiz. Just work with what you know, even if it’s only one fact.

I illustrate this from my own experience, and you can use this technique the next time you have verses thrown at you by an anti-Catholic.

Some years ago, before I took a real interest in reading the Bible, I tried to avoid missionaries who came to the door. I had been burned too often. Why open the door, or why prolong the conversation (if they caught me outside the house), when I had nothing to say?

Sure, I had a Bible. I used it perhaps the way you use yours today: to catch dust that otherwise would gather on the top shelf of the bookcase. It was one of those “family” Bibles, crammed with beautiful color plates and so heavy that my son didn’t outweigh it until he turned five.

As I said, I had a Bible, but I didn’t turn to it much; so I had little to say about the Bible when missionaries cornered me. I didn’t know to which verses I should refer when explaining the Catholic position.

For a layman, I suppose I was reasonably well informed about my faith—at least I never doubted it or ceased to practice it—but my own reading had not equipped me for verbal duels.

Then, one day, I came across a nugget of information that sent a shock wave through the next missionary who rang the bell and that proved to me that becoming skilled in apologetics isn’t really all that difficult. Here’s what happened.

When I answered the door, the lone missionary introduced himself as a Seventh-Day Adventist. He asked if he could “share” with me some insights from the Bible. I told him to go ahead.

He flipped from one page to another, quoting this verse and that, trying to demonstrate the errors of the Church of Rome and the manifest truth of his own denomination’s position.

Not much to say

Some of the verses I had encountered before. I wasn’t entirely illiterate with respect to the Bible, but many verses were new to me. Whether familiar or not, the verses elicited no response from me, because I didn’t know enough about the Bible to respond effectively.

Finally the missionary got to Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”

“Hold it right there!” I said. “I know that verse. That’s where Jesus appointed Simon the earthly head of the Church. That’s where he appointed him the first pope.” I paused and smiled broadly, knowing what the missionary would say in response.

I knew he usually didn’t get any defense of the Catholic position at all as he went door to door, but sometimes a Catholic would speak up as I had. He had a reply, and I knew what it would be, and I was ready for it.

“I understand your thinking,” he said, “but you Catholics misunderstand this verse because you don’t know any Greek. That’s the trouble with your Church and with your scholars. You people don’t know the language in which the New Testament was written. To understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the English to the Greek.”

“Is that so?” I said, leading him on. I pretended to be ignorant of the trap being laid for me.

“Yes,” he said. “In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble.”

In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

“You Catholics,” the missionary continued, “because you don’t know Greek, imagine that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock. Actually, of course, it was just the opposite. He was contrasting them. On the one side, the rock on which the Church would be built, Jesus himself; on the other, this mere pebble. Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon wasn’t remotely qualified to be it.”

“Case closed,” he thought.

It was the missionary’s turn to pause and smile broadly. He had followed the training he had been given. He had been told that a rare Catholic might have heard of Matthew 16:18 and might argue that it proved the establishment of the papacy. He knew what he was supposed to say to prove otherwise, and he had said it.

“Well,” I replied, beginning to use that nugget of information I had come across, “I agree with you that we must get behind the English to the Greek.” He smiled some more and nodded. “But I’m sure you’ll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic.”

“The what?” he asked.

“The Aramaic,” I said. “As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place.”

“I thought Greek was.”

“No,” I answered. “Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.

“I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.”

I stopped for a moment and looked at the missionary. He seemed a bit uncomfortable, perhaps doubting that I was a Catholic because I seemed to know what I was talking about. I continued.

Aramaic in the New Testament

“We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

“What’s more,” I said, “in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

“And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render
the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”

For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him.

“Wait a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”

“Because he had no choice,” I said. “Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

“You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

“I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.”

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

My turn to pause

I stopped and smiled. The missionary smiled back uncomfortably, but said nothing. We exchanged smiles for about thirty seconds. Then he looked at his watch, noticed how time had flown, and excused himself. I never saw him again.

So what came of this encounter? Two things—one for me, one for him.

I began to develop a sense of confidence. I began to see that I could defend my faith if I engaged in a little homework. The more homework, the better the defense.

I realized that any literate Catholic—including you—could do the same. You don’t have to suspect your faith might be untrue when you can’t come up with an answer to a pointed question.

Once you develop a sense of confidence, you can say to yourself, “I may not know the answer to that, but I know I could find the answer if I hit the books. The answer is there, if only I spend the time to look for it.”

And what about the missionary? Did he go away with anything? I think so. I think he went away with a doubt regarding his understanding (or lack of understanding) of Catholics and the Catholic faith. I hope his doubt has since matured into a sense that maybe, just maybe, Catholics have something to say on behalf of their religion and that he should look more carefully into the Faith he once so confidently opposed.

—Karl Keating

August 31, 2009 at 2:51 am#143232

Participant

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 28 2009,17:18)

Quote (Cindy @ Aug. 28 2009,07:49)

Catholic Apologist! I just talked to my Husband and He told me to go to the Internet and google Tetrtullin. His whole name is Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullian. I don't have to prove it to myself you do!
Irene

Irene,

Our disagreement is not about Tertullian's name. I'm not arguing about his full name. But I'm glad you know it too.

What I took odds with is your claim that Tertullian “invented” the doctrine of the Trinity. As I will show AGAIN here, this is patently false:

The Letter of Barnabas

“And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men” (Letter of Barnabas 5 [A.D. 74] emphasis added).

Hermas

“The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient” (The Shepherd 12 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father]. . . . [T]here is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased him that sent him” (Letter to the Magnesians 6–8 [A.D. 110] emphasis added).

Justin Martyr

“God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness.’ . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62 [A.D. 155]).

Polycarp of Smyrna

“I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 [A.D. 155] emphasis added).

Mathetes

“[The Father] sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world. . . . This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old. . . . This is he who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son” (Letter to Diognetus 11 [A.D. 160] emphasis added).

Irenaeus

“It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]” (Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189] emphasis added).

Tertullian

“While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all . . . through the unity of substance” (Against Praxeas 2:3–4 [A.D. 216]).

“Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe, now, that I say the Father is other [distinct], and the Son is other, and the Spirit is other.
. . . I say this, however, out of necessity, since they contend that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the selfsame person” (ibid. 9:1).

Hippolytus

“Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, supposing that he had obtained [the position] after which he so eagerly pursued, he [Pope Callistus] excommunicated Sabellius, as not entertaining orthodox opinions” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 228]).

Novatian

“[W]ho does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, ‘Let us make man in our image and our likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]? Or when he reads [as having been said] to Christ: ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the heathens for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession’ [Ps. 2:7–8]? Or when also that beloved writer says: ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I shall make your enemies the stool of your feet’ [Ps. 110:1]? Or when, unfolding the prophecies of Isaiah, he finds it written thus: ‘Thus says the Lord to Christ my Lord’? Or when he reads: ‘I came not down from heaven to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me’ [John 6:38]? Or when he finds it written: ‘Because he who sent me is greater than I’ [cf. John 14:24, 28]? Or when he finds it placed side by side with others: ‘Moreover, in your law it is written that the witness of two is true. I bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me’ [cf. John 8:17–18]?” (Treatise on the Trinity 26 [A.D. 235]).

“And I should have enough to do were I to endeavor to gather together all the passages [of the kind in the previous quotation] . . . since the divine Scripture, not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament, everywhere shows him to be born of the Father, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, who always has obeyed and obeys the Father; that he always has power over all things, but as delivered, as granted, as by the Father himself permitted to him. And what can be so evident proof that this is not the Father, but the Son; as that he is set forth as being obedient to God the Father, unless, if he be believed to be the Father, Christ may be said to be subjected to another God the Father?” (ibid.)

Pope Dionysius

“Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the monarchy, the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it, as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. I have heard that some of your catechists and teachers of the divine Word take the lead in this tenet. They are, so to speak, diametrically opposed to the opinion of Sabellius. He, in his b.asphemy, says that the Son is the Father and vice versa” (Letters of Pope Dionysius to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria 1:1 [A.D. 262]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and int
roduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [person]. . . . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons—namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature” (A Sectional Confession of Faith 8 [A.D. 262]).

“But if they say, ‘How can there be three persons, and how but one divinity?’ we shall make this reply: That there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God the Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit; and yet that there is but one divinity, inasmuch as . . . there is one substance in the Trinity” (ibid., 14).

Methodius

“For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one deity in three persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreated, without end, and to which there is no successor. For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Ghost to be what in substance and personality he is. For nothing of the Trinity will suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of sovereignty” (Oration on the Psalms 5 [A.D. 305]).

Athanasius

“[The Trinity] is a Trinity not merely in name or in a figurative manner of speaking; rather, it is a Trinity in truth and in actual existence. Just as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and is God over all. And neither is the Holy Spirit nonexistent but actually exists and has true being. Less than these the Catholic Church does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the Jews of the present time, imitators of Caiaphas, or to the level of Sabellius” (Letters to Serapion 1:28 [A.D. 359]).

“They [the Father and the Son] are one, not as one thing now divided into two, but really constituting only one, nor as one thing twice named, so that the same becomes at one time the Father and at another his own Son. This latter is what Sabellius held, and he was judged a heretic. On the contrary, they are two, because the Father is Father and is not his own Son, and the Son is Son and not his own Father” (Discourses Against the Arians 3:4 [A.D. 360]).

Fulgentius of Ruspe

“See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another; in person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard he [Christ] says, ‘The Father and I, we are one’ [John 10:30]. He teaches us that ‘one’ refers to their nature and ‘we are’ to their persons. In like manner it is said, ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one’ [cf. 1 John 5:7]. Let Sabellius hear ‘we are,’ let him hear ‘three,’ and let him believe that there are three persons” (The Trinity 4:1 [A.D. 513]).

C A

God said to his son, “let us make man…”, the Father and the Son are “us”.

The Father has no advisor, Is. 40:13.

The Son was with the Father before the beginning of time because, it was the Son who created all things, Col. 1:16.

The bible may say “God spoke, or God said”, but it was always the voice of the Son or an angel, John 5:37.

The Son (the Word) was not from everlasting, he had a beginning, Col. 1:15, Rev. 3:14.

If the Holy Spirit is a person, what is his name?

Tertullian did not invent the trinity, but he made it popular through his book, “Adversus Praxean”. The Catholic church admits that with this book, he made his greatest contribution to theology; it made Christianity more popular to the pagans, who were persuaded (forced) to except it.

Excommunication was a very effective way to frighten the ignorant and illiterate populations of the dark and middle ages into submission; even today, it works on some people.

What does begotten mean to you? John 1:14, 3:16, 1John 4:9, Rev. 1:5.

If the Son is God, does he not own everything, so how can he then inherit which is already his?
If the Son is equal to the Father, why then did Jesus say, the Father is greater then I? John 14:28, and this, John 5:19,30.

Have you ever ask yourself, why is the Father called “Father”? and why is the Son called “Son”? Look up the definition in your dictionary.

Mary was chosen by God for a purpose, just as others were chosen for theirs. Jesus said this, John 3:13, and Paul said this, 1 Cor. 15:50.

Georg

August 31, 2009 at 2:53 am#143233

Participant

For those of you who haven't listened (which I hope you still do), here is what we are referring to here expressed in brief:

Peter the Rock

Dialogue of Catholic w/”missionary” at his door”

Finally the missionary got to Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”

“Is that so?” I said, leading him on. I pretended to be ignorant of the trap being laid for me.

“Case closed,” he thought.

“The what?” he asked.

“The Aramaic,” I said. “As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place.”

“I thought Greek was.”

I stopped for a moment and looked at the missionary. He seemed a bit uncomfortable, perhaps doubting that I was a Catholic because I seemed to know what I was talking about. I continued.

Aramaic in the New Testament

“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”

For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him.

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not underm
ining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

My turn to pause

So what came of this encounter? Two things—one for me, one for him.

I began to develop a sense of confidence. I began to see that I could defend my faith if I engaged in a little homework. The more homework, the better the defense.

I realized that any literate Catholic—including you—could do the same. You don’t have to suspect your faith might be untrue when you can’t come up with an answer to a pointed question.

—Karl Keating

August 31, 2009 at 3:01 am#143234

Participant

Hi CA,
So you claim to follow Cephas?
1Cor3

August 31, 2009 at 3:07 am#143235

Participant

Hi CA,
We are not meant to boast in men like Cephas [1Cor3.22] but would he be proud of you for so doing?
Would he not want you to follow Jesus and share his shame outside the walls of the city?

August 31, 2009 at 3:08 am#143236

Participant

Hi CA,
Peter pointed to Jesus as the one who had the words of eternal life.
So why try to hide behind him?

August 31, 2009 at 3:23 am#143237