Friday, February 17, 2012

DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GIVE US THE BIBLE?

You will hear it often when Catholics and Protestants are discussing their faith. The Protestant quotes a Scripture verse and points to the fact that the Bible is the final authority on faith and morals. But the Catholic will often say something like, “But without the Catholic Church’s Tradition, you Protestants would not have a Bible. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, therefore you should submit to our Church.” Quite a statement… but is this really true?


Some Questions

Before answering him, we should start off by asking the Catholic a couple of important questions. First, we should ask, “What do you mean by saying the Catholic Church ‘gave us the Bible’?” Is he suggesting that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible? If so, this certainly cannot be the case, since the Old Testament was written long before the Catholic Church existed. Neither can they claim to have written the New Testament, since that was written by the apostles and their close associates. And the apostles knew nothing of those teachings which are uniquely Catholic.

What Catholics generally mean when they say that their Church gave us the Bible is that the Catholic Church, through certain councils, was responsible for revealing to us the “canon” of the Bible, i.e., which books are inspired by God and actually belong in the Bible.

If this is indeed what they mean, then we need to ask him our second question: “When did this happen?” And they will usually say that the canon was finally settled at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), and it was later restated / reaffirmed at the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.).

This sounds really nice, but there are a number of problems with their claims.


Local, Not Ecumenical

Point #1 - The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were local or “provincial” councils (synods), and they could not “finally settle” the canon or any other issue that affected all the churches. They were not “ecumenical” councils, because their rulings were not binding on the whole church. The reason that this is a problem is because Catholics often stress the idea that we really “need” infallible certainty on the canon. But according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the canon of Scripture was not “infallibly” declared until the Council of Trent did so in 1546:

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill, Copyright 1967, Volume 3, “Canon, Biblical”, p. 29)

Likewise, the online “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”) says:

“The Tridentine
decrees [i.e., from the Council of Trent] from which the above list [of books] is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”

So, according to this, the church existed for over 1500 years without an infallibly-pronounced canon. Why is this, if “infallible certainty” is so important?

For more on infallible certainty and the canon, see our article here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html


Wrong Canon

Point #2 - To make matters worse for Catholics, the canon given by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage does not match the canon which was given by the Council of Trent. This is because the canon of Hippo and Carthage comes from the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek – written sometime between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C.), while the Council of Trent specifically mentions using the canon of the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin translation – written 382-405 A.D.):

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Fourth Session) [Emphasis added]

The problem is that both canons contain a book called 1 Esdras, but the earlier 1 Esdras is different from the one at the Council of Trent. How do we know this? According to a chart in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Septuagint’s 1 Esdras is equivalent to the Vulgate’s 3 Esdras. And it specifically says, “The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967, Volume II, Bible, III, pp. 396-397) [Emphasis added]

So, Trent declared 3 Esdras in the Vulgate [1 Esdras of the Septuagint] to be uncanonical (not belonging in the Bible), and it was therefore removed from the canon. So, if this book was “removed” from the canon by Trent, it must have been there in the first place sometime earlier. And that is because it was there from the earlier councils, i.e., Hippo, Carthage, etc. So, by the Catholic Church’s own admission, the earlier canon was different from Trent’s, because it had an extra book. So the idea that Trent accepted and simply reaffirmed the earlier councils’ canon is wrong.

To confirm this with another Catholic source:

“Except for Jerome’s OT from the Hebrew, all other Lat renderings of the OT and NT were made from the Greek.” (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999, page 1100)

The irony in all this is that according to the quote from Trent above, rather than affirming, this ecumenical council actually condemns with anathema the Councils of Carthage and Hippo because their canon did not match the Vulgate’s.

So, what if the Catholic says, “Ok, so the Catholic church gave us the Bible (i.e., the correct canon) at Trent instead of Carthage and Hippo, so what?” But, taking 1500 years to recognize the canon is not very reassuring, especially for a Church who insists on the need for infallible certainty. It certainly seems that Catholic “Tradition” failed to protect the early canon from error in this case.

There are a number of church historians / scholars and other sources who also point out this difference between the Septuagint’s canon and the canon of the Vulgate. See the details in this very informative article by William Webster:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html


The Apocrypha

Point #3 – The Protestant Bible contains 66 Books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New). The Bible that the Catholic Church claims to have given us contains 7 more Old Testament books than the Protestant Bible (and some additional verses in the books of Daniel and Esther).

These 7 extra books Catholics call the “Deuterocanonical” books. Protestants usually refer to them as the “Apocrypha,” and they do not consider them to be inspired, but Catholics do. But there are some problems with these books that we will deal with only briefly:

1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament.

2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the “inspiration” of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters?

3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures.

4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical.

Even the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the church fathers of the Middle Ages and their attitude toward the Apocrypha:

“Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”)

For much more information on the Apocrypha, see the William Webster link that we mentioned above.

Teachings Not Biblical

Point #4 - If the Catholic Church really did give us the Bible, then why do so many of its teachings either contradict the Scriptures, or cannot be found within its pages (e.g., doctrines like confession to a priest, Mary’s sinless birth and life, Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, the office of pope, praying to saints, etc., etc.)? Interestingly, we find none of these in the Bible they claim to have given us.


Used by God

Point #5 - When it comes to spiritual deception the most dangerous lies are the ones that contain a certain amount of truth mixed in. And that is the case here. The “certain amount of truth mixed in” is that the Catholic Church was used, to some extent, in preserving and copying the Bible. But the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible.” GOD did. It is HIS Word given to His people… the Old Testament given through the Jewish prophets, and the New Testament given through the Apostles and their close associates. The universal church of the New Testament just recognized the inspired Scriptures… it did not create or establish them. It was simply used by God in identifying the canon.

But apparently, some Catholics believe that if God uses someone, then we must submit to them.” But this does not logically or necessarily follow because God can use anybody or anything, good or bad, to accomplish His will. But this only proves that God is sovereign. God has used a whale (Jonah 1:17), a rooster (Matthew 26:74-75), and even a donkey (Numbers 22:22-34) to do His will, but that doesn’t mean that we are to submit to whales, roosters or donkeys, does it?

God can also use evil men to prophesy (John 11:49-52), but are we expected to yield to them? Obviously not. God can even use the devil to accomplish His will (Job 1:6-12; 42:10), but does this mean that we should be obedient to Satan? Again, the point is, just because God has USED a person or group in some way to bring about His will, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we must now submit to them. We should only submit to a person or church whose teachings are biblical.

This same misguided reasoning would also require us to submit to Judaism, the religion of the Jews (including any of its un-Christian traditions), since God used the Jews to write and preserve three-fourths of the Bible which we have today (the Old Testament). After all, it was to the Jews that the oracles of God were first given (Romans 3:2). In light of this, the Jews would have more right to claim to have “given us the Bible” than the Catholic Church has.


So Where Did it Come From?

Many Catholics act as though there was nothing but utter confusion over the canon in the early church and the multitudes were desperate to find someone, an infallible authority, who could “determine” the canon for them. Then the Catholic Church stepped in with their councils and saved the day… or at least that’s what many Catholics would like us to believe. But it was not so.

Ok, so where did we get the Bible from, if it wasn’t from the Catholic Church?

Demanding an answer to questions like “Who gave us the Bible?” is actually misleading. There is no one person or group that is responsible for giving us the Bible. Just as the books of the Old Testament were, little by little, accumulated over the years by God’s people who recognized His Spirit moving in His prophets (and eventually writing it down)… it was the same with the apostles and the New Testament. It was a gradual process with many believers involved over time. And just as the Jews recognized Old Testament Scripture without an infallible authority, it was the same with the early Christians.

Although the councils did help, to a certain extent, to crystallize the canon in the minds of the early Christians, these councils, for the most part, merely affirmed the books that were already widely accepted. They were simply attempting to make it “official.”

Even though there were some doubts concerning a few of the books that would eventually end up in the canon, there was, collectively, a general consensus among Christians on most of the books. Only a few of them were actually disputed.

It is said that virtually the whole New Testament could be reproduced simply from the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers (those who lived before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.). So, the early church was already familiar with the canon of Scripture at this time.

In all fairness, the Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome) did have a role in preserving and copying the Scriptures, as we mentioned earlier. But this doesn’t mean that “the Bible comes from them.”


Conclusion

The implications of all this are sobering and far-reaching. When Catholics say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, they are in effect saying that this Church (along with its “Tradition”) is the final authority, and that we must submit to them. They are implying that the Bible gets its authority from that Church and only they have the authority to properly interpret it. But this is certainly not true. The universal church recognized the inspired writings. However, the Scriptures are not “church-breathed,” but God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Simply recognizing something (the canon) is not the same thing as being responsible for its existence. The Bible no more owes its existence to the Catholic Church than gravity owes its existence to Sir Isaac Newton.

The idea of the Catholic Church giving the Bible to the world is yet another boastful (but empty) claim coming from the Catholic side. One has to wonder… how many of the Catholic Church’s claims need to be exposed as false, before the “lay Catholic” in the pew will see the light? How many exaggerated claims from his leaders must he endure before he breaks free of the Catholic Church’s shackles? Hopefully, very few.

57 comments:

  1. Russell,

    Great article you are a gifted young man. I encourage you to keep writing. I thank God he revealed his Son to you.

    Patricia

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Patricia,

    Thank you for your kind comments. May God also bless you and your ministry.

    In His Name,
    Russell

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Rusell,

    Long time not talk. Here are my thoughts:

    (1) The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and preserved it along with the Old Testament. Since the Apostles were part of (and founding members of) the Catholic Church, then it's accurate to say the CC gave us the Bible.

    (2) The Local/Ecumenical issue isn't much of a problem. The Bible was always seen as something handed down, so whatever canon was received was passed down. Only when Luther's heresy of "I determine what is canonical" did that need to be addressed infallibly. Just as nobody though gay marriage would be a norm in Christendom, nobody dreamed there would come a time when people threw out books according to their own whims.

    A very damning purely historical fact about the early lists of canons is that none of them go by the Protestant canon, and the more weighty lists conform to the Catholic canon.

    Also, a very key detail that you fail to address is that Protestants object to the DC books on principally doctrinal grounds, since they see blatant heresy being taught. This is not the nature of any doubts on the Catholic end. On the Catholic end, the DC books did not contain heresy, even should they have been found to be uninspired.

    As for the 1st Esdras theory, that's very weak and pure conjecture; I've seen no good reason why that theory should ever be used. It's a fact certain books went by different names throughout history, including combining books. So there are 3-4 possible meanings when the name "Esdras" is mentioned, and context usually has to decide what is meant. Comparing lists, to say 1Esdras means one thing in 397 and another in 1550 is pure conjecture.

    (3.1) The DC wasn't accepted by WHICH Jews? That's the more accurate question. You do realize that Jews wrote the Septuagint, and thus the DC books. You're confusing Rabbinical Judaism (i.e. those Jews after 70AD) with ancient Judaism. Big mistake.

    (3.2) It is dangerous to go accusing books of Scripture of historical/geographical errors, since certain similar difficulties exist in the Proto-Canonical OT. The rule is that since an inspired source cannot teach error, it thus cannot contradict itself, and thus the discrepancy is only apparent and due to a misunderstanding or ignorance of the reader. And such an approach is fallaciously sweeping as well, for one or more books allegedly teaching error doesn't logically mean all 7 do.

    (3.3) Name some examples where the DC books teach heretical doctrines. This would be a strong test, but it should also be applied with fairness, not bias.

    (3.4) This argument amounts to nothing since individuals don't settle discrepancies. Further, the ECFs often had nuanced categorizations in which non-canonical did not necessarily *automatically* mean the book taught error or that it was uninspired. Appealing to Jerome is a joke in my book since (a) he included the books after being told to, (b) he said books like Judith were said to be canonical by Nicaea, and (c) his theory was that since there were no Hebrew copies they shouldn't be given equal weight, yet the 'Hebrew test' is (1) somewhat arbitrary, and (2) debunked by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    (4) Catholics would say there are varying degrees of Biblical proof for those doctrines, and that none of them are poisonous to the faith. Further, we deny there is any requirement or teaching that states 'all essential doctrines must be clearly taught in Scripture'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (5) God gave us the Bible but it was indirectly, through men. He did not drop a Bible from Heaven. It is an unbiblical claim to say the Apostolic Christians "just recognized" the right books. Protestants made that and other similar claims up out of thin air.

    You said:
    >>We should only submit to a person or church whose teachings are biblical.>>

    This begs the question to a degree. The real statement should say: we should only submit to books or people that have authority.

    You said:
    >>Many Catholics act as though there was nothing but utter confusion over the canon in the early church and the multitudes were desperate to find someone, an infallible authority, who could “determine” the canon for them.>>

    That's a false painting of history. Scripture was something the Church possessed and read to the congregation within the liturgical season. Due to geography and other such constrains, certain local churches had their own traditions on what was to be read liturgically. The notion of a 'personal bible' is a 20th century invention (and a good one).

    You said:
    >>Although the councils did help, to a certain extent, to crystallize the canon in the minds of the early Christians, these councils, for the most part, merely affirmed the books that were already widely accepted. They were simply attempting to make it “official.”>>

    Agreed, which is a huge blow to the Protestant "decide for myself" theory. This "widely accepted" was not a daily exercise of each Christian just so happening to come to the same conclusions on the canon, but rather "widely accepted" in that this is the canon they received from their predecessors.

    You said:
    >>Even though there were some doubts concerning a few of the books that would eventually end up in the canon, there was, collectively, a general consensus among Christians on most of the books. Only a few of them were actually disputed.>>

    Agreed. And again, this is devastating to Protestant epistemology.

    You said:
    >>It is said that virtually the whole New Testament could be reproduced simply from the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers (those who lived before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.). So, the early church was already familiar with the canon of Scripture at this time.>>

    That's fine. Now you have to explain how Luther got the idea he could tamper with the NT canon at will.

    You said:
    >>In all fairness, the Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome) did have a role in preserving and copying the Scriptures, as we mentioned earlier. But this doesn’t mean that “the Bible comes from them.”>>

    That's a significant concession and is 3/4 of the Catholic case proved. It is ironic that the big bad CC who was out to destroy Christianity and infect it with all kinds of evil teaching somehow was careful to preserve Scripture from corruptions and take care to make accurate hand copies. Think about it: for someone in later centuries to even be able to apply your tests, Scripture had to be available somehow; well, those same folks who played a significant role in preserving and copying are not just to be ignored when it comes to discerning canon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello again Nick,

    (Part 1 of 2)

    Yes, it’s been a while. Thanks for your comments.

    You said:

    “(1) The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and preserved it along with the Old Testament. Since the Apostles were part of (and founding members of) the Catholic Church, then it's accurate to say the CC gave us the Bible.”

    This is a classic case of begging the question (assuming without proof), and is typical of the Catholic Church’s extraordinary (and unverifiable) claims. It is because of comments like this that the article was written. As I pointed out in the article (in point #4), many of the Catholic Church’s teachings either contradict the Bible, or are not found in it. The apostles had no concept of some of these doctrines that this Church teaches today. So, you cannot claim that it was the Catholic Church who “wrote the New Testament,” or that the apostles were the Catholic Church’s "founding members.”

    You said:

    “A very damning purely historical fact about the early lists of canons is that none of them go by the Protestant canon, and the more weighty lists conform to the Catholic canon.”

    Decades before Hippo and Carthage gave their canonical lists, Athanasius (bishop of Alexandria) listed a canon (mentioned in his 39th Festal Letter - 367 A.D.) which was almost exactly like the Protestant canon. So your point is not nearly as damaging to the Protestant side as you make it out to be. What is far more “damning” is the fact that the Catholic Church, by its own admission, had the wrong “weighty” canon for over 1000 years before the “correct” one was “infallibly” declared at Trent.

    You said:

    “As for the 1st Esdras theory, that's very weak and pure conjecture... to say 1Esdras means one thing in 397 and another in 1550 is pure conjecture.”

    Then the New Catholic Encyclopedia must be teaching “pure conjecture,” and your argument is with this Catholic source, not with me. Nick, what makes your view more reliable than the New Catholic Encyclopedia’s (which carries the Catholic stamps of approval – i.e., the “Imprimatur” and the “Nihil Obstat”)? No disrespect intended, but why should any Catholic trust your word over against an official Catholic source?

    You said:

    “(3.1) The DC wasn't accepted by WHICH Jews? That's the more accurate question. You do realize that Jews wrote the Septuagint, and thus the DC books. You're confusing Rabbinical Judaism (i.e. those Jews after 70AD) with ancient Judaism. Big mistake.”

    First of all, you make it sound like the two groups were totally at odds with each other, and I don’t think you can demonstrate that. The inspiration of the deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha) was always in question with the Jews. See the William Webster link provided in the article.

    Second, just because a book is found in the Septuagint, doesn’t automatically mean that it is canonical. Do you believe the Prayer of Manasseh is canonical? The Vulgate’s 3 Esdras, or Maccabees 3 and 4? How about Psalm 151 or the Psalms of Solomon? No, I don’t think you would believe that, yet these books are in some of the Septuagint manuscripts. So, don’t try to say that the deuterocanonicals are equal in inspiration to the protocanonical books just because they are found in the Septuagint.

    ReplyDelete
  6. (Part 2 of 2)

    Concerning the historical / geographical errors of some of the deuterocanonical books, you said:

    “(3.2) It is dangerous to go accusing books of Scripture of historical/geographical errors, since certain similar difficulties exist in the Proto-Canonical OT.”

    Such as?

    “And such an approach is fallaciously sweeping as well, for one or more books allegedly teaching error doesn’t logically mean all 7 do.”

    But even if only ONE was in error, that still destroys the concept of the Catholic Church giving us an infallible canon, doesn’t it?

    You said:

    “(3.3) Name some examples where the DC books teach heretical doctrines. This would be a strong test, but it should also be applied with fairness, not bias.”

    Examples include praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:40-46 - NAB) and atoning for sin by almsgiving (Tobit 3:29; 4:10; 12:9- NAB).

    You said:

    “Appealing to Jerome is a joke in my book since…he included the books after being told to…”

    Jerome included (at least some of) the Apocryphal books in his Vulgate, but this was done grudgingly, reluctantly, and only because of pressure from the pope. But it is well known that Jerome considered the Apocrypha to be in a separate and lesser category than the protocanonicals. And his influence on this issue in the church was quite significant. According to the William Webster article I linked to:

    “The practice of the Church as a whole from the time of Jerome up to the eve of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome that the Apocryphal books were not to be accorded canonical status on a par equal with the inspired Scriptures but were acceptable to be read in the Churches for the purposes of edification.”

    So I don’t see how appealing to Jerome is in any way a “joke.”

    I had mentioned that the church could virtually reproduce the whole New Testament from the writings of the fathers before the Council of Nicea, and you said:

    “That’s fine. Now you have to explain how Luther got the idea he could tamper with the NT canon at will.”

    No, defending Luther’s every move is not my job or my goal, nor should it be anyone else’s. He did some good things and he did some bad things.

    However, if I am obligated to explain Luther’s actions, then you would also need to explain why so many in the church denied the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals. You would need to explain the statement we mentioned from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: “Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their [the Apocrypha’s] canonicity.”

    When I mentioned that the books of the canon were already widely accepted in the fourth century, you said that this was somehow devastating to the Protestant side, as though we all agree with the “decide for myself” theory that you mentioned. We don’t. Of course the canon was “handed down” from others. But it wasn’t the CATHOLIC canon that was handed down by the apostles.

    And admitting that the Catholic Church was involved (at least to some extent) in the preserving and copying of the Bible, is not a “concession” at all. Just remember - as the article pointed out - God can use anyone, or anything, to bring about His will, but one should never let that go to his head.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Russell, you ask:
    DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GIVE US THE BIBLE?

    Yes.

    But the Catholic will often say something like, “But without the Catholic Church’s Tradition, you Protestants would not have a Bible. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, therefore you should submit to our Church.” Quite a statement… but is this really true?

    Yes.

    Some Questions
    Before answering him, we should start off by asking the Catholic a couple of important questions. First, we should ask, “What do you mean by saying the Catholic Church ‘gave us the Bible’?”


    That the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the every book in the New and Old Testament. By "canonized", I mean that it is the Catholic Church which sifted through all the Old and New Testament books which purported to be inspired writings and selected from those the 73 book Bible we have today....Read more

    Sincerely,

    De Maria

    ReplyDelete
  8. De Maria,

    Ok, I will follow your link and respond there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In these discussions, I wish people would stop centering so much on the West when they speak of cannon. The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox have 81 books in their Bible, and the OT and deuterocannonical books were used by the Ethiopic Jews. Even in Jude, the book of Enoch is referenced. Let us be honest; MEN who voted in councils decided which books would be in the Bible. Protestants should not be so quick to accept decisions of those at the Westminster convention of faith that blanketly declared that those apocryphal books were uninspired. In their zeal to separate themselves from the catholic church,I think they went overboard and cut some very useful books.

    Meanwhile the Ethiopians were insulated from the politics in the West so their cannon was not decided by the same people. If you read Enoch and Tobit, I believe you can find inspiration in those books. Tobit elucidates passages in Revelation about the prayers of the saints and how angels can act as our intercessors and bring our prayers before the Lord. This doesn't mean we should worship angels but does add another dimension to how they are used for the glory of God.

    Just a little addition to the discussion;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Of coarse, someone had to make the claim that they had accomplished the tremendous task of supplying the world with the Bible. Is it not strange that the Roman Catholic Church struggles to trace its existence prior to 320 AD and several of its teachings actually contradict the Scriptures? They make idols and bow to them[Exodus 20:4-5], call priests father[Matthew 23:9],forbid marriage of Priests and Bishops and stop people from eating certain kinds of foods on certain days[1 Timothy 4:1-4],pray repetitive prayers[Matthew 6:7-8], and so many other teachings. In all truth, it was God who gave us the Bible , "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My Word shall never pass away."[Mark 13:31] He was the one who promised that we would have the infallible canon of Scripture that we have today. No mention of an infallible apostate organization here! Of coarse, the supposed " true Church of Christ" would have us believe that it gave the world the Bible. What kind of deception that?

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousDecember 26, 2014 at 8:34 AM

    Hi, I'll respond to your claims in separate comments in order that we can examine each in better detail.

    Of coarse, someone had to make the claim that they had accomplished the tremendous task of supplying the world with the Bible. Is it not strange that the Roman Catholic Church struggles to trace its existence prior to 320 AD

    The Catholic Church is described in the New Testament Scriptures.

    First, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church:
    John 21:17
    He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

    I see only a few Churches with such a Pastor. Further, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:

    Matthew 16:17-19 (King James Version)
    17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

    The list of Churches accept this teaching gets smaller.

    Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible:
    Ephesians 3:10
    To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

    The list remains the same, but now, again, I can certainly eliminate all Protestant denominations.

    Matt 16:18, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church.

    Cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous also said,

    and several of its (i.e. Catholic) teachings actually contradict the Scriptures?

    Which? The doctrines which contradict Scripture are Sola Scriptura (2 Thess 2:15) and Sola Fide (James 2:24). But those are Protestant.

    The New Testament was written on the basis of Catholic Doctrine and therefore can't contradict Catholic Teaching.

    They make idols and bow to them[Exodus 20:4-5],

    No we don't. Idols are false gods. We don't bow to false gods. We make images of Saints because we love them andd want to remember them. Its the same as having a picture of someone you love in your wallet.



    Why do you guys always leave out the rest of that verse?

    Matthew 23:7-10New International Version (NIV)

    7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

    8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

    According to your interpretation of that verse, if you call anyone Teacher, Dad or Coach, you have violated Christ's command.

    forbid marriage of Priests and Bishops

    Nope. Its a voluntary election. If a man wants to be a priest, he gives up marriage. The reason being that he wants to dedicate himself to God:

    1 Corinthians 7:32
    I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord.

    and stop people from eating certain kinds of foods on certain days[1 Timothy 4:1-4],

    Not true. 1 Tim is talking about a group that called eating meat, evil. They NEVER ate meat. But, the Catholic Church advises fasting in accordance with the Teaching of Jesus Christ.

    Mark 2:20
    But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

    pray repetitive prayers[Matthew 6:7-8],

    That condemns "vain" repetition. Jesus also repeated prayers.

    Mark 14:39
    And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words.

    and so many other teachings. In all truth, it was God who gave us the Bible , "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My Word shall never pass away."[Mark 13:31] He was the one who promised that we would have the infallible canon of Scripture that we have today. No mention of an infallible apostate organization here! Of coarse, the supposed " true Church of Christ" would have us believe that it gave the world the Bible. What kind of deception that?

    It is proven in Scripture. Jesus did not write the New Testament. He established a Church and commanded that Church to Teach what He commanded. That Church, is the Catholic Church. And the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament based upon the Teaching which Jesus Christ passed down. We call those Teachings, Sacred Tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nice try De Maria,
    (Part 1)

    1. John 21:16
    1.This passage contains no such monopoly conferred upon Peter as decreed by the Vatican. Feeding the sheep is enjoined upon others as well as Peter: a.Paul instructed the elders at Ephesus, "Feed [poimaino] the church of God. ." (Acts 20:28).
    a.Peter exhorts the elders, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder2 . . . feed [poimaino] the flock of God . . . neither as lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." (1 Pet. 5:1-3). Peter considers himself a "fellow elder" R.S.V., not the "Pastor" and "Ruler" of the ecclesia.

    2.The word "feed" (poimaino) relied upon by R.C.'s to establish unique authority for Peter is used by Peter of the elders to whom he writes. (1 Pet. 5:2). Why interpret it in John 21:16 as imparting exclusive sovereignty of jurisdiction and not in the other?

    3."Feed my sheep" gave Peter no superior jurisdiction over the rest of the apostles. It would appear that Jesus in this passage reconfirms Peter after his threefold denial (Matt. 26:33-34) hence Peter's threefold confession in this passage. The interpretation of his role as a "fellow elder" is in keeping with other New Testament references which give him a place of reward alongside the other apostles but not a position of superiority. For example: a.In Matt. 19:27, 28, Peter questions the Lord, "Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?" The Lord's answer contained no hint of any unique place reserved for Peter - nothing beyond what all the disciples were given. "Ye (plural) which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
    b."The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Rev. 21:14). Peter is a foundation-stone alongside the other apostles; he is not considered to be the cornerstone or even the chief foundation stone.

    4.The role of Peter in the early ecclesia is one of prominence but not of monopoly: a.Although Peter proposes that one be appointed to fill the place of Judas (Acts 1:15) he does not attempt to fill the vacant place on his own authority (as do the Popes of the Roman Church in appointing cardinals). The final selection was made by lot (vs. 22-26).
    b.Peter expresses concern in his Epistle for the continuance of the purity of the gospel (2 Pet. 2:1,2) yet he never once exhorts the flock of a "legitimate successor" whom they were to follow when he passed away. (It seems Peter was nearing his death when he wrote this Epistle, see 2 Pet. 1:13- 15).
    c.In Acts 6:2 it was the twelve who called the multitude together and appointed the seven to administer the welfare needs. Peter is not singled out as having a monopolizing voice in what was to be done.
    d.Paul warned the Ephesian elders of heresies and disunity (Acts 20:29, 30), but he omits to tell them to cling to Peter, the supreme "Pastor" and infallible "guide of the whole church militant." RESOURCE: Rested Scriptures.com

    Jesse





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 29, 2014 at 4:05 PM
      Nice try De Maria,
      (Part 1)

      nonymousDecember 29, 2014 at 4:05 PM
      Nice try De Maria,
      (Part 1)

      1. John 21:16
      1.This passage contains no such monopoly conferred upon Peter as decreed by the Vatican.


      I'm not sure in what sense you use the word, "monopoly", here. The Catholic Church does not teach that St. Peter was the only one given authority. Jesus Christ appointed a board of directors, the Apostles. But over this board, He appointed a Chairman. St. Peter. That is the Catholic Teaching.

      Feeding the sheep is enjoined upon others as well as Peter

      But not by Christ.

      a.Paul instructed the elders at Ephesus, "Feed [poimaino] the church of God. ." (Acts 20:28).
      a.Peter exhorts the elders, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder2 . . . feed [poimaino] the flock of God . . . neither as lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." (1 Pet. 5:1-3). Peter considers himself a "fellow elder" R.S.V., not the "Pastor" and "Ruler" of the ecclesia.


      No question. But it doesn't change the fact that it is to St. Peter that Jesus gave the keys of authority over the Church. And it is to St. Peter that Jesus addressed the command to feed His Flock.

      2.The word "feed" (poimaino) relied upon by R.C.'s to establish unique authority for Peter is used by Peter of the elders to whom he writes. (1 Pet. 5:2). Why interpret it in John 21:16 as imparting exclusive sovereignty of jurisdiction and not in the other?

      That actually supports the Catholic Doctrine. Since St. Peter recognizes that he has the authority to admonish the Elders over whom He presides.

      3."Feed my sheep" gave Peter no superior jurisdiction over the rest of the apostles. It would appear that Jesus in this passage reconfirms Peter after his threefold denial (Matt. 26:33-34) hence Peter's threefold confession in this passage.

      Jesus does reconfirm St. Peter as ruler of His flock in this passage. The words are obvious.


      The interpretation of his role as a "fellow elder"

      The term fellow elder does not imply that St. Peter does not have authority over the other elders. Otherwise, he would not be writing to them to instruct them.

      cont'd

      Delete
    2. cont'd

      is in keeping with other New Testament references which give him a place of reward alongside the other apostles but not a position of superiority. For example: a.In Matt. 19:27, 28, Peter questions the Lord, "Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?" The Lord's answer contained no hint of any unique place reserved for Peter - nothing beyond what all the disciples were given. "Ye (plural) which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

      1. Non sequitur

      The reward is based upon how faithfully one accomplishes his duties to God. Not upon a title. Thus Scripture says:

      Luke 12:47
      And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

      And again:

      Matthew 23:12
      And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

      2. And again, in this verse, Jesus is not speaking to St. Peter's office nor duties on earth during his life, but speaking to the reward in the after life for those who, during their earthly existence, have left the things they love to follow Him. This is substantiated by the verse about the 144,000 in Rev 7.


      3. You are reading into these passages any denial of the special authority which He gave to Peter alone. There is nothing in the text which could be interpreted to mean that Jesus Christ did not intend for Peter to have authority over the Church during his earthly life.

      b."The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Rev. 21:14). Peter is a foundation-stone alongside the other apostles; he is not considered to be the cornerstone or even the chief foundation stone.

      Again, this is in heaven, but not upon earth. When St. Peter went to heaven, he passed the keys to his successor. In the end, all authority will be returned to Jesus and Jesus will return everything to the Father. But, in the meantime, we do what Jesus has appointed us to do. And Jesus appointed those who succeed St. Peter in the office of Pope, to be Chief Shepherd's over His flock.

      1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; ....

      4.The role of Peter in the early ecclesia is one of prominence but not of monopoly:

      That is the Catholic Doctrine. He is first among equals.

      a.Although Peter proposes that one be appointed to fill the place of Judas (Acts 1:15) he does not attempt to fill the vacant place on his own authority (as do the Popes of the Roman Church in appointing cardinals). The final selection was made by lot (vs. 22-26).

      On the contrary, when he says that a Bishoprick must be filled, he speaks of all of them. And when he says that he has made provision for the Church, he means that he has already selected his successor.(2 Pet 1:15).

      b.Peter expresses concern in his Epistle for the continuance of the purity of the gospel (2 Pet. 2:1,2) yet he never once exhorts the flock of a "legitimate successor" whom they were to follow when he passed away. (It seems Peter was nearing his death when he wrote this Epistle, see 2 Pet. 1:13- 15).

      You are reading it through Protestant glasses. He is informing the Church, in a veiled statement, that he has already selected his successor. The reason it is veiled is because the Church is being persecuted by Jews and Romans. Therefore, he doesn't reveal his whereabouts nor the identity of his successor in writing.

      cont'd

      Delete
    3. cont'd

      c.In Acts 6:2 it was the twelve who called the multitude together and appointed the seven to administer the welfare needs. Peter is not singled out as having a monopolizing voice in what was to be done.

      Nor does he have to be. But Acts 5 highlights the authority over life and death which God has given the Shepherd of His flock.

      d.Paul warned the Ephesian elders of heresies and disunity (Acts 20:29, 30), but he omits to tell them to cling to Peter, the supreme "Pastor" and infallible "guide of the whole church militant." RESOURCE: Rested Scriptures.com

      There are many things he doesn't say. He doesn't say to live by faith alone, nor to turn to Scripture alone, and he definitely is preaching against any semblance of assurance of salvation. And, more importantly, it is Jesus Christ who has already told St. Peter who shall strengthen the Brethren in times of turmoil (Luke 22:31).

      Delete
  14. (Part 2)






    You Roman Catholics will frequently use the expression, "One fold and one shepherd" to defend the doctrine of the papacy. You guys teach that the "one shepherd" is the Pope and the "one fold" represents the Catholic Church. On the contrary, Jesus said that HE was the good shepherd: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep...I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:11, 14-16). Jesus is that one good shepherd. If one is subject to Christ as the one shepherd--that's one. If one is subject to the Pope as the one Shepherd, there would be two. The Scriptures only record one true shepherd.

    In the Bible,the church is often compared to the human body. The members of the church are represented as the various parts of the body. Christ is always said to be the head. (See 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16). My question is: "What part of the body is the Pope?" Also, I am asking, "How does one get the idea of a sub-head into the body?"

    Jesse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 29, 2014 at 4:18 PM
      (Part 2)

      You Roman Catholics will frequently use the expression, "One fold and one shepherd" to defend the doctrine of the papacy. You guys teach that the "one shepherd" is the Pope and the "one fold" represents the Catholic Church. On the contrary, Jesus said that HE was the good shepherd: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep...I am the good shepherd, ....


      True. But the Good Shepherd, Himself, appointed another Shepherd that wouild oversee His flock after He went up to sit at the right hand of the Father.

      In the Bible,the church is often compared to the human body. The members of the church are represented as the various parts of the body. Christ is always said to be the head. (See 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16). My question is: "What part of the body is the Pope?"

      The Pope is the visible head of the Body. He is the Vicar of Christ, the Shepherd whom Christ appointed to oversee His flock in His absence.

      Also, I am asking, "How does one get the idea of a sub-head into the body?"

      From Matt 16:18-19 and John 21:15-17. Jesus Christ named Simon, "Peter" or "Rock" in order to signify that He was giving Simon his authority. He reinforced this with the symbolism of the keys. And then again, with the symbolism of the Shepherd feeding His flock. Therefore, we call the Pope, the visible head of the Church who represents Christ for us.

      Delete
  15. Matthew 16:17-19
    (Part 3)
    1.The rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter's confession, "thou art the Christ". (Matt. 16:16) The following is the evidence: 1.Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock. Paul explicitly states, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". (1 Cor. 3:11). To take Peter as the foundation flatly contradicts this passage.
    2.The Roman Church emphasizes John 1:42 in stating that Jesus gave the name "Rock" (Petros) to Simon at the very start. But in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church." Two different Greek words are employed with two different connotations: ◾petros (masc.), detached stone
    ◾petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.3

    It is clear that a difference between Peter and the foundation is meant or the word "petros" would simply have been repeated. "Petros", therefore, shows Peter's instability, (e.g., Matt. 16:22-23) while "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ." 4

    2.The power of the keys 5 given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) gave him no unique authority - no authority which the other apostles did not possess as well - Matt. 18:18 (cf. vs. 1); John 20:22,23. a."Keys" - keys to knowledge of the Kingdom (Luke 11:52; cf. Matt. 23:13). The keys were used by Peter in preaching to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2); to the household of Cornelius (Acts 14:27 cf. Acts 10); and to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18).
    b."binding" - e.g., Ananias and Sapphira - Acts 5. Here Peter's condemnation uttered on earth was immediately enforced in heaven.
    c."loosing" - e.g., palsied Aeneas loosed at Lydda. (Acts 9:32-35). Peter said, "Jesus Christ maketh thee whole" verse 34; Jesus in heaven "loosed" the paralytic. See also Acts 5:12-16.
    d."gates of hell" - the grave of Isaiah 38:10,17,18. Christ's Ecclesia will prevail against "hades" - (1 Cor. 15:53-55).

    3.Peter did not receive infallible authority from Jesus, even in matters ex cathedra, for Paul wrote: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. 2:11). Note how Christ also reproved Peter in Matt. 16:22,23.

    4.There is not a particle of historical evidence that Peter passed on any authority to anyone; and, what is more important, there is no New Testament evidence at all that Christ commanded Peter to pass any authority.
    RESOURSE: Rested Scriptures.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 29, 2014 at 4:22 PM
      Matthew 16:17-19
      (Part 3)
      1.The rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter's confession, "thou art the Christ". (Matt. 16:16)


      a. That doesn't help you any. Because it is St. Peter who made the confession. And Jesus did not say, "your confession is rock solid". He said, "you are Peter". And Peter means Rock.

      b. Other people made the same confession. But Jesus Christ did not give them the name Rock nor appoint them to Shepherd His entire flock.

      John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

      John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

      The following is the evidence: 1.Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock. Paul explicitly states, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". (1 Cor. 3:11). To take Peter as the foundation flatly contradicts this passage.


      On the contrary, you are simply misusing metaphors. Jesus Christ applied the metaphor of Rock to Simon in order to indicate that He would have authority over the Church. Jesus later applied the stone metaphor to Himself to indicate that He is God, the Rock of salvation. There's no rule which says that metaphors must all mean the same thing.


      2.The Roman Church emphasizes John 1:42 in stating that Jesus gave the name "Rock" (Petros) to Simon at the very start. But in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church." Two different Greek words are employed with two different connotations: ◾petros (masc.), detached stone
      ◾petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.3

      It is clear that a difference between Peter and the foundation is meant or the word "petros" would simply have been repeated. "Petros", therefore, shows Peter's instability, (e.g., Matt. 16:22-23) while "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ." 4


      On the contrary, Petros and Petra mean the same thing. They are simply the masculine and feminine gender of the word. Petros had to be applied to Peter because Peter is a man. To use the word Petra would be a gauche use of grammar. It would be like calling you, "Jessica".

      2.The power of the keys 5 given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) gave him no unique authority - no authority which the other apostles did not possess as well - Matt. 18:18 (cf. vs. 1);

      Since the keys were given to St. Peter, that signifies that in order to lock and unlock, they need to do it in union with the Vicar of Christ to whom the keys were given.

      cont'd

      Delete
    2. cont'd

      John 20:22,23. a."Keys" - keys to knowledge of the Kingdom (Luke 11:52; cf. Matt. 23:13). The keys were used by Peter in preaching to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2); to the household of Cornelius (Acts 14:27 cf. Acts 10); and to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18).
      b."binding" - e.g., Ananias and Sapphira - Acts 5. Here Peter's condemnation uttered on earth was immediately enforced in heaven.
      c."loosing" - e.g., palsied Aeneas loosed at Lydda. (Acts 9:32-35). Peter said, "Jesus Christ maketh thee whole" verse 34; Jesus in heaven "loosed" the paralytic. See also Acts 5:12-16.
      d."gates of hell" - the grave of Isaiah 38:10,17,18. Christ's Ecclesia will prevail against "hades" - (1 Cor. 15:53-55).


      I'm not sure what point you think you're making with these verses. None of them deny that St. Peter was given the keys or that the keys are those which represent the authority to bind and loose in heaven and upon earth.

      3.Peter did not receive infallible authority from Jesus, even in matters ex cathedra, for Paul wrote: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. 2:11). Note how Christ also reproved Peter in Matt. 16:22,23.

      a. St. Peter was not speaking ex-Cathedra in that example.
      b. That verse served to highlight that St. Paul was the one who needed perfection. Since he was admonishing St. Peter for something which he admitted to doing himself.

      1 Corinthians 9:19-23Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

      19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

      c. Along the same vein, he admonished St. Peter for something which he recommended to everyone else:

      1 Corinthians 8:9-11Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

      9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

      cont'd

      Delete
    3. cont'd

      4.There is not a particle of historical evidence that Peter passed on any authority to anyone; and, what is more important,

      St. Peter was still alive when the New Testament books were written. However, the Early Church Fathers were aware that the torch had been passed:

      In Optatus’ book Against the Donatists, he writes:
      So we have proved that the Catholic Church is the Church which is spread throughout the world. […] You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner.

      there is no New Testament evidence at all that Christ commanded Peter to pass any authority.
      RESOURSE: Rested Scriptures.com


      The keys represent an office which is perpetually passed on. Jesus instituted an ongoing concern. The Church was to last until the end of time. And so it has:

      Matthew 28:19-20Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

      19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

      Delete
  16. (Part 4)

    Answers to possible objections:

    Some Roman Catholics may argue that the difference in Greek words is only for stylistic variation. But the burden of proof does not rest on the interpreter who says that two different words have at least connotative distinctions of meaning; it rests on the one who argues that the difference is of no consequence and that style explains all. Some argue that the use of two words in the Greek is of no consequence, for the original dialogue between Jesus and Peter took place in Aramaic, and undoubtedly but a single word (Kepha, "Cephas" ) was used in the Aramaic conversation. The fallacy in this argument (as in virtually all arguments based on proto-Aramaic New Testament conversations) is that it involves a reasoning from the unknown to the known rather than from the known to the unknown. The only means we have of knowing what in fact Jesus said to Peter on the given occasion is via the Greek record. Thus, if a valid distinction is made in the Greek, we must assume that a like distinction was made in the original conversation.
    Resource: Rested Scriptures.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary, we have a better means. The fact that Jesus Christ did not write the Scripture, but passed down Sacred Tradtion. It is upon this Sacred Tradition that the New Testament Scripture is based. And the Catholic Church has maintained this Sacred Tradition from the time of Christ.

      And it is this Sacred Tradition which tells us that Jesus Christ established a perpetual office and appointed St. Peter to that office.

      Knowledge of Catholic Tradition is the key to understanding the New Testament. Protestants went far wrong when they discarded Tradition and began to rely upon their own understanding, rather than the understanding of the Church which Jesus Christ established to pass down His Teachings to all generations.

      Matthew 28:19-20Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

      19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

      Delete
  17. (Part 5)

    Ephesians 3:10-Fails to support your proposition.
    Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible. False. Your argument is circular. "A=B because I say that B=A. I know that B=A because A=B."
    There are multiple passages in the New Testament which prove that the church would not be infallible as the Catholic Church claims. (Acts 20:17, 28-30; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 2 Thess. 2:3-11)
    In Acts chapter twenty we learn that perverse things would come from the bishops of the church. Peter said (2 Pet. 2) that false teachers would arise among you (working from within) and there would be many who would follow them. Paul tells us (2 Thess. 2) that the apostasy was already underway, "for the mystery of iniquity is already at work..." (Verse 7). It started in Paul's day and was to continue until the second coming of Christ. He added, "...Whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and will destroy with the brightness of his coming." (Verse 8).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eph 3:10 tells us that the Church is the Teacher of the Wisdom of God. Now, the Wisdom of God is infallible. Therefore, the Teacher of the Wisdom of God must also be infallible.

      In addition, Scripture tells us that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). Now, that is a metaphor. A pillar holds things up. And since the Church is described as upholding the truth, then it is clear that Scripture Teaches that the Church is infallible.

      In addition, we have evidence that the Church is capable of infallibility. The Church infallibly wrote the New Testament and selected the books of the Old Testament and put them in a book which we call the Bible today.

      Delete
    2. Just because the Church can teach the Wisdom of God(Scripture) does not mean that false prophets cannot arise in the Church and deceive many. Many errors can be made within the Church!

      1 Timothy 3:15-The church that supports and upholds the truth, is distinguished from the truth she upholds. That truth is the gospel message contained in scripture. If the "church" is the source of truth, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches claim, again we ask, which one, for they are divided against themselves! Obviously then, the traditionalist interpretation of this passage is as vacuous as it is illogical.

      Your Church cannot say this for herself, for She has repeatedly contradicted Scripture and herself! Don't respond unless you have something reasonable to say!

      Jesse

      Delete
  18. (Part 6)

    We Protestants eliminate the Catholic denomination by simply reading the Scriptures. The ability to read is all you need to refute the false claims made by De Maria. A customary reading of the New testament will prove that the of the Roman Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or the apostles.

    James 2:24 fails to support your proposition. I have already explained the meaning of the passage. ( See Gotquestions.org and ask," Are we saved by faith alone, or is it faith plus works? For additional information on the topic, visit the related topics portion of the website.)
    Thessalonians 2:15- has already been explained on this website.
    Russell wrote: " There is a popular response from Catholics who try to defend their Tradition’s “equality” with Scripture. They contend that we don’t have ALL of God’s Word unless we have the “written” (Scripture), and the “oral” (Sacred Tradition), and they quote 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul tells the Thessalonians:

    "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth, or by letter from us."

    Catholics often use this verse in an attempt to show a distinction or a difference between “infallible oral" teachings and "infallible written" teachings, insisting that they are EQUAL and we need BOTH today. According to them, the Bible is not enough as a rule of faith.

    First of all, Paul's "distinction" here was NOT to emphasize a difference in content between the two, but rather, to demonstrate the unity of his message in both forms. Here, Paul was addressing the fact that someone (an imposter) had apparently written a letter in Paul’s name to the Thessalonians, saying that they missed the Day of the Lord (2:2), causing the Thessalonian church to be shaken and disturbed. He is now writing to correct that false letter and to bring comfort and strength to the church. So, Paul was basically telling them, "Why are you disturbed by this letter that was supposedly from me? Any true letter from me will agree with the message I already gave to you personally / orally. I wouldn't contradict that message, or give you two different gospels."

    So, when Catholics use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in this way, it is out of context and they are misusing and abusing this verse. It is NOT AT ALL saying that we need two infallible sources today. There is no need for an “infallible” Tradition to supplement the Bible.

    Secondly, the Catholic Church claims to have this Tradition (that is supposedly different from Scripture) which Paul said to hold on to. Yet, what infallible information do we have from Paul that is not found in the Scriptures? None. Does the Catholic Church have any infallible statements from Jesus (or any of the apostles), apart from the Bible? No, they don’t. Then why do they claim to have this extrabiblical (i.e., outside of the Bible) Tradition that they say Paul is speaking of, if they can’t tell us what it is? Remember, we don’t have access today to all of the information that Paul taught them.

    It is not that God was unable to infallibly preserve all this information, it's just that He chose not to. There may even be other writings that Paul sent them that we don't have access to today. But we don't NEED to know every single thing he told them. We can know the essence of what he taught them by looking to God-breathed Scripture, which we do have available to us. But we can be sure that the things that Paul wrote to them will not contradict the things he spoke to them. This is his whole point. They would be the same basic message, the same Gospel."

    Jesse


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 29, 2014 at 4:50 PM
      (Part 6)

      We Protestants eliminate the Catholic denomination by simply reading the Scriptures. The ability to read is all you need to refute the false claims made by De Maria. A customary reading of the New testament will prove that the of the Roman Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or the apostles.


      That's why we are comparing doctrines to Scripture. Where is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in Scripture? Here's what I see:

      2 Thessalonians 2:15Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

      15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

      So, please provide the definition of the doctrine and point it out to me in Scripture. Because, from what I see, it contradicts the Word of God:

      Hebrews 13:7Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

      7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

      James 2:24 fails to support your proposition. I have already explained the meaning of the passage....

      It would be the height of hypocrisy on your part, if you claim for yourself the right to interpret Scripture, but then deny it to anyone else. You may have explained your interpretation of that passage. But I stand by mine:

      James 2:24Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

      24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

      Not that it takes any interpreting. The words are plain.

      cont'd

      Delete
    2. cont'd

      Thessalonians 2:15- has already been explained on this website.....First of all, Paul's "distinction" here was NOT to emphasize a difference in content between the two, but rather, to demonstrate the unity of his message in both forms.

      That's the Catholic Doctrine. The Church teaches that the Word of God is contained in both, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. All Catholic Doctrines are in Scripture either implied or explicit.

      Here, Paul was addressing the fact that someone (an imposter) had apparently written a letter in Paul’s name to the Thessalonians, saying that they missed the Day of the Lord (2:2), causing the Thessalonian church to be shaken and disturbed. He is now writing to correct that false letter and to bring comfort and strength to the church. So, Paul was basically telling them, "Why are you disturbed by this letter that was supposedly from me? Any true letter from me will agree with the message I already gave to you personally / orally. I wouldn't contradict that message, or give you two different gospels."

      Thank you. You just proved the Catholic Teaching of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

      So, when Catholics use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in this way, it is out of context and they are misusing and abusing this verse. It is NOT AT ALL saying that we need two infallible sources today. There is no need for an “infallible” Tradition to supplement the Bible.

      That doesn't even make sense based upon what you said above. St. Paul told them not to worry about any letter since the Tradition had been handed to them by word. This is the same Tradition which the Catholic Church continues to pass down by word, to this day.

      Secondly, the Catholic Church claims to have this Tradition (that is supposedly different from Scripture) which Paul said to hold on to.....

      No, we don't. That is the Protestant straw man that is continually brought up. The Catholic Church teaches that the New Testament is the product of living Tradition and that the Word of God comes to us in Scripture and Tradition.

      CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97 (192 bytes ) preview document matches
      "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all ...

      Protestants can't successfully argue against the truth, so they make up doctrines and attribute them to the Catholic Church in order to appear to be justified in their errors.

      It is not that God was unable to infallibly preserve all this information, it's just that He chose not to. ...

      Wrong again. God chose to do so and God did it by virtue of the Church which He ordained and anointed to Teach His Word infallibly by Scripture and Tradition.

      You might deny and reject this Teaching. But the Truth is true whether you believe it or not.

      Ephesians 3:10Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

      10 to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

      Delete
    3. It is impossible for me to prove you correct. This is refuted because your doctrines are of pagan origin!

      Man's Traditions Verses the Word of God

      Just as the foolish woman, over one billion professed Catholics are following men instead of God. This is a great sin, as we read in Mark 7:13...

      "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition..."

      Catholics often try to justify their fabricated traditions by drawing attention to traditions mentioned in the Bible. One such Scripture is 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

      However, the Bible also states in Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Clearly, there are good and bad traditions. One must keep in mind at the time Paul spoke these words that the Word of God was not yet completed. The Bible was not completed until around A.D. 95 when the Book of Revelation was finished.

      So before the Bible was completed, believers relied upon the spoken words of the Apostles who had been taught by our Lord, and the Words which God had put into their hearts, and of course, the Old Testament. Once the Word of God was completed, there was NO need for any more traditions.

      Hebrews 1:2 is clear that God speaks to us today through the Son (the Word of God, John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13), and the Holy Spirit of God (John 16:13; 1st John 2:27). God doesn't speak today through Popes, visions, apparitions, dreams, or omens. God speaks through His Word, and the spiritual voice of the Holy Spirit. God's Spirit and the Word of God are inseparable.


      I. Scripture is how we are reminded of oral traditions, proving oral tradition is replace by scripture:

      "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." 2 Peter 3:1-2
      1.Here we have a reference to oral traditions, "spoken beforehand".
      2.Although traditionalists claim oral tradition, they cannot come up with even one phrase or the apostles Jesus said, that is not recorded in scripture!
      3.Yet Peter uses scripture as the method of reminding Christians of this oral tradition.
      4.Since there is no known "oral tradition" of the specific words spoken, it is obvious that scripture replaced oral tradition.

      Ephesians 3:10 PROVES NOTHING!

      Delete
  19. (Part 7)

    If "New Testament was written on the basis of Catholic Doctrine", then why do so many of its teachings either contradict the Scriptures, or cannot be found within its pages?

    Concerning Exodus 20:4-5
    All statues and images are considered idols in the eyes of God you polytheist moron. 1 Corinthians5:11 says idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Ephesians5:5 says that covetousness is idolatry, so just because it is not like ancient paganism doesn’t mean something can’t be an idol! Bowing to a statue, kissing a statue's feet, and praying to statues = WORSHIP OF FALSE GODS! Besides all this, why would you want to pray to a rock or a piece of wood that resembles a saint when the Bible clearly teaches that all dead humans, though conscious in the spirit world, are unable to know anything, and much less able to hear prayers addressed to them?

    Concerning Matthew 23:9
    Why do you Catholics fail to comprehend the meaning of such a simple Scripture passage?
    How come you do not try to interpret the verse if I am incorrect? Here, let me assist you.
    1) Matthew 23:5-10 says, “But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”

    2) This passage is not talking about “fathers” in any of the following senses:

    a. Biological fathers.

    b. Ancestral fathers.

    c. Founding fathers.

    d. Fathers in the faith.

    3) This passage is NOT talking about God as our authority.

    4) This passage discusses religious elitism and the sin in so calling someone by the religious title of Rabbi, Teacher, Father, Master.
    Examples: "High teacher!", "Hello Rabbi!", and "Father Jim."
    5) So, you fail to achieve what you need to achieve from this passage and still stand condemned!

    Jesse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 29, 2014 at 5:13 PM
      (Part 7)

      If "New Testament was written on the basis of Catholic Doctrine", then why do so many of its teachings either contradict the Scriptures, or cannot be found within its pages?


      They are all found in the pages of Scripture. What we don't find is any Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Catholic Church.

      Concerning Exodus 20:4-5
      All statues and images are considered idols in the eyes of God


      If that were so, God would not have had them make images of snakes and angels.

      Numbers 21:9
      And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

      Exodus 25:18
      And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

      you polytheist moron.

      Do you really want to go down that road? I can be as insulting as you, believe me.

      1 Corinthians5:11 says idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Ephesians5:5 says that covetousness is idolatry, so just because it is not like ancient paganism doesn’t mean something can’t be an idol! Bowing to a statue, kissing a statue's feet, and praying to statues = WORSHIP OF FALSE GODS!

      We know the difference between an statue and God. Perhaps you don't. When I kiss my mother's picture, I know that I am only kissing a represenation of someone whom I love.

      Besides all this, why would you want to pray to a rock or a piece of wood that resembles a saint when the Bible clearly teaches that all dead humans, though conscious in the spirit world, are unable to know anything, and much less able to hear prayers addressed to them?

      The Old Testament has passed away. We are in a New Dispensation. And the Scripture clearly says that all who die in Christ are alive in Christ. Do you deny it?

      John 11:25
      Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

      cont'd

      Delete
    2. cont'd

      Concerning Matthew 23:9
      Why do you Catholics fail to comprehend the meaning of such a simple Scripture passage?
      How come you do not try to interpret the verse if I am incorrect?


      You are incorrect. And I did interpret the verse for you. But, apparently, not to your satisfaction.

      Here, let me assist you.
      1) Matthew 23:5-10 says....
      ,

      That's not an interpretation. That's a quotation. Here, let me break it down for you.

      “But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

      Jesus, using the Pharisees as examples, admonishes the crowd against self pride. He says, the Pharisees are proud and love to draw attention to themselves. Don't be like them.

      And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

      They are self-important and have big egoes that they love to have stroked.

      But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ;

      He says, don't be called Teacher because I am your Teacher.

      and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father,

      And don't be overly proud about being a father, because God is Father of all.

      which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”

      And don't claim for yourself any lordship or power, because I am your God and Master of all.

      2) This passage is not talking about “fathers” in any of the following senses:

      a. Biological fathers.

      b. Ancestral fathers.

      c. Founding fathers.

      d. Fathers in the faith.


      Yes, it is. It is a teaching that all authority comes from God. Therefore, don't misuse it. And don't be prideful about it because God exalts the humble but humbles the proud.

      3) This passage is NOT talking about God as our authority.

      Yes, it is. It explicitly says that God is our Father and that Jesus Christ is our Master.

      4) This passage discusses religious elitism and the sin in so calling someone by the religious title of Rabbi, Teacher, Father, Master.
      Examples: "High teacher!", "Hello Rabbi!", and "Father Jim."


      It condemns all pride. You want to read into it your bias against the Catholic Church. But we see in the Scripture that the Apostles consider themselves our Fathers in the faith. So, it is obvious that they understood Jesus to be speaking in metaphorical terms.

      5) So, you fail to achieve what you need to achieve from this passage and still stand condemned!

      On the contrary, it is you who condemn yourself. Because if you claim to be isolating the Priesthood, you have failed since Jesus explicitly speaks about TEACHERS. Rabbis were not necessarily priests. They were not necessarily Levites.

      From the Jewish FAQ:

      Rabbi

      A rabbi is not a priest, neither in the Jewish sense of the term nor in the Christian sense of the term.....A rabbi is simply a teacher, a person sufficiently educated in halakhah (Jewish law) and tradition to instruct the community and to answer questions and resolve disputes regarding halakhah. When a person has completed the necessary course of study, he is given a written document known as a semikhah, which confirms his authority to make such decisions.....


      So, Jesus is condemning anyone pridefully usurping the titles Teacher, Father, and Master to themselves without acknowleding that they received this authority from God and to serve God.

      Delete
    3. We are not to call ANY PRIESTS FATHER!!! Jesus very clearly said, CALL NO MAN ON EARTH, NOT SOME, NOT MOST!
      I apologize for my small error but YOU also make errors to! YOU CATHOLICS ARE FULL OF PRIDE AND ARROGANCE!

      Delete
    4. Numbers 21:9 and Exodus 25:18 offers you no help whatsoever De Maria!
      There is a HUGE difference between being instructed by God to make something and you making things for yourself.
      Since when did you fools have the authority to make statues and images of heavenly things?
      Without such clear commands of Christ, you guys are making the stuff for yourselves!
      "YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF......."
      I will go down any road it takes to refute you. You are going to the way that "...is broad and leads to destruction." (Matthew 7:13-14)
      The Old Testament has never passed away. What happens in the past never really goes away! It is still Scripture and still holds the same authority today!
      You clearly don't understand the difference between statues and God because you bow to them, kiss there feet, and pray to them. Now no rationale person would go this far if they were just "treasuring the picture of a parent", would they?
      I find it really strange that the Catholic Church removed the second of the Ten Commandments and split the tenth one in half.
      -You shall not make for yourself an idol."
      No matter why the Catholic Church claims that the Bible is a dead letter!
      A lot of your words are irrelevant to the subject....

      come up with something logical or give it up...

      Jesse.

      Delete
  20. (Part 8)

    You are the one making false claims here, so stop your ranting!

    The Catholic Church FORCES the priests from marriage and forces you guys to stop eating certain foods on certain days of the year. It is Canon Law... Do not deny it!
    1 Corinthians 7:32 gives you not help in this case De Maria!
    - The text is not giving reference to priests.
    - "Priestly celibacy" is totally unbiblical and the belief arose long after the New Testament was completed.
    - All Christians are priests!( 1 Peter 2:5,9 and Revelation 5:10) So, in other words you are saying that no believer in Christ can marry!
    That flatly contradicts what God said in the book of Genesis, "It is not good for man to be alone." Paul also told us that marriage is honorable to all! We should be able to CHOOSE to not be married; NOT BE FORCED! Therefore it is still a doctrine of demons! Oh, and by the way, bishops MUST BE MARRIED! (1 Timothy 3: 2 and 4).

    You guys are commanded by the Pope to avoid certain foods on certain days of the year. We fast for the Lord; not the evil pope...1 Timothy 4:1-4 still contradicts Catholic doctrine!

    Jesse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary, on the subject of fasting, Jesus is clear:

      Matthew 9:15
      And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

      The Catholic Church, knowing that because of our fallen nature, we probably would not fast if we could help it, ordains certain times of the year when we fast in obedience to God's word and to strengthen the grace of God within us:

      Mark 9:28 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? 29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

      As for priestly celibacy, we don't just go by 1 Cor 7:32.

      First and foremost is the example of our Lord. He was celibate.

      Second is the example of St. Paul. He also was celibate.

      1 Cor 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

      Then we have the example of the 144000:

      Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.

      If that's not enough for you, I don't know what to tell you.

      Delete
  21. (Part 9)

    Concerning Matthew 6:7
    There is no such thing as an individual prayer with a repetitive nature that is not vain. I figured that you try to justify vain repetitious prayers with Scriptures such as Matthew 26:44 and Mark 14:39, "And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words." However, asking God three times for the same thing is very different than mumbling the same dead words over and over for a lifetime!

    It does not matter if Jesus wrote some of the New Testament or not. The fact still remains that He prophesized us always having the infallible canon of Scripture that we have today, "My words shall NEVER pass away."(Mark 13:31) It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
    •326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
    •315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
    •270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
    •185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
    •165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
    •160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
    •135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
    •100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
    •Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.
    Also,the Catholic claim of giving the Bible to the world cannot be true because they have not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 29, 2014 at 7:25 PM
      (Part 9)

      Concerning Matthew 6:7
      There is no such thing as an individual prayer with a repetitive nature that is not vain. I figured that you try to justify vain repetitious prayers with Scriptures such as Matthew 26:44 and Mark 14:39, "And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words." However, asking God three times for the same thing is very different than mumbling the same dead words over and over for a lifetime!


      Perhaps there are some Catholics who do that. There are also very many Protestants who read the Scriptures in vain, not knowing what the Scriptures teach even after reading the same words in vain all their life.

      However, Catholics who know the Rosary, understand it to be a meditation on the life of Jesus. A meditation on the Word of God. This is a method of studying the Word of God which was invented at a time when the Scriptures were not readily available to the masses and even if they were, the literacy rate was dismal. Using this method, the ordinary believer could be taught the basics of the Gospels without the need to read a book.

      It does not matter if Jesus wrote some of the New Testament or not. The fact still remains that He prophesized us always having the infallible canon of Scripture that we have today, "My words shall NEVER pass away."(Mark 13:31)

      That's not a prophecy of the Bible. That's a prophecy of the Teaching of the Church which He commanded in Matt 28:19-20.

      It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books.

      Yea, it can. There was no other Church at that time.

      In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
      •326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
      •315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
      •270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
      •185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
      •165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
      •160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
      •135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
      •100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
      •Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.


      None of that disproves that the Catholic Church did so since they are all examples of Catholics and Catholic agencies.

      Also,the Catholic claim of giving the Bible to the world cannot be true because they have not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources.

      Maybe in modern times some copies of the Bible have fallen into non-Catholic possession. But the early Church was Catholic.

      Delete
    2. Hello De Maria,

      As you can see, I DEMAND EVIDENCE; not your cheap tricks.
      The Catholic Church came about HUNDREDS of years after the New Testament was completed (established by Constantine). Stop arguing in a circle and take a challenge like a man!

      Vatican admits connection with CAESAR:

      "...superior papal authority and dominion is derived from the law of the Caesars." Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #19, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.


      "...the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." Pope Nicholas I, quoted in History of the Councils, vol. IX, Dist.: 96, Can 7, "Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para", by Labbe and Cossart.

      "Long ages ago, when Rome through the neglect of the Western emperors was left to the mercy of the barbarous hordes, the Romans turned to one figure for aid and protection, and asked him to rule them; and thus, . . . commenced the temporal sovereignty of the popes. And meekly stepping to the throne of Caesar, the vicar of Christ took up the scepter to which the emperors and kings of Europe were to bow in reverence through so many ages."--American Catholic Quarterly Review, April, 1911.

      "Out of the ruins of political Rome, arose the great moral Empire in the 'giant form' of the Roman Church."--A.C. Flick, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church, 1909, p. 150.

      "Under the Roman Empire the popes had no temporal powers. But when the Roman Empire had disintegrated and its place had been taken by a number of rude, barbarous kingdoms, the Roman Catholic church not only became independent of the states in religious affairs, but dominated secular affairs as well. At times, under such rulers as Charlemagne (768-814), Otto the Great (936-973), and Henry III (1039-1056), the civil power controlled the church to some extent; but in general, under the weak political system of feudalism, the well-organized, unified, and centralized church, with the pope at its head, was not only independent in ecclesiastical affairs but also controlled civil affairs"--Carl Conrad Eckhardt, The Papacy and World-Affairs, The University of Chicago Press, 1937, P. 1.

      Pope Pius IX, in his "Discorsi" (I., p. 253), said: "The Caesar who now addresses you, and to whom alone are obedience and fidelity due."

      [Speaking of the time, about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was crumbling to pieces:] "No, the [Catholic] Church will not descend into the tomb. It will survive the Empire . . . At length a second empire will arise, and of this empire the Pope will be the master--more then this, he will be the master of Europe. He will dictate his orders to kings who will obey them"--Andrea Lagarde, The Latin Church in the Middle Ages, 1915 p. vi.

      Delete
    3. VATICAN ADMITS ITS HATRED TO THE WORD OF GOD

      "The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity." -The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII, "Protestantism", Section III A - Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone"), Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912 by Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. (online source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm )

      "Unfortunately many of these books were lost during the persecution of the 17th century, and only those books and ancient documents sent to the libraries of Cambridge and Geneva by Pastor Leger were perserved. The Papists took care, after every persecution, to destroy as much of the Waldensean literature as possible. Many of the Barbes were learned men and well versed in the languages and science of the Scriptures. A knowledge of the Bible was the distinctive feature of the ancient, and now the modern Vaudois. Deprived for centuries of a visible church and forced to worship in caves and dens, this intimate knowledge of God's word was their only light. Their school was in the almost inaccessible solitude of the deep mountain gorge called 'Pra Del Tor', and their studies were severe and long-continued, embracing the Latin, Romaunt and Italian languages."-Bompiani - A Short History of the Italian Waldenses


      Their refusal to surrender the scriptures was an offense that the Papacy could not tolerate. The Papacy was determined to exterminate the heretics from the face of the Earth. The heretics greatest offense, was that they refused to worship God according to the will of the Pope. For this crime, the heretics suffered every humiliation, insult and torture that man could event: ( Fox's Book Of Martyrs)

      1) Hanged and their genitals were cut off
      2) The mothers were whipped
      3) The women's breast were ripped off
      4) They were tied up and fried in a large pan
      5) Their mouths were sewed shut
      6) They were placed into a pot of boiling water
      7) Their arms and legs were cut off
      8) Some had their eyes bored out

      "...A dead and speechless book." -Question Box, p. 67
      (what about Hebrews 4:12 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17?)
      "The simple fact is that the Bible, like all dead letters, calls for a living interpreter." -The Faith of Millions, p. 155
      (what about 1 John 2:27?)
      "The Bible was not intended to be a textbook of Christian religion." -Catholic Facts, p. 50

      Your religion hates the Bible and is not the one found in the New Testament

      Delete
    4. Vatican openly admits it embraces Babylon (Paganism)

      "It is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans...Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds...." (The Externals of the Catholic Church, Her Government, Ceremonies, Festivals, Sacramentals and Devotions, by John F. Sullivan, p 156, published by P.J. Kennedy, NY, 1942)

      "It has often been charged... that Catholicism is overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that accusation - and even to make it her boast... the great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized" -The Story of Catholicism p 37

      Cardinal Newman admits in his book that; the "The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}" -An Essay on The Development of the Christian Doctrine John Henry "Cardinal Newman" p.359

      The penetration of the religion of Babylon became so general and well known that Rome was called the "New Babylon." -Faith of our fathers 1917 ed. Cardinal Gibbons, p. 106

      "In order to attach to Christianity great attraction in the eyes of the nobility, the priests adopted the outer garments and adornments which were used in pagan cults." -Life of Constantine, Eusabius, cited in Altai-Nimalaya, p. 94

      "The Church did everything it couldto stamp out such 'pagan' rites, but had to capitualet and allow the rites to continue with only the name of the local diety changed to some Christian saint's name." -Religious Tradition and Myth. Dr. Edwin Goodenough, Professor of Religion, Harvard University. p. 56, 57

      In Stanley's History, page 40: "The popes filled the place of the vacant emperors at Rome, inheriting their power, their prestige, and their titles from PAGANISM."

      Catholics cry, "We are Pagans, we are Pagans!"

      Jesse

      Delete
    5. "Perhaps there are some Catholics who do that. There are also very many Protestants who read the Scriptures in vain, not knowing what the Scriptures teach even after reading the same words in vain all their life."

      Some? The correct answer is ALL DO.


      Not by chance De Maria,the chanting of the Roman Catholic Rosary is VAIN REPETITION!!! It is exactly what God hates. God is not impressed with such empty and meaningless prayers. Furthermore, this was not the norm when Jesus prayed. There are times in our life where we will want to keep asking God for something; but, that is certainly not the same as mumbling the same WRITTEN, dead, repetitious, religious, words over and over. A Catholic repeats 52 "Hail Mary" in each DAILY Rosary prayer. Jesus clearly states that the "heathen" pray with useless repetitions. Since you ignorant Catholics claim that your repetitious Rosary prayers are not "vain repetitions"; then I ask, who was Jesus speaking about? Do you realize that you faithful Catholics who pray the Rosary every day(if you do), will in a lifetime say "Hail Mary" well over 1,000,000 times!!! Think about it.

      And yet, not one mention is made of the name of Jesus Christ in the Rosary. Like it or not, the Word of God condemns formalized religion. It is abundantly clear that you are praying with VAIN REPETITIONS.

      Jessie-don't respond unless you have something reasonable to come up with.

      Delete
    6. Jessie-don't respond unless you have something reasonable to come up with.

      My response will be more reasonable than yours.

      AnonymousDecember 31, 2014 at 11:57 AM
      Hello De Maria,

      As you can see, I DEMAND EVIDENCE; not your cheap tricks.


      Evidence has been provided.

      The Catholic Church came about HUNDREDS of years after the New Testament was completed (established by Constantine).

      The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ.

      Stop arguing in a circle and take a challenge like a man!

      ok.

      Vatican admits connection with CAESAR:

      "...superior papal authority and dominion is derived from the law of the Caesars." Lucius Ferraris,...


      Papal authority is derived from Jesus Christ. It is He who said to Simon:

      Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

      "...the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." Pope Nicholas I, quoted in History of the Councils, vol. IX, Dist.: 96, Can 7, "Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para", by Labbe and Cossart.

      Well, yeah, that's true. Its just that you don't like it because you don't believe the Word of God:

      2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

      The Catholic Church and that includes the Pope and her Bishops, is the presence of God on earth.

      The Catholic Church takes seriously the Word of God and believes it.

      "Long ages ago, when Rome through the neglect of the Western emperors was left to the mercy of the barbarous hordes, the Romans turned to one figure for aid and protection, and asked him to rule them; and thus, . . . commenced the temporal sovereignty of the popes. And meekly stepping to the throne of Caesar, the vicar of Christ took up the scepter to which the emperors and kings of Europe were to bow in reverence through so many ages."--American Catholic Quarterly Review, April, 1911. ....

      Pope Pius IX, in his "Discorsi" (I., p. 253), said: "The Caesar who now addresses you, and to whom alone are obedience and fidelity due."


      All those are also true. Long ago, in a more spiritual age, the people turned to the Catholic Church for protection against earthly despots.

      [Speaking of the time, about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was crumbling to pieces:] "No, the [Catholic] Church will not descend into the tomb. It will survive the Empire . . . At length a second empire will arise, and of this empire the Pope will be the master--more then this, he will be the master of Europe. He will dictate his orders to kings who will obey them"--Andrea Lagarde, The Latin Church in the Middle Ages, 1915 p. vi.

      He is right that the Catholic Church is infallible. Jesus Christ declared it so (Matt 16:18-19).

      Delete
    7. AnonymousDecember 31, 2014 at 11:58 AM
      VATICAN ADMITS ITS HATRED TO THE WORD OF GOD

      "The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity." -The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII, "Protestantism", Section III A - Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone"), Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912 by Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. (online source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm )


      Absolutely true. Scripture teaches against Sola Scriptura.

      2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

      Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

      Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

      "Unfortunately many of these books were lost during the persecution of the 17th century, and only those books and ancient documents sent to the libraries of Cambridge and Geneva by Pastor Leger were perserved. The Papists took care, after every persecution, to destroy as much of the Waldensean literature as possible. ...A Short History of the Italian Waldenses

      Non sequitur. If certain Catholics destroyed Waldensean liturature, so what? It is because the Catholic Church that you have the Bible which you have today.

      Their refusal to surrender the scriptures was an offense that the Papacy could not tolerate. The Papacy was determined to exterminate the heretics from the face of the Earth..... ( Fox's Book Of Martyrs) ....

      Fox's book of martyrs has been proved false. It is a mixture of lies, exaggerations with a bit of truth. As an example, the number of people which FBoM claimed that the Catholic Church killed did not exist upon the earth at that time.

      cont'd

      Delete
    8. cont'd

      "...A dead and speechless book." -Question Box, p. 67

      All books are dead and speechless. Or do you claim that the Bible stands up and walks and talks to you?

      (what about Hebrews 4:12

      Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

      The Word of God is spoken by the Priests of the Catholic Church:
      Hebrews 13:7King James Version (KJV)

      7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.


      and 2 Timothy 3:16-17?)

      The entire book of 2 Tim is about teaching the Word of God. 2 Tim 3:16-17 briefly mentions that the Bible can be used to supplement the teaching of the priest. But does not require it.

      "The simple fact is that the Bible, like all dead letters, calls for a living interpreter." -The Faith of Millions, p. 155

      Absolutely! Heretics have misinterpreted the Bible throughout history. And the Bible did not object. It was the Church which fought the heretics and defeated them.

      (what about 1 John 2:27?)

      1 John 2:27King James Version (KJV)

      27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

      1. That says nothing about Scripture.
      2. Its actually about the anointing we receive in Confirmation, wherein, the Holy Spirit confers upon us the light of grace:

      1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:
      - it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, "Abba! Father!";117
      - it unites us more firmly to Christ;
      - it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
      - it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;118
      - it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:119

      Recall then that you have received the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence, the spirit of holy fear in God's presence. Guard what you have received. God the Father has marked you with his sign; Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has placed his pledge, the Spirit, in your hearts.


      cont'd

      Delete
    9. cont'd

      "The Bible was not intended to be a textbook of Christian religion." -Catholic Facts, p. 50

      I disagree with that. In my opinion, it is the first Catholic Catechism.

      Your religion hates the Bible and is not the one found in the New Testament

      On the contrary, the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and put the Bible together. And the Catholic Church is the Church which is described in Scripture:

      First, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church:
      John 21:17

      Second, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:
      Matthew 16:17-19

      Third, Scripture describes the Church as infallible:
      Ephesians 3:10

      4th, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church.
      Matt 16:18

      Those four alone disqualify any Protestant Church. Add these other distinctives:

      The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).
      The doctrines of the Catholic Church which are distinctive from other churches:
      Purgatory (1 Cor 3:15).
      Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27).
      Communion of Saints (Rom 12:12-20).
      The Mass and the necessity to attend (Heb 10:25-31).
      The Sacrament of Confession (Heb 13:17).
      The Sacrament of Holy Orders (1 Tim 4:14).
      The Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5).
      Justification and salvation by faith and works (Rom 2:1-13).

      And it is undeniably the Catholic Church which is described in Scripture.

      Delete
  22. (Part 10- Final Peace to my Rebuttal to De Maria)

    Examine the following claims made by the Vatican:

    Vatican openly admits it embraces Babylon (Paganism)

    "It is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans...Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds...." (The Externals of the Catholic Church, Her Government, Ceremonies, Festivals, Sacramentals and Devotions, by John F. Sullivan, p 156, published by P.J. Kennedy, NY, 1942)

    "It has often been charged... that Catholicism is overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that accusation - and even to make it her boast... the great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized" -The Story of Catholicism p 37

    Cardinal Newman admits in his book that; the "The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}" -An Essay on The Development of the Christian Doctrine John Henry "Cardinal Newman" p.359

    The penetration of the religion of Babylon became so general and well known that Rome was called the "New Babylon." -Faith of our fathers 1917 ed. Cardinal Gibbons, p. 106

    "In order to attach to Christianity great attraction in the eyes of the nobility, the priests adopted the outer garments and adornments which were used in pagan cults." -Life of Constantine, Eusabius, cited in Altai-Nimalaya, p. 94

    "The Church did everything it couldto stamp out such 'pagan' rites, but had to capitualet and allow the rites to continue with only the name of the local diety changed to some Christian saint's name." -Religious Tradition and Myth. Dr. Edwin Goodenough, Professor of Religion, Harvard University. p. 56, 57

    In Stanley's History, page 40: "The popes filled the place of the vacant emperors at Rome, inheriting their power, their prestige, and their titles from PAGANISM."

    Catholic Priests claim power over God Himself

    " you [priests] are called 'another Christ.' " --MOTHER TERESA

    "...the power of the priest is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world. ...thus the priest may be called the creator of the Creator..." -The diginity of the priesthood by Liguori, p. 33

    Vatican claims Power to change God's Law


    "The Pope is of great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine laws... The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth." -Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Ribliotheca, "Papa," art. 2, translated ( What about Revelation 22:18-19)?
    Yup, you are the true "Church of Christ"... The heretical quotes I have provided are just FEW OUT OF SO MANY I COULD NOT EVEN COUNT THEM!!! Give it up De Maria. The burden of proof will always be on your back! The Catholic Church is not AND WILL NEVER BE THE ONE WE READ ABOUT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT! One has to wonder, why do you Catholics strive so hard to defend such immoral practices? Therefore, your accusations against Russell's article is completely false.

    Jesse


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus Christ is the King of Kings. The Catholic Church is the presence of Jesus Christ in this world. By virtue of His authority, the Catholic Church tests everything and discards that which is bad and keeps that which is good.

      2 Corinthians 5:18-20Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

      18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for allowing me to participate in this discussion. I am concerned about one thing. Is Russell ok? It is usually Russell who responds to my comments here. Anyway, my prayers are with you both.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 29, 2014 at 7:46 PM
      (Part 10- Final Peace to my Rebuttal to De Maria)

      Examine the following claims made by the Vatican:

      Vatican openly admits it embraces Babylon (Paganism)


      That's not true.

      "It is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans...Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds...." (The Externals of the Catholic Church, Her Government, Ceremonies, Festivals, Sacramentals and Devotions, by John F. Sullivan, p 156, published by P.J. Kennedy, NY, 1942)

      Do you put up Christmas trees? If you do, you have availed yourself of a pagan ritual to celebrate the birth of Christ.

      Christmas tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree
      Wikipedia
      The custom of the Christmas tree developed in early modern Germany (where it is ... Tree worship was common among the pagan Europeans ....

      "It has often been charged... that Catholicism is overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that accusation - and even to make it her boast... the great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized" -The Story of Catholicism p 37

      True.

      cont'd

      Delete
    4. cont'd

      Cardinal Newman admits in his book that; the "The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}" -An Essay on The Development of the Christian Doctrine John Henry "Cardinal Newman" p.359

      Most of those I can trace to the Old Testament.

      Temples: 1 Samuel 3:3
      And ere the lamp of God went out in the temple of the Lord,

      holy water; Numbers 5:17-19 And the priest shall take holy water....

      incense, lamps, and candles;
      Exodus 30:27
      And the table and all his vessels, and the candlestick and his vessels, and the altar of incense,....
      Exodus 25:37
      And thou shalt make the seven lamps ....

      holydays and seasons use of calendars,
      Genesis 1:14
      And God said, ... and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days....

      processions,
      2 Samuel 6:15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.

      blessings on the fields
      Genesis 49:26
      The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills:

      sacerdotal vestments
      Exodus 28:4 ....and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.

      tonsure
      Tonsure is the practice of cutting or shaving some or all of the hair on the scalp, as a sign of religious devotion or humility.

      Numbers 6:18
      And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

      the ring in marriage
      Protestants don't do that? Apparently, it is an ancient Egyptian ritual. But I don't see it in Scripture.

      turning to the East
      The people of God have always expected God to come from the east:
      Ezekiel 11:23
      And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.

      Hosea 13:15
      Though he be fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the wind of the Lord....

      the Kyrie Eleison
      That is Greek for Lord have mercy:
      Psalm 6:2
      Have mercy upon me, O Lord;...

      The rest, if they are of pagan origin, have been "sanctified by their adoption into the Church." as he said.

      cont'd

      Delete
    5. cont'd

      The penetration of the religion of Babylon became so general and well known that Rome was called the "New Babylon." -Faith of our fathers 1917 ed. Cardinal Gibbons, p. 106

      Ancient Rome was Babylon. The Catholic Church is not "Rome".

      "In order to attach to Christianity great attraction in the eyes of the nobility, the priests adopted the outer garments and adornments which were used in pagan cults." -Life of Constantine, Eusabius, cited in Altai-Nimalaya, p. 94

      The garments of the Catholic priests are from Jewish tradition.

      "The Church did everything it couldto stamp out such 'pagan' rites, but had to capitualet and allow the rites to continue with only the name of the local diety changed to some Christian saint's name." -Religious Tradition and Myth. Dr. Edwin Goodenough, Professor of Religion, Harvard University. p. 56, 57

      Perhaps. But some Protestant Churches are also named after Saints.

      In Stanley's History, page 40: "The popes filled the place of the vacant emperors at Rome, inheriting their power, their prestige, and their titles from PAGANISM."

      Not true. Catholic priestly titles are all Christian.

      Catholic Priests claim power over God Himself

      James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. 17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

      " you [priests] are called 'another Christ.' " --MOTHER TERESA

      2 Corinthians 5:20King James Version (KJV)

      20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, ....

      "...the power of the priest is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world. ...thus the priest may be called the creator of the Creator..." -The diginity of the priesthood by Liguori, p. 33

      I'd call that hyperbole but it is not far wrong. It is not, by the way, Catholic Doctrine.

      Vatican claims Power to change God's Law


      "The Pope is of great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine laws... The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth." -Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Ribliotheca, "Papa," art. 2, translated


      That's why Christians celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday rather than Saturday:

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

      cont'd

      Delete
    6. cont'd

      ( What about Revelation 22:18-19)?

      Revelation 22:18-19King James Version (KJV)

      18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

      19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

      It is yo who need to dread those words. Because it is Protestants who took out the 7 deuterocanonical books from the Bible and added several heretical doctrines to the Word of God.

      Yup, you are the true "Church of Christ"...

      That's right.

      The heretical quotes I have provided are just FEW OUT OF SO MANY I COULD NOT EVEN COUNT THEM!!! Give it up De Maria. The burden of proof will always be on your back! The Catholic Church is not AND WILL NEVER BE THE ONE WE READ ABOUT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT! One has to wonder, why do you Catholics strive so hard to defend such immoral practices? Therefore, your accusations against Russell's article is completely false.

      Jesse, you don't understand the Word of God and never will until you accept the Traditions of the Catholic Church. It is you who are living in heresy

      Delete
  23. Hello De Maria,

    I’m still here and I’m fine. I was simply watching the discussion quietly “from a distance.”

    I do appreciate Jesse defending me, although I’ve never met him before. Apparently, he is a young man with lots of zeal. And that’s good. As long as the zeal is properly tempered with knowledge and with a humble attitude. And, of course, it must always agree with the principles of Scripture.

    But, most (if not all) of the things you and Jesse were debating have already been discussed by you and me on this blog, on your blog, and elsewhere. You know where I stand. I know where you stand. No need to rehash all the material. Like I always say: Let’s each present our case and then let the reader decide who has the more reasonable argument.

    In His Name,
    Russell

    ReplyDelete
  24. Good to hear from you. God bless you Russell.

    ReplyDelete