DeoOmnisGloria.com

I still don't see how you proved Paul saying in Romans 3:23 is not meant to mean that all have sinned. Righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ. You can find that in Rm3:22. Paul simply pointed out that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin. But righteousness come from those who follow the Laws of God. Yes, Paul referred to Psalms 14, yes Psalms 14 distinguishes between evildoers and righteous people. But righteousness does not equal sinless. Paul was pointing out the evil of men. He then asked are we any better....he said no. Righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Now the reason I referred to Romans was to show that God says all have sinned. Check out Romans3:23.
I agree with you when it says that you must have the Law of God written on your heart. No doubt about it. If you say you are a Christian but do not follow Christ and his ways, you are really not serving God. But understand when Protestants say that one is saved by grace through faith and not by works...we mean it as...there is nothing WE can do ourselves to wipe away sin. But through our faith in Christ and the mercy of God we are saved. That doesn't mean not to do your Christian duties in no way at all. We believe no matter what we are all undeserving of God's mercy and grace. But because he loves us so, he gave his only Son, so that we could be reconciled. We are nothing, but because of Christ and our faith in Him all can be reconciled to God. No matter how much good you do, it still is not good enough for God because he is that much Holy, that much worthy, and that much mighty. I'll be the first to say, I am unworthy of His mercy and grace. But because God possesses a love so great, he provided us with Jesus. I accepted the Lord as my Savior and through Him I have been changed. AM I perfect...absolutely not. Have I sinned, yes. Do I participate in community service? Yes...even if I fed the world...it still wouldn't be good enough for God. I am saved because I accepted the Lord as my savior, period. I can do all the good deeds that can be done...but without faith in Christ...I am still not saved. Thats what it means when we say that we are all saved by faith alone and not by works. PLease don't misinterpret it as a belief in not living a righteous life. That's far from the truth.
As for the Didache the origin in nature is still questionable. But 2 things...1...Didache is the teachings of the Lord to the Gentiles by the 12 apostles.# 2 no one is certain who it was written by. It was believed to be written by the apostles...not specifically Peter...but the apostles. As far as protestants and communion here is what we believe. Jn 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life. However if you keep reading on..in 6:58 you will find it says This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna(manna is bread) and died, but he feeds on this bread will live forever. Go onto Jn 6:63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 6:64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.
The Bible says man shall not live off of bread alone but by the Word of God. The Word became flesh. Jesus said he was talking in spirit. Jesus is the Word and that is what keeps us alive. We don't believe that we are actually eating a piece of his ear or leg and drinking his blood. As far as we are concerned Jesus ascended into Heaven in one piece and is still in one piece at the right hand of the Father.
Obviously you will stay with your beliefs and I with mine. I believe the Bible to be the ultimate word of God. I believe everything in it. What I have realized about these discussions is that it is not about who is right. Division among God's children is what the devil wants. I tell you that as long as you focus on Christ and follow his ways...when you pass, you will be in Heaven. We can go back and forth all day and night, what for? Does it glorify the Lord? I don't think so. If I offended any of you my Christian brethren, I humbly apologize. But can we all agree on this...God is good, Christ is our Lord and Savior and threw Him we have our sins forgiven. Amen...well then...Amen:)

God Bless

Marc

Marc,

I agree with you brother, division is of the devil, but look at the roots of division within the Christian context. First when the Greek Orthodox separated themselves and then when the first Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church in the 1500s. All I am saying is this:

1) Catholicism is the ONLY Christian religion that dates back to Christ. I challenge you to prove me wrong on this.

2)All of the beliefs of the Catholic Faith can be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, be it the belief in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist or the Assumption of Mary.

3) None of these beliefs in any way, shape, or form are a direct contradiction to Sacred Scripture. Though some of them may not be found stated clearly, they do not contradict Sacred Scripture.

4) Protestantism is most certainly in a crisis of division. Over the past 40 years, Protestantism has splintered into more and more denominations, each with its own interpretation of the Bible on certain issues, thus the continual breaking apart. Consequently, division of this sort is a clear sign of relativism, each believing that they understand what Scripture is saying. Therefore, Protestantism itself is in direct contradiction to the vision Christ has for His followers in John 17.

5) In reference to the Eucharist, you completely miss the entire context of Sacred Scripture and the meaning of John 6. First, in Exodus what sealed the Passover for the Jews was the sacrificing of the lamb, Jesus, in fulfilling the covenant God made with Israel, is often throughout the Gospels, the epistles, and in Revelation referred to as the Lamb of God. He is sacrificed on the Cross for the remission of our sins. In Exodus, the lamb is sacrificed so that the angel of death might pass over (thus the name Passover) each house. In fulfilling the covenant Jesus is sacrificed that death passes over us. The final act of the Passover, the validifying act, was for the Israelites to eat the Lamb, not lamb cookies or something that just represented the lamb, but the lamb itself. Christ does the same. Why would He allow followers to leave simply over a misunderstanding of what He said in John 6, if all He had said was meant symbolically? Why didn't He turn to His disciples and say "Come on guys you know I was simply speaking symbolically", instead He looks at them and asks, "Will you also go away?" (John 6:67). Why would Jesus in the upper room say when breaking the bread, "Take, eat; this is my body" (Mt 26:26) and then, "he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Mt 26:27-28) Here Christ states clearly that what He is offering them to drink is the same "Blood" that will be poured out on the Cross. Why in the world would Jesus have even used this language if it was merely a symbol? Rhetorically it would make no sense. Also notice that none of the Apostles objected to Him saying this. Why? Because they had been there when He had said "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood you have no life in you" (Jn 6:53). Here I will quote David Currie again, "Jesus taught that in order for us to have eternal life we must "eat his flesh". He repeats this phrase, or its variations, six times. Four of the times, the Greek word used is very graphic; it can be translated "to chew". This word is never used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. There is no hint in the text itself of the faith-versus-action dichotomy that the Evangelical tries to introduce. Belief accompanies obedience in actually eating. Jesus makes it clear that the flesh is literal, as the body on the Cross was literal. This is the only place in the Gospels where disciples of Jesus left him over a doctrinal issue. This is also the first time we hear of Judas doubting the wisdom of his master. There is a Church that accepts Jesus' teaching here as truth, but I knew it was not any of the Evangelical churches" (Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic; pgs. 38-39). If your claim is true then St. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 23-32 would not make any sense: "Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats the bread and drinks the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." This would be a harsh, and unjust statement if the "bread and cup" where but a mere symbol. All of the Early Fathers supported the belief in the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist. So, here I have provided you with the Biblical foundation for the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist. It is supported by the history of Christianity as well. So attempt to interpret it in anyway that fits your "personal beliefs", but take care for the Word is clear on this.

6) This "you stay with your beliefs and I'll stay with mine" comment I believe is a weak excuse for not being willing to face certain issues, namely the unbiblical nature of Sola Scriptura and the consequence of admitting the fallacy of this Protestant belief. The very fact that you accept the Bible, consciously or unconciously, show that you accept the authority of the Church, since it was the Catholic Church that determined which books would be included and which would be left out. Did you not know that there exists a Gospel of Peter, a Gospel of Thomas, and multiple epistles that the Catholic Church decided in the year 393 A.D. should not be included in the Bible? Yet all Protestants claim to place the foundation of their faith in the Bible...I find it sad and disappointing that you would be willing just to turn your back on this.

7) I will pray for you Marc. As a true brother in Christ. You have made many random and ill-founded comments on this site. We have responded accordingly but you have been unable to provide substantial biblical proofs to support your position. You continously grasped at straws in an attempt to avoid the main issue...is Sola Scriptura biblical? The answer is no. As clearly shown in various other posts on this site. My prayer for you is this: That you might find the truth of Christ, in its fullness, and that our Lord Jesus Christ will give you wisdom to know the truth. Keep searching brother and you will eventually find it. Jesus is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, but He came to this earth and established a Church to use as the channel through which He would pour forth His grace. Come home to Rome, come into the fullness of truth.

In Christ,
Joe

The root of this argument is the following Joe.
I believe the Bible to be the measuring stick for scriptual truth. You believe the Bible to be the truth, but you also believe that Christ gave Peter leadership of the church. The Bible does say that the Church is the pillar of truth. So, your belief is that Christ called Peter the rock that the church is built on and that Peter is the first Pope, that Peter or the pope represent the church. So if whatever the papacy declares...it must be true because. And in your mind it is scriptual because if the rock aka church foundation is Peter, the foundation of the church is a pope, and the Church is a pillar of truth...the pope or papacy can only be truthful. Therefore when you ask me where does it say that the Bible is the only source of scriptual truth, you are asking in essence that if Jesus made the pope(Peter)the foundation of the church which is the pillar of truth...how can what the Catholic church says, be wrong? So the root is in understanding if Peter is truly the rock of the church. You once asked me if Jesus wanted us to believe that the Bible is the only source, why would he just say that the Bible is the only source. I pointed out scripture that said do not add to God's word or takeaway from his words...let us understand The Word is Jesus..and so the word is Jesus and his teachings. Now lets discuss the error in Peter being named the rock of the church and how Peter does not equate to the first pope. Lets forget the whole Greek and Hebrew translations for Peter. Namely Kephas and Petros. Because I am sure if I say that in Greek that the scripture translates to Peter=Petros and rock=petras you might say that Jesus didn't speak Greek. Fine...but just how you asked me to show you where it says the Bible is the only source of scriptual truth...I ask you this...forgetting translations...Why did Jesus say Mt16:18 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. The use of the word this indicates a subject change. He could have said "on you Peter" instead of this rock. But then again that is open to interpretation. So then I ask if Peter is the first Pope...he is the example of how Pope's should act.
Peter had a wife(Mt8:14)When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother in law lying in bed with a fever. So why can't pope's marry?
Peter told a man not to bow down to him for he is a man. The pope does not admonish people for bowing down to him. Refer to Acts 10:25...Peter did not want anyone to bow to him because he is just a man with flaws...meaning that he is fallible. According to the vatican...no one questions the pope. He is the believed head of the church and he is infallible. Yet in Galatians 2:11 Peter was rebuked by Paul. Paul told him to his face that Peter was wrong. No one, not even Peter rebuked Paul. No one said "Paul, how dare you...that's Peter, the rock of the church."
The Pope is called Sovereign Pontine which also means Pontine Maximus...the same title given to pagan Caesers of Rome. The Caesers made martyrs out of Christ's apostle.
1 Cor 10:3-5 you will find Christ, not Peter being referred to as the rock. Peter himself calls Christ the Stone and conerstone.
So, Peter was not infallible, he was guilty of doing wrong as Paul justly pointed out...this is after Christ spoke to him. One can conclude 2 things. If Peter is indeed the 1st pope...the popes of the past up to the present do not follow Peter's example. You can say what you will about Japanese culture and bowing down to honor someone...but God said do not bow down before anything but him. Lastly with the facts in the Bible...what Peter said about Christ being the Stone, Pauls rebuke of Peter, and Peter's weakness as a man...Peter is not the rock that the church is built on. THe Rock is the revelation Peter had...that you are the Christ the Son of the living God. Of course there is no stronger foundation the Christ. Christ is the ROCK. The scriptures points this out. So the error is in believing that a man is infallible...that the church is built on a man. So...scripture was written and then 1400 years later a catechism. Which was justified by many because it is believed that the church was built on a man who represented the first pope. But it is not...it is built on Christ. So if Christ didn't teach it, it is not so. Catechisms written by man...so was scriptures written by man. The difference...Paul, Peter, James, Matthew,John, Luke and Mark...they stuck to the teachings of Christ and did not invent new dogma. Catechisms does not stick to Christ's teachings. If God says do not bow down or make any image in the likeness of heaven and bow to them, He means what he says. You can bring up the Ark of the Covenant..but you know what...that was instructed by God to build and it was for his GLory. Later Solomon built a temple for GOd...also for his GLory. Instructed by God. God said do not place an image on his face, yet there are statues of Christ with a face. Yet it is done. A statue of lincoln was made...but no one bows to it. If people did there would be a problem. And yes people may look at athletes as idols...and that may be wrong. So society doesn't have it right all the time. And yes I have pictures of deceased family memebers, but I don't bow down or talk to them...I just remember good times with them. Catholic means universal in greek...and you know what...I want to see a true Catholic church. The sooner we get closer to God. So yes...I am saying it again, God has said to follow His Word...not to add or take away from it. That instruction went to Paul, Mark, John, James, Luke and also...Peter. The scriptuures reveal the truth. The Bible is the measuring stick...if anything says otherwise...it is not of God. There you have it...the Bible is the only scriptual truth you will need.
To God, be the GLory in the loving name of his Son Jesus.
Amen

Marc

Marc,

Again, your arguments are full of misconceptions and errrors.

1) Entrusting guardianship and leadership of the Church to Peter in no way contradicts the fact that Jesus is the cornerstone. If Jesus did not mean for Peter to be the rock that is referenced in Mt 16:18 why make the name change at all? And to answer all of your theories about the use of the Greek word Petros and petras, any Greek scholars out there can testify to the fact that within the context of that sentence the use of the word, once in the masculine sense and then once in the feminine sense, is grammatically correct, thus explaining why both were used. But you are correct...Jesus would have just used the word Kephas : )

2)You state above that the Pope = the Church. This is false. We all make up the Body of Christ, the teaching authority of the Church is the Magisterium, the Pope and the bishops in union with the Pope. Oddly enough...again...it was the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible in 393 A.D. A fact I have yet to see disputed anywhere on this blog. So you are willing to trust the guidance of the Catholic Church in what Gospels are divinely-inspired but that is where your trust stops. You do know that there exists a Gospel of Peter and a Gospel of Thomas both were left out of the Bible due to the Church's inability to prove authorship and, to a certain extent, theological inconsistencies.

3) You attempt to show that Matthew 16 is not a good verse for Catholics to use in proving the authority that Christ gave to Peter, due to the confusion over the use of the word "rock" and "this", yet you fail to follow Jesus' train of thought in "THIS" passage.
"I (Jesus) will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what ever you (Peter) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19).
Later Jesus would confer a similar power on all of the Apostles, yet it would retain to the forgiving of sin (John 20:23).
So how does this verse contradict anything that Catholics believe in reference to Peter and his successors?

4) Celibacy for the kingdom is biblically based, therefore I find your questioning of it a bit surprising. You are correct that Peter was married but the Church, in listening to the words of Christ and St. Paul, in Sacred Scripture, decided that it would be better for a man not to marry who wished to commit his entire life to spreading the Gospel:

"The disciples said to him, 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is expedient to marry.' But he said to them, 'Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it" (Matthew 19:10-12).

Then St. Paul wrote:
"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (1 Corinthians 7:32-34).

Based on these two passages from the Bible, I don't think you have any ground for your attack against priestly celibacy. On a side note, there is no reference to Peter's wife being alive at the time of Peter's accepting Christ's call to discipleship, many scholars believe that she more than likely had dead before hand. Please note that in Matthew 8, after being healed, the mother-in-law rises and prepares food for Jesus and the apostles. This would have been the normal duty of the wife during that time period, if she were living.

5) Acts 10:25 - This verse does not support your argument.
"When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshipped him" (Act 10:25)
I think you missed the word "worhipped". Clearly no pope would allow a "man" to fall down before him and begin "worshipping" him. Again, it is a contextual thing, bowing out of respect and bowing to worship are two entirely different things. And furthermore, as I have stated earlier, nowhere do it state that Catholics are to "bow" to the Pope. I have been to Rome multiple times and have never seen anyone drop to their knees before the Pope, some kiss his hand but out of love and respect...not worship, which was the main reason for Peter's correcting of Cornelius.

6) I find it comical how now "it's okay for some images to be carved because God ordered it". By insisting on your meaning of His commandment in Exodus and then stating that it is okay if God commands it you make God contradict His own law, which He would never do. Just face it...Protestants misinterpret this passage from Exodus.

We do all of this out of love for you, our separated brethren. It is all done in the love of Christ and for the sake of truth.

In Christ,
Joe

"I find it comical how now "it's okay for some images to be carved because God ordered it". By insisting on your meaning of His commandment in Exodus and then stating that it is okay if God commands it you make God contradict His own law, which He would never do. Just face it...Protestants misinterpret this passage from Exodus." The Ark was God's throne, which God himself instructed to be made. God gave these instructions...that you can't deny. But he also said do not make any thing in the likeness of heaven or any idols and do not place an image on his face. The Ark was his throne on earth. And once a year only the high priest could go to the Ark when God's glory was present. No one worshipped the Ark, they couldn't even go near it. They would just know that God was present when the cloud came. What I don't understand is your questioning of God. God gave instrustions in detail to Moses. Yes the ark had cherubims on it...but God specifically asked for it...and you know why? Because it was for HIS glory. It was his throne. If that is what he felt was worthy of him, who are we to question. But if he says do not make anything in the likeness of heaven, idols, or not to place an image on his face...guess what? You better respect the Lord and obey. Unless he said otherwise...unless he said make a picture of my face...don't do it. You are confusing 2 different issues...so here it is in laymen's terms. Ark construction= instruction by God, Kneeling before pictures, statues and pictures of Jesus=Disobeying God. A non Christian reading the passages could understand that.
"I think you missed the word "worhipped". Clearly no pope would allow a "man" to fall down before him and begin "worshipping" him. Again, it is a contextual thing, bowing out of respect and bowing to worship are two entirely different things. And furthermore, as I have stated earlier, nowhere do it state that Catholics are to "bow" to the Pope. I have been to Rome multiple times and have never seen anyone drop to their knees before the Pope, some kiss his hand but out of love and respect...not worship, which was the main reason for Peter's correcting of Cornelius."
I love my mother and I love my father on earth...I do not bow, kneel or kiss their hand. ANYONE who does that to someone who they don't know is doing excessive idolizing. I can tell you that I have seen some pastors at my church being treated excessively nice...and the pastors are quick to rebuke and have them focus back on Jesus instead of them. Just like Peter himself did.
"2)You state above that the Pope = the Church. This is false. We all make up the Body of Christ, the teaching authority of the Church is the Magisterium, the Pope and the bishops in union with the Pope. Oddly enough...again...it was the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible in 393 A.D. A fact I have yet to see disputed anywhere on this blog. So you are willing to trust the guidance of the Catholic Church in what Gospels are divinely-inspired but that is where your trust stops. You do know that there exists a Gospel of Peter and a Gospel of Thomas both were left out of the Bible due to the Church's inability to prove authorship and, to a certain extent, theological inconsistencies."
The word catholic means universal. The original catholic church followed the letter of God's law. Then individuals corrupted it. Adding onto the very book that was already put together. You bring the Didache and try to make it an equvialent of catechisms but this is far from true. The Didache was found with other scriptures,just like the apocrypha and torah and other scriptures were found. It was not made after the Bible itself had been put together. Adding instructions and practices, beliefs and new ways to worship that are not found in the very book that they put together. God says now images...images that represent what is in heaven are made anyway. God says do not bow down before anything but him...yet somehow it is ok to bow down before things other than God...then have the audacity in God's face to say that "it is not worshipping its paying respect and honor." Don't you know what worship means? He it is in Merriam Websters book...4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem. God and only God deserves all the honor and glory, not some, not shared..all. Unfortunately I hear a lot of my catholic brethren focus too much on Mary and saints. I have spoken to many a catholics who when they find out I am protestant that tell me I need to ask the "blessed virgin Mary for forgiveness" The focus is off of God and Jesus...and that is not how God wants it.

You still have yet to explain Peter's fallacy, and why was he rebuked by Paul? Peter still made mistakes after Christ renamed Him Peter. Would God want to make a foundation based on a weak man? Obviously not. This can go back and forth all day...but the bottom line...God is in control.
You can see how He is moving among the nations.

Check this site out for yourself
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031208/misc/8evangelicals.htm

Be blessed in the name of Jesus
Marc

Grammatical errors and sorry for the double post...I don't know how that happened-

-The original catholic church followed the letter of God's law. Then individuals corrupted it. Adding onto the very book that was already put together. You bring the Didache and try to make it an equvialent of catechisms but this is far from true. The Didache was found with other scriptures,just like the apocrypha and torah and other scriptures that were found. It was not made after the Bible itself had been put together. The church added instructions,practices, beliefs and new ways to worship that are not found in the very book that THEY put together. God says no images yet images that represent what is in heaven are made anyway. God says do not bow down before anything but him...yet somehow it is ok to bow down before things other than God...then have the audacity in God's face to say that "it is not worshipping its paying respect and honor." Don't you know what worship means? He it is in Merriam Websters book...4 : EXTRAVAGANT RESPECT or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem.-

Marc,

So God commands the Israelites not to carve any graven images representing anything in heaven or on the earth, then He commands them to do just that because it pretains to the ark or the temple? How is this not a direct contradiction? I'm certain all "non-Christians" and Christians alike would agree that this is inconsistent and confusing. But that is why the Protestant interpretation is inaccurate. What God is condemning is the worship of graven images...period. It is all tied to worship.

2) Kissing someone's hand is extremely different from falling at someone's feet and worshipping them. Haven't you ever kissed a girlfriend or your wife's hand? Do you worship her by doing this? No, of course not. It is a sign of affection, devotion, and appreciation, but all of these things are far from worship. I don't see how you can attempt to say that Acts 10:25 is saying anything than what it actually says. The reason Peter rebukes Cornelius is because he fell to Peter's feet and began to worship him. It is the worshipping that Peter rebukes, and rightfully so.

3) You have not provided one proof that the early Church was not Catholic (Catholic meaning universal, but in this context also meaning holding to the truths that are taught by the Catholic Church today). Throughout this blog we have quoted multiple Early Church Fathers who are obviously Catholic (in mind and spirit), even some asking how you can know that your faith is secure if you fail to be united to the seat of Peter. So where is the proof...still waiting.

4) In reference to Paul's rebuke of Peter, please note that Paul does not rebuke any teaching of Peter but rather an action. The Catholic Church believes that infallability applies to all that the Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. The pope could chose not to shake the hand of the President of the United States, that does not mean that the Church now teaches that no Catholic has to shake the President's hand. A bishop (which Paul was) could even tell the pope that he should have shaken the President's hand. This does not change the fact that Christ said to Peter "I give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt 16:19). The Early Fathers support the papacy, as does Sacred Scripture. Read the article again. The primacy of Peter is clearly evident in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles.

In Christ,
Joe

I have a question. What is church tradition based on?

Also...When Jesus called Peter, Rock...you take it that the Church was built on Peter. According to you, Jesus called Him Rock. And on this foundation he would build his church. But a few passages later...what does Jesus call Peter?
Satan...am I wrong? Mt16:23 Jesus turned and said TO Peter, "Get thee behind me, SATAN"
Does that mean Peter is also the ROCk and Satan at the same time? If Peter is the Rock on which the church is built on...is the church built on Satan.
Answer me these two questions...and I will get back to you.
Be blessed

Marc

My goodness Marc, you are desperate. The pope can make mistakes and he actually sins (he is just a man). It's not "according to you, Jesus called him 'Rock'," it's according to the Bible.

Peter was attempting to save Jesus' life, because he didn't fully understand the nature of the crucifixion at that time. Does that mean Peter is satan?? I'm pretty sure you understand the passage a little better than that.

Church tradition is based on the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Holy Spirit. The Church was founded by Christ with St. Peter to lead it. The pope is just a man, Christ's representative on earth, but Christ is the real head of the Church. This is why we (and the Bible) can trust the Church implicity, God leads the Church and "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The pope is only infallible in certain situations, but not in ordinary conversation.

Now, why don't you answer some of Joseph's questions - you seem to keep overlooking them.

Jay

Just how you are saying that Peter wasn't Satan, is the same way I tell you that Jesus didn't build the church on Peter. Nor did the conversation imply anything for a papacy. It's funny how you say of course Jesus called Peter the foundation of the church because it fits your views..then you say that later on in the the same scripture...Jesus didn't really call Peter Satan again...to fit your views...but thats not the point I want to discuss.
Jay and Joe....do you know what the word tradition means. I know you guys do. But here is the Merriam Webster's dictionary definition
1 : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4 : characteristic manner, method, or style

Remember that definition. Now back to what you said JAy...the pope is fallible. Human thought is fallible. It is because of this fault that you cannot put all your trust in it. The doctrine of Jesus should not be based on human wisdom. Instead, base it on what God Himself has to say about it. Forget man's tradition...focus on God's tradition. The two are not equivalent. 1Cor 2:5 "And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power..." Verse 5: "...that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
1Th2:13 And we also thank God contiually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word men, but as it actually is...the Word of God.
The point of these 2 passgaes is to show that you can find a repetition of separating words of God, from words of men.
Jeremiah 23:16, the prophet says, "Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they teach you vanity; they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jehovah."
The point here is simple...men may get somethings right...but to place your faith and everything you believe that is not from the mouth of God is not a sure bet.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human TRADITION, and basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
The message from God is "focus on my tradition and not any other"
God, as we both know, said do not add to his Words. Do not add to his thoughts. If it is not in God's tradition...don't do it.
Now you believe in the tradition of the RCC. THe New Testament talks about tradition. The RCC tradition and the tradition in the Bible are not the same.
Lets look at some tradition in the NT, shall we...
Hebrews 1:1 In the PAST God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom HE APPOINTED HEIR OF ALL THINGS, and through whom he made the universe.
We all know that Jesus is the greatest expression of God for mankind. How does Jesus communicate with us today? You believe that Jesus left over the keys to Peter "the first pope" and that whatever comes out of the current pope's mouth is accepted as being inspired by God and it starts all the way back to Peter? Yes...Peter was an apostle...yes the apostles knew CHrist...yes the Apostles were CHrists spokesman and most of all they spread what JESUS taught them. THey were spreading the gospel. Jesus wanted the apostles to spread HIS WORD....not theirs...not Peter's...but HIS WORD.
Jesus is talking to his apostles and says in Jn14:24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not MY OWN(they were handed down from God); they belong to the Father who sent me. All this I have spoken while still with you. But the counselor(comforter), the Holy SPirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things...and will REMIND you of EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID TO YOU"
Jesus wanted HIS word spread...not anything else...and the SPirit...was a reminder to the apostles.
Galatians 1:11-12, "For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ."
Another theme showing that it is not man...but God and God alone.
So now we go back to the revelation that Peter had...that Christ was the son of the living God. Peter was confessing that Christ was the living God and as the living God, CHrist's words were life. This confession of Peter is the Rock that the church is built on. The apostles also confessed this and so on this Rock the church was built and so the Apostles went to spread this word. Thus the foundation of the church...spreading who God is.Yes it the church is built on Prophets and Apostles...but not because of who they are, but because of what they recognized and what was revealed to them. It was God himself. God is the truth. What God says is true. So it went from God...to Jesus...and Jesus gave the truth to his apostles...who then would spread it to the world. The Apostles then gave the truth to the church. The truth being the teachings of the Master...Jesus himself. You know what all this passing down means? It is tradition. To pass down that which is most entrusted.
2 Tim1:11...Paul...one of the apostles, one of the spokesman for Christ...says What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.
Keep a SOUND PATTERN. Hold true to tradition that was taught by Christ.
II Th 3:6"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us.
If it wasn't what taught by Christ...walk away from it.
2Th 2:15 So then brethren, stand firm and to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
TEACHINGS are passed on...the teachings of Christ. The Word of God....and it can be passed orally or in paper. It is the same teachings no matter what. It is the truth from God, given to Christ, given to the Apostles....given to the church. It is the same message. Just if I said to you...God said Honor your mom and dad. That's oral tradition...but it is all written. What I said was true, it was from God and you can see it in the written form. All the same message. Notice the message didn't change going from God to Jesus to the Apostles to the church. Still the same message was taught and passed down.
Jesus appointed the apostles his spokesmen....God appointed his prophets. Never did another prophet choose another prophet to take his place. That is not in God's pattern. My point is that there is no part in the Bible, no teaching of God and no teaching of Christ that supports a pope figure. The authority of the apostles was given to them by Christ. They had the truth...and they wrote down the truth. The APostles are dead...so right now we have their writings. Which are the words of God taught to them by the Lord Jesus Christ.
You probably are asking...."who determines who has apostolic authority?"
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an APOSTLE-sent NOT FROM MEN NOR BY MAN, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead, and all the brothers with me.
Jesus HIMSELF gives apostolic authority.
1 Cor4:6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying,"DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN"

You will say...Marc..the Bible wasn't even made at that time. But Scripture was written. Jesus often said...it is written...the apostles would do the same. The way the Bible was put together was simple. When the Bible was being assembled...a PATTERN was picked up. a PATTERN OF SOUND WORDS was recognized. A pattern of themes. Tradition of God was consistent throughout the scripture. Christ would refer back to the Old Testament...Christ taught his apostles...and they would in turn repeat what Christ was teaching. The commonality of the tradition of God was recognizable to the early church when assembling the Bible.
DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN- Sola Scriptura
You have told me that the RCC believes in tradition. Taught by who? The church...or the apostles. If you accept tradition that stems back to the apostles...why do you accept catechisms....catechisms WERE NOT TAUGHT by GOD, CHRIST, or by the APOSTLES. Throughout Christ's teachings...never did he teach to ask Mary to pray for your sins. Never did the APOSTLES talk about Mary. So how does the RCC extrapolate the assumption of Mary from the Apostolic teachings.
Purgatory was not taught by the Apostles, neither was the rosary, papacy or holy water. Did God mention any of those things? Did Christ? Did the Apostles? Does the Bible mention it? The pattern here is a resounding no. It was not part of God's word it was not his truth...the same truth that was passed down from God to Christ to the Apostles to the church. None of those items even fit the SOUND PATTERN of GOD's WORD.
Even the Apostles themselves were measured up against the WRITTEN WORD of God. I said it once and I said it before. The instructions you need in life and more so the instructions on how the church is to be is in the WRITTEN WORD of God. The source of the sola scriptura is from God. Do not add or takeaway from his teachings and do not go beyond the WRITTEN WORD. The Apostles never added new items to the word of God. Anything they ever taught came out of the mouth of Christ himself. It doesn't mean do not go to church. Do not submit to your pastors. But just like the Apostles were tested by the written word, so are the churches today. That includes Catholics and Protestants. The ultimate authority in scriptual, spiritual and Godly truth is the Bible. After all they are His Words to begin with.

Be blessed,

Marc

Marc,

You keep dodging of issues, so try bulletpointing biblical explanations to the following or stop attempting to be so divisive with your lenghty, confusing comments. None of which ever really focus on the real issue at hand...Sola Scriptura.

1) Where in the Bible does it clearly state that the Bible is the sole source of authority? Now I will give you two verses, as I gave to Simon clearly stating the opposite of what you keep insisting. The entire basis of your argument pends on this, for if the Bible does not say that it is the sole source of authority but that tradition, handed down generation to generation, must be held to as well, then my brother you have no foundation, and your argument is false.

- 1 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." This is clear....word of mouth and letter...not JUST WHAT IS WRITTEN! Many biblical scholars believe that the phrase in 1 Corinthians 4:6 "not to go beyond what is written" refers to a proverb with which the Corinthians were familar, meaning that one should stay on safe ground. Regardless, it would make sense in the context of Scripture as a whole, for many books of the Bible hadn't even been written when St. Paul wrote this (approximately 57 A.D.), with absolute certainty we know that at least the second letter of Paul's to the Corinthians wasn't written. So here we find St. Paul adding to the "WRITTEN" word. Interestingly enough we find nothing in that epistle stating "You need to include this letter as well".

You also mentioned several times above that Jesus and the Apostles constantly say "for it is written" and you are correct, but like I have stated before...they only refer to the Old Testament, that to this day the Jewish people haven't combined into one book. No my friend you are truly mistaken and continually taking Scripture out of context. So explain St. Paul's clear and concise command to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (1 Thes 2:15).

- 1 Timothy 2:15 "...if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth." You claim that the Bible is the only source of truth...St. Paul says the Church is the "pillar and bulwark of truth." Please note the contradiction. You have yet to address or even remotely explain this verse.

2) You continually want to go after Peter, as being insignificant and not the rock that Christ chose to estabish His Church on. Please note that it is Christ's Church and that He is the "cornerstone", but that He chose to built His Church on Peter. Why in the world would Jesus Christ, the Son of God have given such "authority" to a "man" as to be able to "bind and loose" things in both heaven and on earth (Matt 16:19)? You have yet to explain this, and frankly until you do, nothing you post in reference Peter's primacy counts for much. The Catholic teaching is clear on this and supported by Sacred Scripture.

3) In reference to Jesus calling Peter Satan, what Jesus was rebuking was the spirit of Satan speaking through Peter at that particular moment. Please note that Jesus directs His comment directly to Satan. If He meant this to apply to Peter, why on earth would Jesus later say, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32)? Your argument makes no sense. Note that not only does Jesus single Peter out as the one Satan demands, but he also commands him to strengthen his brethren after he fails. Jesus knows that Peter will fail but he still chooses Peter to "strengthen his brethren"...and Jesus isn't speaking about Peter's brothers and sisters specifically, though some Protestants might assume that He is : ). Again, you are twisting Scripture to fit your own beliefs. The Acts of the Apostles testify to the primacy of St. Peter, the Early Church Fathers do likewise. Read the post above again, I have adequately supported the Catholic side of this argument.

In regards to your posting, I want you to bulletpoint answers to each of these comments, I have listed three here so try to keep it to three. Stop jumping all over the place and answer the questions.

In Christ,
Joe

Once again Joe....we are talking about tradition. You must have overlooked the definition of tradition so I will repeat again. Tradition is based on a pattern. i.e. Turkey is eaten on Thanksgivng day. If all of a sudden, someone ate hamburgers on Thanksgiving...that wouldn't be tradition.
Ok, follow along....2Th2:15 Does say the following...but let me break it down for you.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and to the traditions we passed on to you...EITHER by word of mouth..OR by letter" The tradition, known as the teachings of God, is being given in two ways. Either by mouth or in writing. The word EITHER in this sentence indicates that it is one thing being given in 2 forms. Example...You can pay EITHER cash or credit. It is still money...but in 2 forms. The sentence did not say "hold to tradition given to you by letter AND word of mouth." It said EITHER and OR. This way or that way, but still it is the same thing. It is God's tradition that is being handed down.
What is God's tradition Joe and Jay? For example God wrote down the commandments. Jesus taught about obeying the commandments. Tradition of God...in 2 forms. There is nothing confusing about this.
I have a question...was Jesus teaching the truth? Of course he was. Was this the same truth handed down to Him from GOd? Of course it was. Is GOd's truth also GOd's tradition...of course it is. Jesus gave this truth to his spokesman, his attorney's of will...his Apostles. They then spread the same thing to the people. They deposited what they were taught into the church. With the very instructions to hold on to that truth, that tradition. So yes the truth was entrusted, handed down, to the church. So yes the church is a pillar of truth, but it is still God's teachings. But the Word of God is there as the measuring stick. The church is to hold tradition. Not add or change. How do we know...THE BIBLE says so. Tradition! Oral or written...it is still the same teachings of God. It is still the same word of God...it is still Jesus. So if God didn't teach it to Jesus...and Jesus didn't teach it to the Apostles...and the Apostles didn't teach it to the church...but then the church teaches it...guess what...that is not tradition. That is heresy. Show me where the apostles taught about Mary, purgatory and asking saints to pray. Show me where they taught it. You won't be able to, because it is non existent. God's traditions are his teachings. His truth, his Word...that became flesh in the form of Christ(the LIVING WORD). A tradition that was held by all the Apostles..including Peter. Why does the Catholic church have traditions that God didn't not teach?
Whose tradition do you follow? God's...or man?

God bless
Marc

First, I'd like to point out two things:

1) The primacy of Peter in the New Testament was not addressed in this reply. I asked for an explanation of Matthew 16:19 - "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The whole point of this article was to discuss the primacy of place that Peter held within the Apostles. We have amply provided biblical and historical proofs for the Catholic position.

2) I think we may have a breakthrough:

Jesus gave this truth to his spokesman, his attorney's of will...his Apostles. They then spread the same thing to the people. They deposited what they were taught into the church. With the very instructions to hold on to that truth, that tradition. So yes the truth was entrusted, handed down, to the church. So yes the church is a pillar of truth, but it is still God's teachings. But the Word of God is there as the measuring stick. The church is to hold tradition. - Marc

Thank you Marc for finally admitting that Jesus and the Apostles established the Church to use as a means for handing down "the truth" through the ages. In your defense you still hold to the fact that all "truth" is what Jesus has taught us and I say Amen brother. Catholics believe that too. But, we believe that Christ's guidance in truth didn't stop 2000 years ago. Jesus did not teach us all things...He even said so:

"These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." - John 14:25

This same Holy Spirit was also promised by Christ to remain with us always but the Church remains the measuring stick. Even Jesus indicates as much when He said:

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" - Matthew 18:17

Understand the biblical context of this verse...Jesus is speaking to the disciples only, instructing them. Immediately after this statement Jesus makes another powerful statement, one that He had made to St. Peter two chapters (Matt 16:19) earlier:

"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" - Matt 18:18

Keep in mind the Church uses Sacred Scripture and Tradition to determine and define what God has taught us...please note, as I have stated before, the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, though nowhere clearly defined in the Bible, is eventually defined by the Church, remaining faithful to the "Truth" passed down from one generation to the next. There are many such beliefs that have been articulated by the Church down through the ages.

Again, I wish to point out that just because the Bible does ntoot clearly point something out, doesn't mean that it is not biblical. It is only not biblical if it is directly contradicted by the Bible, a good example is Sola Scriptura, but we are all in agreement on that now. All praise to the Holy Spirit for helping us on that topic. Asking saints or Mary to pray for us is not contradictory to the Bible. I have yet to see one verse that says we can't ask others to pray for us, even if they have gone before us.

I will be posting today two articles today. One of the meaning of Apostolic Tradition as defined by the Catholic Church and the Bible. A second of the rational problems with Sola Scriptura, not that this is needed since we are all in agreement that this Protestant doctrine is not biblically based.

We are getting there, slowly but surely. There is a famous saying, "All Roads Lead To Rome", this is true within the context of faith as well. All sincere efforts to know the "Truth" inevitably lead to the Roman Catholic Church. You are close my brother. I thank God for you and continue to pray for you, that the Holy Spirit will lead you into the fullness of truth.

In Christ,
Joe

Did not Christ give the same keys to the rest of the Apostles? It was not solely to Peter.
Was Peter not challenged by Paul? Yes he was.
I am glad you quoted Jn14:25...I quoted it also... and it says that spirit will bring to your REMEMBRANCE ALL THAT I HAVE TAUGHT YOU.
Once again...not adding new things...not taking away...but the things that Christ taught them. This scripture goes hand in hand with God's theme of "do not add or take away" from His word.
Apostolic tradition is what was taught by Christ. The Apostles taught everything that was taught by Christ. The trinity was clearly taught by Christ...although the word trinity was not used. You still heard Christ mention Him, our Father and the holy spirit. So while the word trinity was not used...the concept was taught. But the concept of Mary...not taught by Jesus or his Apostles....the concept of purgatory, not taught by Jesus or his Apostles.
Stand FIRM to the teachings we have PASSED on to you, EITHER by word of mouth or by letter. Thats what Paul said. in 2Th2:15.
While Peter was a great man...he was not designated as the only one with the keys to heaven. Second, he is not the only Apostle the church is built on. Eph2:19-20 says that God's household is built on the FOUNDATION of apostles and prophets, Christ as the cornerstone. Foundation is the teachings that what given to them by God. They both knew God.
So, Peter was not the only one with the keys to heaven, he wasn't the only one who the Bible says the church is built on, he was challenged by Paul...and Paul was not rebuked. This shows that he had no authority over anyone. Despite all the scriptures you still believe in the primacy of Peter. So even through your beliefs in Peter as the pope. Peter, never, ever taught about Mary, purgatory, asking saints to pray...none of that. Peter stayed true to tradition. He stayed true to Apostolic tradition. Show me where Peter taught anything that was not taught to him by Christ? You can't, because Peter also followed the instructions, not to add or takeaway. The holy spirit teaches and guided the Apostle...but it was there to REMIND them of what Christ taught them. In addition the SPirit is of GOd, the spirit is of Christ. God gave the truth to Christ...Christ gave it to the apostles....this is the tradition. Why would the spirit breakaway from the tradition? It wouldn't...the spirit was there to remind them of everything Christ taught them. Not to add or subtract.
So given the discussion...show me where Peter or any apostle taught about the Assumption of Mary, purgatory and praying to the dead? You won't find it because it is not in the Bible. Show me where Peter or any apostle teaches about Mary, purgatory or anything else other than what Christ taught them. They were guided by the spirit the whole time while spreading the gospel...and the teachings never changed. TRADITION was held by the apostles. Show me where they broke away from tradition and taught something else that Christ didn't teach them.

God bless
Marc

Marc

Marc,

Again you appear to miss the obvious...

1) Matthew 16:19 - "I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" Jesus said this to Peter exclusively. Yes, he gave the other Apostles a share in the ability to bind and loose in heaven and on earth, but the keys are given exclusively to Peter.

2) I already addressed St. Paul's challenge to St. Peter. It was for an action not a teaching that St. Paul challenges. St. Paul never, througout the entire New Testament challenges St. Peter on matters of the faith or morals.

3) Let me show you some examples of things the Apostles taught that we never find Jesus teaching:

- Acts 4:34-37 "There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet."
Here we find two things that Jesus never commanded his Apostles to do: 1) Collecting all the proceeds from the selling of the early Christains property and then distributing it, and 2) Renaming Christians, a common practice of the early Church, but never commanded by Jesus. Please note that the giving to the Apostles all the proceeds from the selling of property was taken very serious, for Peter (interestingly enough) condemns Ananias and Sapphira for selling their property and holding some of the money back, both die instantly. Wow! That an unbelievable occurance considering that they didn't break a direct command of Jesus' rather a teaching of the Apostles. Why would Peter condemn two early Christians to death if they didn't break a direct teaching of Jesus Christ? It was due to the fact that they had disobeyed the teaching of Church, as is affirmed in verse 11 - "And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things" Acts 5:11.

By the way...does your Church insist on its members selling all that they have and letting the pastor distribute it according to each person's needs? It's in the Bible and apparently a very important and serious thing that all Christians were expected to do...so I was just curious since your church does everything according to the Bible : )

- Acts 6:1-6 These verses cover the choosing of the seven deacons, to handle the temporal needs of the Church. "And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, 'It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables'" (Acts 6:2).
Jesus never taught this... In fact He told the Apostles that the following would be the criteria for entering into heaven:
"..for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink..." (Mt 25:35). Yes, I know that Jesus commanded them to preach the word of God, but we cannot ignore the fact that He also commanded them to feed the hungry. So why did the Apostles decide to do otherwise? Because they had been given the authority to do so, its called "apostolic authority".

- Acts 15 This chapter depicts the events and discussions at the Council of Jerusalem. Here the Apostles decide that circumcision is no longer necessary for Christians. Jesus never said this...in fact he said He had come to fulfill the law and the prophets not abolish them (Matthew 5:17). Circumcision was the covenantal sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, so why did the Apostles do this? Because they had been given the authority to bind and loose. Please note that "after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them..."(Acts 15:7) He uses his authority to state what will be believed and done, then "all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles" (Acts 15:12). So after Peter speaks the discussion is over. Peter had the final say in deciding what the Church would believe on this matter.

Marc, you wanted proof of the Apostles doing things Jesus didn't command...there you go.
But note that all of these points support what I had said earlier...what is most important is that a teaching of the Church not contradict Sacred Scripture. It does not have to be perfectly spelt out, just not contradicted.

In reference to the Holy Trinity, please show me where in the Bible it says "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Divine Persons that share the same Divine Nature, yet the Son differs in that He has both a Divine Nature and a Human Nature." Good luck, I agree the there are various verses that support the individual divinity of each member of the Trinity, but a conclusive teaching on the unity of the Three doesn't occur. In fact, in John 17 one could conclude that the exclusive unity of the God only includes the Father and the Son. Read that chapter again, Jesus strictly emphasizes the unity of the Father and the Son, He never mentions the Holy Spirit. Yet all Christians believe in the Triune God.

My points here clearly refute your statement:

Once again...not adding new things...not taking away...but the things that Christ taught them. This scripture goes hand in hand with God's theme of "do not add or take away" from His word.
Apostolic tradition is what was taught by Christ. The Apostles taught everything that was taught by Christ.

Next...

In Christ,
Joe

Your first point: What are keys and what are they used for? Keys unlock doors, there by giving one access into an area. Keys give access to a place. So what are the keys to heaven? The key to have access to heaven is by the saving message of Jesus Christ. Peter as did the other apostles, recognized who Christ was. Christ is the Son of the Living GOd. Our Savior. If we believe his message, we access to the kingdom. This was not excluded from the other Apostles. The key to heaven is faith in Jesus. Ask it in his name....it will be done in heaven and it will be done on earth. Not only does Mk 18 reaffirms these keys to be given to other apostles...let us look to Isaiah 22:20-23.
Know that this is a prophecy concerning Christ.
"And the "key" of the house of David I will lay upon his shoulder; He shall open and no one shall shut, He shall shut and no one shall open." Isaiah 22:22.
Lk 11:52 "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the KEY to knowledge(knowing God)you yourself has not entered and you yourself have hindered those who were entering"
The Pharisee were trying to prevent the word Of Jesus from being spread. They were taking away the key...and they were not entering. Entering to where? The key is in Jesus...the key is faith in Him. I have these keys, you have them and all who accept and recognize who Christ is...has the keys as well.

Lets look at Acts 4:27-37 and 5:1-11
Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people[5] of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus."
31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was SHAKEN. And they were all FILLED with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

The Believers Share Their Possessions

32All the believers were ONE in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

This offering was not instruction verbally given by the APOSTLES. The place was shaken with the Holy SPirit. The spirit moved the believers to drop their possesions. It was then redistributed to those with need.
1. The Spirit moved and the believers were obedient
2. This redistribution is called sharing. Definitely a teaching of Christ.
3. Mt 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

ACTS 5
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

The couple you here were dishonest with the Lord. Peter, yes Peter discerned this and rebuked them for holding out on God. They were lukewarm. So yes, they gave up the ghost. It is consistent with God's pattern. Do not tempt the Lord your God. They tested the Lord, and they got burned badly. You can find plenty of scripture which backs this up.
Look at Gn 4:4...Abel gave his best to God. Cain didn't. So who had the favor? Abel of course. Same pattern, same tradition. God wants you to give Him your very best. Peter didn't kill them or commanded that they be killed. The fear of the Lord overwhelmed them. But case and point...it is a scriptual teaching. Same God same pattern. GOd as always hated hypocrisy. He did then...and still does today.
As far as Acts 6:1-6, the Apostles made sure that the people were fed. Did they not? Of course they did.
For the trinity...just look at Mt28:18-20.
Gen1:2...the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Is God holy? Yes he is...and so is his spirit.
Col1:15 He is the image of God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created.
The point...The spirit of God spoke and the world was made. Through Christ all things are made. The conclusion...they are the same.
We also know that GOd is a jealous GOd...and wants all the attention to himself. HE would never support the idea of there being more than one GOd. Yet this is supported by Paul..an Apostle of Christ. 2Cor13:14 May the grace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and love God and the fellowship of the Spirit be with you all.
The concept of a trinity is there. I could point out more scripture that shows this concept, email if you really would like me too.

As for circumcision...Peter never changed the law. He simply was saying it is not circumcision that saves you,it is faith. So instead of talking about circumcision...we should be talking about following his commandments. This teaching is also in scripture. Circumcision has value if you observe the law. God is after circumcised hearts. This is another theme consistent throughout scripture.
All the scripture you have pointed out...IS supported by other scripture. It remained consistent throughout. God didn't change, Jesus didn't...and his Apostles taught no differently.
At my church, we do take offerings. We took offerings and we were able to feed 1000 families a full Thanksgiving meal throughout LI. So yes..we practice the belief of sharing to the needy and giving to the stranger. If you can give it to GOd...that is what you do. We have tithes at our Church...where we are to give God the first portions...before tax!:)
Now with this said...we probably could go back and forth forever. I'll say this...what we are doing only brings division between the body. But my heart still rejoices...one day we will both meet in Heaven. I praise God because throughout our differences...I believe you guys truly do love Christ...I never felt otherwise. I just love discussing scripture and talking about the Lord. Maybe next time we can just talk about how good the Lord has been to us. So on this note...I die from my flesh...and just let God.
May you be blessed so abundantly that you won't have room to receive. In Jesus name I pray.
Amen

Marc

Marc,
Your points:

1) Jesus tells us what the keys do they bind and loosen not only on earth, but also in heaven. They are only given to Peter, so you're saying that only Peter (you don't believe in successors) can "have faith in Jesus." This is a silly argument. You can spend paragraphs and paragraphs trying to get around the meaning of Jesus, or you can just believe what He said. It's as simple as "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior."

2) So you are agreeing that the Holy Spirit can lead the bishops (the apostles) to define teachings and "move" people to do certain things? That means you've completely abandoned sola scriptura and are more than halfway to the Catholic Church, which is the vehicle the Holy Spirit uses to enact these changes.

3) Don't you find it interesting that in the Old Testament God showed up to "kill" people, but in the New, Peter can simply command it? Maybe this has something to do with the "Keys to the Kingdom" we keep discussing?

4) The point is that Peter, that's right Peter, is defining doctrine. He's deciding on what should be done and people are doing what he says. In the morning I'm going to post a list of Bible verses that clearly show Peter as the head of the Church in the New Testament. I'll be waiting for your response.

Finally, an observation: if you don't tithe this week in church, can your pastor call down the Holy Spirit to take your life? No, because this was a different situation. Peter was exercising his power. We're praying for you as well - and we're asking Mary and all the Saints to help!

God bless,
Jay

1. The keys are faith. We all have them. If you bind it on Earth it will be bound in Heaven. Loose it on Earth it will be loosed in HEaven. This is done via the faith in who Christ is.
2. The Apostles prayed that they speak the Word with boldness...they became filled with the Holy Ghost. The beleivers heard what was coming out the mouth of the Apostles. God was operating through the Apostles.
Mt 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
The 12 Apostles and 100+ believers where gathered at the meeting in the name of Jesus. Jesus was there with all of them...via his Spirit. That is why they were able to get in one mind and one accord. All there were moved by the spirit and thus under the instructions of the spirit. The Apostles just kept on preaching the Word of Christ. They did not tell anyone to bring an offering. It was the Spirit, God himself that gave those instructions. Look at offerings and obedience throughout scripture. It was not anything that God had not done before. Look at Cain and look at Abel.
3. Peter did not command anyone to be killed. He rebuked Ananias and Sapphira. Conviction by the Spirit caused the couple to give up the ghost. So when I am in church, I have in the past held on to an extra dollar...and have felt badly about it....knowing I could have given more. But no, my pastor never would command that I die. Conviction of the Spirit. Peter did tell them to die....or asked the holy spirit to kill them.
4. The last point of my last post...Paul says the following
Rom22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."[2]
25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[3] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

The Apostles believed that one should follow the laws of God. Circumcision was first done with Abraham as a covenant of the flesh between man and God. It served as a marker for those who followed GOd. So to be circumcised was to be a follower of Jehovah. But Peter and Paul as taught by CHrist both are saying...what good is it to be circumcised if you don't follow God?
So instead of making a big deal about circumcision, we should focus on men following the laws of God. If one man is circumcised and breaks the law...and another is uncircumcised yet follows God's ways...who is doing right? The uncircumcised. Circumcision has value if you follow the law.

So this discussion although interesting is not building up the body of Christ. The church is the believers in Christ. Protestants and Catholics make up the body. I sense that it has become personal for you. So I will just let it be for this argument...but any other topic that glorifies God...I will gladly talk about with you.
Be blessed
Marc

Marc,

Please don't turn away now. We have made such progress even if you believe that "what we are doing only brings division between the body." You have admitted much in acknowledging that the Bible doesn't teach or support Sola Scriptura. Your Protestant brother, Simon arrived at the same conclusion:

I will answer your long awaited question on Sola Scriptura. There is no place in the bible that specifically states that Sola Scriptura is to be accepted as a doctrine. Are you satisfied now? However, I will also point out that nowhere does the bible speak of the church or any man (apart from Jesus Christ) as being the custodian of truth either. - 12/04/2003 Simon commenting under the “A Letter From a Convert” article

We responded, again, by quoting Sacred Scripture:

“…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” – 1 Timothy 3:15

In reference to your comment:

As for circumcision...Peter never changed the law. He simply was saying it is not circumcision that saves you,it is faith. So instead of talking about circumcision...we should be talking about following his commandments. This teaching is also in scripture. Circumcision has value if you observe the law. God is after circumcised hearts. This is another theme consistent throughout scripture.

I want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly here, so if I don’t please tell me. But it appears that you are saying two things:
1) Peter isn’t changing the law here – if that were true why is circumcision not a necessity for Christians today? For Scripture is clear that circumcision is the sign of God’s covenant in the Old Testament.
…or…
2) That the “physical” act of circumcision was not what God considered to be important.

“And God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you….So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (Genesis 17:9-14).

This was reiterated in Leviticus by God when dictating to Moses the Law:

“And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” (Leviticus 12:3)

Keep in mind Jesus had clearly stated:

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).

In perfectly clear language God in the Old Testament states that the “physical act of circumcision” is necessary…first to Abraham and then to Moses. I hardly see how you can say that God was ONLY worried about circumcision of the heart, though I do agree that this was necessary as well. God the Father clearly point to the circumcision of the “flesh of the foreskin”. Your argument is weak here.

On another note, where in the Bible does it say that the “keys” are prayer? I’ve yet to find this… Maybe you can tell me. I do find the keys in Isaiah 22:15-23 where it states:

“Thus says the Lord God of hosts, ‘Come go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household…In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” – Isaiah 22:15-23

Please note that God refers to both Shebna and Eliakim as “stewards”. This is important. Protestants try to say that this verse is a foreshadowing of Christ, but it really isn’t for Eliakim the son of Hilkiah is not found in the genealogy of Jesus Christ at the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel. So Hilkiah wasn’t a king of the Israelites, rather a steward. The comparison fits Matthew 16:18-19. Peter is the steward of the house of David (or we could say Jesus, David's heir), a father to the inhabitants of the spiritual Jerusalem, the Church. In Isaiah 22, the action is directed to a singular individual, Eliakim. In Matthew’s Gospel the “keys” are given to Peter. We, Catholics, await the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but until He comes again we will stand with His “steward”, the one whom Jesus gave “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”.

I agree with Jay…you are halfway there…persevere.

In Christ,
Joe

I would just like to add something about celibacy, which you mentioned earlier and somehow tried to explain how "good" it is for the Catholic Church. If I may, I would like to prove you wrong about this. If I want to spread the Gospel and want to join the Catholic church I am not allowed to marry a woman. But, where in the Bible can you find it is BAD for me to marry? Look closely in the Bible and you will find a verse that says it is false to force someone not to marry! Do you know when the Church decided about celibacy? I think it was in the 10th century and the reason was clear: so that the church has more money and the property does not split between the family! Many marriages were split because of this "devil's" decision. Look at your church today: pedofile priests, how great your celibacy works! I am not judging anybody, I know even protestants may sin like this. Anyway, my point is that the church should not forbid anybody to marry if he wants to get married.

Ray

Hi Ray,

Welcome to our blog!

I really don't know what part of my comment you missed in reference to priestly celibacy but let me recap:

Celibacy for the kingdom is biblically based, therefore I find your questioning of it a bit surprising. You are correct that Peter was married but the Church, in listening to the words of Christ and St. Paul, in Sacred Scripture, decided that it would be better for a man not to marry who wished to commit his entire life to spreading the Gospel:

"The disciples said to him, 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is expedient to marry.' But he said to them, 'Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it" (Matthew 19:10-12).

Then St. Paul wrote:
"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (1 Corinthians 7:32-34).

Based on these two passages from the Bible, I don't think you have any ground for your attack against priestly celibacy. On a side note, there is no reference to Peter's wife being alive at the time of Peter's accepting Christ's call to discipleship, many scholars believe that she more than likely had dead before hand. Please note that in Matthew 8, after being healed, the mother-in-law rises and prepares food for Jesus and the apostles. This would have been the normal duty of the wife during that time period, if she were living.

I nowhere in this comment say that marriage is bad, simply that celibacy is supported biblically. Celibacy does work, as it has for centuries. Many of the Early Church Fathers practiced celibacy including St. Augustine (354-395 A.D.), St. Jerome(347-419 A.D.), and St. Gregory the Great (540-590 A.D.) just to name a few. They not only practiced it, they preached about it as if it was a common understanding. I'd be happy to provide multiple references within the writings of the Early Church Fathers to support this. So your comment about this being imposed in the tenth century is likewise inaccurate.

The Church has never said that marriage is bad...in fact it has clearly stated just the opposite. Matrimony is one of the seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church. That means that it was instituted by Christ as a channel for receiving His Grace. Yet Holy Orders (ordained priesthood) is also a Sacrament. And to imply that the celibacy of the priesthood is impossible is to say that God's sacramental grace is limited in what it can accomplish in man. Jesus clearly taught otherwise, for "with God all things are possible".

I'd be careful labeling a call to celibacy by Christ (Matthew 19:10-12) a "devil's decision". Celibacy has been around a lot longer than Protestantism, which make one question why Protestants don't find this passage of the Gospel a bit more disturbing, since Christ is the One suggesting it. Why aren't more Protestant pastors celibate?

Also, what is the basis of this statement:

"If I want to spread the Gospel and want to join the Catholic church I am not allowed to marry a woman."

We are all called to spread the Gospel. It doesn't require being a priest.

Priestly celibacy is supported historically, theologically, and, most importantly biblically.

In Christ,
Joe

I will try to respond to your comments later. The only thing I want to ask you now is: If it is not BAD to be married, could I, if I were a Catholic priest be married? The answer is probably no. So the answer to your question: Why aren't more protestant pastors celibate, is by this question. Why isn't there one Catholic priest married? Are they ALL so perfect that they don't need a woman? The answer can be find in many cases lately published in the news about pedofile priests. Another thing about protestant pastors is that they are free to choose. I know a lot of them here is Slovakia, (67% Catholic country 8% Lutheran), that chose not to marry. But, a Catholic priest is not allowed to marry. If you say that Christ established celibacy than you most certainly know that he did not forbid anyone to marry.

For some further thoughts: 1 Tim, chapter 4 verses 1-3. You may have heard this before.
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron. FORBIDDING TO MARRY and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Don't try to get me wrong by saying that Christ allows anyone to marry, just that if I choose to become a priest I have to decide for celibacy. I say that as a priest I could, according to the Bible, have a choice to get married. If not, then somebody (The Church in this case) is forbidding its priests to get married. The verses above apply to this situation.

One more thing: Thank you for your thoughts, you help me reach a better understanding of the confrontation that stems from studying Bible and listening to all possible explanations. I hope you don't feel bad about what I write. I pray so that I understand God's word and I already see his help.

In Christ,
Ray

Ray,
We're glad you are posting.

Pay close attention to Joe's earlier scriptures - they are directed at the bishops/priests that Jesus chose. They clearly teach that only some "have made themselves enuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." This is what Catholic priests are called to do. If a man cannot accept celibacy for God, then he should not be a priest, but rather a lay person who does marry.

You keep using the word "pedophile," but the statistics are clear: there are far less pedophile priests than pedophile married men. Do you assume that allowing priests to marry would cure pedophilia? This is a mistake, since pedophilia is a completely different type of psycological problem (this type of person would not be attracted to adult women, if you follow).

Your verse in 1 Timothy isn't referring to priests, but rather to members of the Church. You should also read 1 Tim 3:15 where Paul calls the Catholic Church (the only Church at that time) the "pillar and bulwark of Truth."

I go back to Joe's question: The Bible clearly instructs priests/pastors to not marry and choose a life of celibacy. You say "Are they ALL so perfect they don't need a woman?" The answer is clear: they have God and they subvert the lusts of the body in order to better serve Him. To turn this around, are ALL protestant pastors so bad that none can follow Jesus' instructions?

Just as an FYI, some Catholic priests are married. Typically this occurs when they convert from another religion (such as Anglicanism) and already have a wife.

You're taking one verse and attempting to use it to say that the Church is incorrect. But you're having to ignore all of the other verses (two are above) that say just the opposite. Who is interpreting this correctly? I would say the Catholic Church (the pillar of Truth) is.

God bless,
Jay

Ray,

Allow me to quote exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about priestly celibacy in both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite.

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:12). Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor 7:32), they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.

Two things I'd like to point out here.
1) In some cases the Church does allow married men to become priests, as in the case of the Eastern Churches (there is also the case with Anglican priests that Jay discussed), .

2) The real issue in discerning this matter is the subject of the article we are commenting under...The primacy of Peter and papal authority. If we accept the fact that Jesus Christ gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 16:19) to Peter and to his successors, then celibacy really isn't an issue for they have the ability to bind or loose things on earth and in heaven. So if the Magestrium of the Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, decided that celibacy should be a requirement for the life of a priest, then so be it. We know that it is the will of God, because Christ is the one who gave the Church the authority to decide such matters.

By the way, have you spoken to many priests about celibacy. Most of the priests that I have spoken to (and there have been a lot for I was a religious brother for a short time, then worked at another monastery, and then also studied as a seminarian for a time) don't have a problem with celibacy, most are thankful for it and consider it as an important aspect of their ministry, believing that they are doing it for the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 19:12).

Above you quoted St. Paul (1 Timothy 4:3). I'd like to counter what you are implying with another of St. Paul's letters.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9

Then in that same chapter he points out the following:

Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him and in which God has called him. 1 Corinthians 7:17

So St. Paul, again, is encouraging celibacy for those who are called to such a life...as he is, I might add. So we find St. Paul, a bishop, living a celibate life and encouraging others to do so as well.

Ray I think you should prayerfully consider all of these things. Celibacy isn't a bad thing and Jay's comments above are clear of the statistics in reference to pedophilia.

Thanks again for participating. I'm glad we are having an opportunity to discuss celibacy.

In Christ,
Joe

From a woman's point of view, I would not want a husband who is a priest. I feel a husband's duty is to his wife and children first and how could he adequately guide and minister to an entire parish with his interests so divided? Either his immediate family or his pastoral family would suffer.

Jay and Joe,

God certainly must be at work in both your lives; this is evidenced by the saintly patience you both display. Pray for me that I might have that same patience some day.

Pax et Bonum

Dear Joe, Jay and Maria

I have to say that for me it looks like a controversy that the "keys" given to Peter can actually ordain celibacy. Jesus also says in the Bible that no one can take out or add a single letter to his Word. By Peter's keys, however, Pope can possibly change anything the Bible says!

But, I want to say that celibacy is a great thing and I admire all Catholic priests who live TRUE celibacy. Let me explain what I mean. A man who chooses to stay unmarried and understands what it means (just as it is mentioned in the Bible) to stay single is God's child and a true priest! Such priest can be also found as you say among the Eastern churches and also in protestant churches. There are men who understand what Paul says in the Bible.

I just cannot agree that a married priest is worse than the one keeping celibacy, or that he is not able to take care of the Church and his family at the same time. In 1Timothy 3, 2-4 you can read: " A church leader must be without fault; he must have only one wife, be sober, self-controlled..." and in verse 4 "he must be ale to manage his own family well and make his children obey him with all respect." (Peter was also probalby married) If you look at these verses you know that this is God's word. I believe that if a man wants to become a priest he should be able to choose if he wants to keep celibacy or if he is so strong in faith that he will be able to manage family and Church together. (Again, if he is not strong in faith, he can get lost as it is written in the following text in 1st Timothy 3.) But a normal Catholic priest does not have this choice. As you have mentioned, there are exceptions, but they are only exceptions. It is not the free will of any priest to decide if he can manage his family along with the Church. Don't understand me wrong, I believe in celibacy and I know it is better to stay that way.
I just think there is some error in the system if you look at things happening in the society. Here in Slovakia, there is even a club of women who were abused by Catholic priests. Almost every week in the news I read about such cases. These priests probably did not understand God's Word and did not take seriously what they have promissed before God.

In my last letter I wrote about 1 Tim 4, and I don't think that it refers to "members of the Church" as you say. "some people" is not specified and a priest is also a member of the Church. We are all body of Christ. I believe the verses say just what they say: 1Tim 4,3 "Such people teach that it is wrong to marry and to eat certain foods." At least I think it is worth to think about it, for the priest who cannot keep their promises and for those who don't allow them to marry.

In Christ,
Ray

I have been bought up a Catholic my whole life. I do have Protestant friends, whom I care about dearly. They have been nothing but good friends to me. When we discuss the Bible and our differences we do so in a peaceful manner. 2 of my Catholic brethren have converted. They were welcomed with open arms. Never did my friends bash Catholicism. Rather I asked what was the difference between us. Then we went to the Bible. I love the Catholic church but lately, my spirit just feels that my friends and others like those who post here, may have it right. I have been reading the Bible and the more I do, posts like those of brother Marc and others make more sense. All I want to do is serve God the way he wants me to. Can anyone give me advice?

Jason

Jason,

Welcome to our blog! First allow me to say that by being Catholic you will never experience a greater capacity to know Jesus Christ. He is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Most Blessed Sacrament, the Eucharist (John 6:47-58). If you are experiencing doubts I would only ask you to go make one holy hour a week before the Blessed Sacrament at your local parish. Ask Jesus to show you His will for your life. He will, trust me.

Second, as we have posted multiple times on this blog, keep in mind your history as a Catholic. The Bible itself was given to us by the Catholic Church in 392 A.D. So how is it that Protestants attempt to use this against the very Church that compiled Sacred Scripture?

Third, what challenges are your Protestant friends presenting to you that you find difficult? Keep in mind that Jay, another blogger on this site, was born and raise Southern Baptist and has experienced what your friends have experienced in reverse. He came to the Catholic Church because he sincerely believed that Jesus Christ had founded it (Matthew 16:15-20). There are several good articles about this under the Protestantism category.

We are glad that you found us and would love to help you in any way we can. More importantly, we will be praying for you and your friends that Jesus Christ might show you His Will for your life. If you have any questions let us know.

In Christ,
Joe

Well one challenge is the papacy of Peter. The points they make are the same as in the posts made here on this site. I read the discussion between you and Marc. You quote Isaiah 22. You said that the keys was analogous to the keys given to Peter. But when I was instructed to read the rest of that chapter, I found that the "steward" had offsprings. He also fell from where God planted him. So two things are pointed out, if this is a prophecy of Peter, did Peter fall? Did Peter have kids after being given the keys? Lastly the keys were given to someone other than Peter. I was taught that the keys were only given to Peter. THese points that were shown to me have made me think. I will pray more about it.
Thanks.

Jason

Jason,

Allow me to first address the "falling" comment. Jesus gave explicit authority to Peter in Matthew 16 that He never at any point later attempts to retract. In fact, Jesus reiterates the mandate of Peter's leadership, even though J