[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It may shock some of you people, but I could buy the whole apostolic succession/tradition thing if it weren’t for the utter condemnation of everything Rome has become in the pages of the very scriptures that she did indeed canonize. Oh the irony. It is the church herself that screams at me “SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!” for if not? Look what we get. An endless tsunami of abomination that ranges from simply wrong to flatly blasphemous. One day it just might sink in that I wish there WERE something like the RCC that was indeed the “one true and holy apostolic” church. I do. It’s not that there can’t be a succession of authority from the first century apostles or even that, gasp, there could not ever be additional revelation by a-priori definition. For me it’s not primarily any of that. It’s that if there is? The RCC ain’t it.
Whatever that thing in Rome is it ain’t the body and bride of the Jesus I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.
I have posted volumes of scripture that clearly contradict catholic teaching only to have the Catholics here stare at the screen and wonder what I’m talking about because they’ve been told by a horrifically corrupt and breathtakingly arrogant organization what to believe. It is the most successful deception of absolutely all time that something so manifestly anti Christian could be associated with the holy risen Christ by so much of the world for so long.[/quote]
I don’t find this shocking at all. Of course you are looking for the one true church, because you believe there is truth, that much I can tell even without tracking down all your posts. I don’t want to ask too much, but could you tell me three things that you find “simply wrong to flatly blasphemous” about Catholic teaching? Also, I am assuming you read my above post. What did you think of that?
[/quote]
I’d be happy with just one, but I think he’d rather just call it names than know and tell the truth.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It may shock some of you people, but I could buy the whole apostolic succession/tradition thing if it weren’t for the utter condemnation of everything Rome has become in the pages of the very scriptures that she did indeed canonize. Oh the irony. It is the church herself that screams at me “SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!” for if not? Look what we get. An endless tsunami of abomination that ranges from simply wrong to flatly blasphemous. One day it just might sink in that I wish there WERE something like the RCC that was indeed the “one true and holy apostolic” church. I do. It’s not that there can’t be a succession of authority from the first century apostles or even that, gasp, there could not ever be additional revelation by a-priori definition. For me it’s not primarily any of that. It’s that if there is? The RCC ain’t it.
Whatever that thing in Rome is it ain’t the body and bride of the Jesus I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.
I have posted volumes of scripture that clearly contradict catholic teaching only to have the Catholics here stare at the screen and wonder what I’m talking about because they’ve been told by a horrifically corrupt and breathtakingly arrogant organization what to believe. It is the most successful deception of absolutely all time that something so manifestly anti Christian could be associated with the holy risen Christ by so much of the world for so long.[/quote]
No you haven’t. you have never posted any scripture that is contrary to Catholic teaching, because Catholic teaching is based on scripture.
Pick one Catholic teaching and then find the contrary passage in scripture, this ought to be good…Well, we’re waiting…[/quote]
Though this is directed to Tirib, there are three teachings in particular of the Roman Catholic Church that I feel are unscriptural:
Praying to the saints and Mary for intercession:
Romans 8:34
Hebrews 7:25
I have read your responses on your beliefs about this. I have to say its not the same thing as having someone else pray for you. When someone prays for me, they are not interceding. They are simply in agreement with what I too am praying for. And when two are three gather, there the Lord Jesus is with them.
Scripture also writes about praying for one another. But scripture does not advocate asking the righteous who sleep in Christ to pray for us, or intercede.
Praying for someone =/= interceding for them. And the scriptures clearly show who the only intercessor is.
Purgatory
Romans 5:1
Romans 4:5
Romans 9:30
Acts 13:39
Galatians 2:16
1 Peter 2:24
2 Corinthians 5:21
Romans 5:9
Purgatory is not necessary if Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient enough. The teachings of Purgatory deny Christ’s sacrifice was enough to take away the punishment of sin.
Priesthood
Priests also intercede for us on our behalf. But Jesus is our only high priest forever more, and we no longer require earthly ones.
[quote]forlife wrote:
According to Matthew 13:55, Jesus had 4 brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas). Maybe they were his half-brothers from a former marriage with Joseph, it’s not really clear.[/quote]
Maybe, I’m just trying to get confirmation that this is an actual Catholic belief. I know that the emmaculate conception came later - and I thought I knew all that the EC entailed, but perhaps not.
Frankly speaking, I don’t see why it’s a big deal. I mean, what would be wrong with supposing that Mary was sinless, had Jesus, and then had other children? Seems like a reasonable position. Mary was married, so these wouldn’t be children of sin. You could keep the EC position and contend that Mary remained sinless. I mean, if this was not the case, then why did Mary get married to Joseph at all?
Heh, seems like punishment for Joseph to me - a ‘look but don’t touch’ kind of thing… ;-)[/quote]
Even though socially Mary was married to Joseph, she was spiritually married to the Holy Ghost and to have sex would have been adultery.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It may shock some of you people, but I could buy the whole apostolic succession/tradition thing if it weren’t for the utter condemnation of everything Rome has become in the pages of the very scriptures that she did indeed canonize. Oh the irony. It is the church herself that screams at me “SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!” for if not? Look what we get. An endless tsunami of abomination that ranges from simply wrong to flatly blasphemous. One day it just might sink in that I wish there WERE something like the RCC that was indeed the “one true and holy apostolic” church. I do. It’s not that there can’t be a succession of authority from the first century apostles or even that, gasp, there could not ever be additional revelation by a-priori definition. For me it’s not primarily any of that. It’s that if there is? The RCC ain’t it.
Whatever that thing in Rome is it ain’t the body and bride of the Jesus I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.
I have posted volumes of scripture that clearly contradict catholic teaching only to have the Catholics here stare at the screen and wonder what I’m talking about because they’ve been told by a horrifically corrupt and breathtakingly arrogant organization what to believe. It is the most successful deception of absolutely all time that something so manifestly anti Christian could be associated with the holy risen Christ by so much of the world for so long.[/quote]
No you haven’t. you have never posted any scripture that is contrary to Catholic teaching, because Catholic teaching is based on scripture.
Pick one Catholic teaching and then find the contrary passage in scripture, this ought to be good…Well, we’re waiting…[/quote]
Though this is directed to Tirib, there are three teachings in particular of the Roman Catholic Church that I feel are unscriptural:
Praying to the saints and Mary for intercession:
Romans 8:34
Hebrews 7:25
I have read your responses on your beliefs about this. I have to say its not the same thing as having someone else pray for you. When someone prays for me, they are not interceding. They are simply in agreement with what I too am praying for. And when two are three gather, there the Lord Jesus is with them.
Scripture also writes about praying for one another. But scripture does not advocate asking the righteous who sleep in Christ to pray for us, or intercede.
Praying for someone =/= interceding for them. And the scriptures clearly show who the only intercessor is.
Purgatory
Romans 5:1
Romans 4:5
Romans 9:30
Acts 13:39
Galatians 2:16
1 Peter 2:24
2 Corinthians 5:21
Romans 5:9
Purgatory is not necessary if Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient enough. The teachings of Purgatory deny Christ’s sacrifice was enough to take away the punishment of sin.
Priesthood
Priests also intercede for us on our behalf. But Jesus is our only high priest forever more, and we no longer require earthly ones.
[quote]forlife wrote:
According to Matthew 13:55, Jesus had 4 brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas). Maybe they were his half-brothers from a former marriage with Joseph, it’s not really clear.[/quote]
Maybe, I’m just trying to get confirmation that this is an actual Catholic belief. I know that the emmaculate conception came later - and I thought I knew all that the EC entailed, but perhaps not.
Frankly speaking, I don’t see why it’s a big deal. I mean, what would be wrong with supposing that Mary was sinless, had Jesus, and then had other children? Seems like a reasonable position. Mary was married, so these wouldn’t be children of sin. You could keep the EC position and contend that Mary remained sinless. I mean, if this was not the case, then why did Mary get married to Joseph at all?
Heh, seems like punishment for Joseph to me - a ‘look but don’t touch’ kind of thing… ;-)[/quote]
It matters because Mary was like no other. Saying she was a normal women after the birth of Christ degrades her stature.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It may shock some of you people, but I could buy the whole apostolic succession/tradition thing if it weren’t for the utter condemnation of everything Rome has become in the pages of the very scriptures that she did indeed canonize. Oh the irony. It is the church herself that screams at me “SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!” for if not? Look what we get. An endless tsunami of abomination that ranges from simply wrong to flatly blasphemous. One day it just might sink in that I wish there WERE something like the RCC that was indeed the “one true and holy apostolic” church. I do. It’s not that there can’t be a succession of authority from the first century apostles or even that, gasp, there could not ever be additional revelation by a-priori definition. For me it’s not primarily any of that. It’s that if there is? The RCC ain’t it.
Whatever that thing in Rome is it ain’t the body and bride of the Jesus I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.
I have posted volumes of scripture that clearly contradict catholic teaching only to have the Catholics here stare at the screen and wonder what I’m talking about because they’ve been told by a horrifically corrupt and breathtakingly arrogant organization what to believe. It is the most successful deception of absolutely all time that something so manifestly anti Christian could be associated with the holy risen Christ by so much of the world for so long.[/quote]
No you haven’t. you have never posted any scripture that is contrary to Catholic teaching, because Catholic teaching is based on scripture.
Pick one Catholic teaching and then find the contrary passage in scripture, this ought to be good…Well, we’re waiting…[/quote]
Though this is directed to Tirib, there are three teachings in particular of the Roman Catholic Church that I feel are unscriptural:
Praying to the saints and Mary for intercession:
Romans 8:34
Hebrews 7:25
I have read your responses on your beliefs about this. I have to say its not the same thing as having someone else pray for you. When someone prays for me, they are not interceding. They are simply in agreement with what I too am praying for. And when two are three gather, there the Lord Jesus is with them.
Scripture also writes about praying for one another. But scripture does not advocate asking the righteous who sleep in Christ to pray for us, or intercede.
Praying for someone =/= interceding for them. And the scriptures clearly show who the only intercessor is.
Purgatory
Romans 5:1
Romans 4:5
Romans 9:30
Acts 13:39
Galatians 2:16
1 Peter 2:24
2 Corinthians 5:21
Romans 5:9
Purgatory is not necessary if Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient enough. The teachings of Purgatory deny Christ’s sacrifice was enough to take away the punishment of sin.
Priesthood
Priests also intercede for us on our behalf. But Jesus is our only high priest forever more, and we no longer require earthly ones.
Hebrews 9:11
Hebrews 3:1
Hebrews 4:14
Hebrews 6:20
Hebrews 8:1[/quote]
See above.
See above, and let’s think logically. Do you believe that you (or anyone) commits sins? I’m going to assume you answered yes. And if you believe the Bible, yes; we are all sinners. Do you believe that anything unpure can enter Heaven? If you believe the Bible, the answer is no. When you die are you still a sinner in some sense if even minor? Yes. So sometime after you die but before you get to Heaven you have to be purified? Yes. Catholics call this period Purgatory. It might be ever so temporal, but it must occur. And look it is Biblically based.
Yo! Peter. You are My Rock, and upon you I’m going to build My Church. And you know what, anything you bind down here, I will bind up there, and anything you forgive down here, I will forgive up there. Sound cool? Check you later. [Jesus establishing the Priesthood if he was a rapper circa 1985] Even though you know we no longer need earthly ones, I guess Jesus was just screwing with Peter.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It may shock some of you people, but I could buy the whole apostolic succession/tradition thing if it weren’t for the utter condemnation of everything Rome has become in the pages of the very scriptures that she did indeed canonize. Oh the irony. It is the church herself that screams at me “SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!” for if not? Look what we get. An endless tsunami of abomination that ranges from simply wrong to flatly blasphemous. One day it just might sink in that I wish there WERE something like the RCC that was indeed the “one true and holy apostolic” church. I do. It’s not that there can’t be a succession of authority from the first century apostles or even that, gasp, there could not ever be additional revelation by a-priori definition. For me it’s not primarily any of that. It’s that if there is? The RCC ain’t it.
Whatever that thing in Rome is it ain’t the body and bride of the Jesus I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.
I have posted volumes of scripture that clearly contradict catholic teaching only to have the Catholics here stare at the screen and wonder what I’m talking about because they’ve been told by a horrifically corrupt and breathtakingly arrogant organization what to believe. It is the most successful deception of absolutely all time that something so manifestly anti Christian could be associated with the holy risen Christ by so much of the world for so long.[/quote]
No you haven’t. you have never posted any scripture that is contrary to Catholic teaching, because Catholic teaching is based on scripture.
Pick one Catholic teaching and then find the contrary passage in scripture, this ought to be good…Well, we’re waiting…[/quote]
Though this is directed to Tirib, there are three teachings in particular of the Roman Catholic Church that I feel are unscriptural:
Praying to the saints and Mary for intercession:
Romans 8:34
Hebrews 7:25
I have read your responses on your beliefs about this. I have to say its not the same thing as having someone else pray for you. When someone prays for me, they are not interceding. They are simply in agreement with what I too am praying for. And when two are three gather, there the Lord Jesus is with them.
Scripture also writes about praying for one another. But scripture does not advocate asking the righteous who sleep in Christ to pray for us, or intercede.
Praying for someone =/= interceding for them. And the scriptures clearly show who the only intercessor is.
Purgatory
Romans 5:1
Romans 4:5
Romans 9:30
Acts 13:39
Galatians 2:16
1 Peter 2:24
2 Corinthians 5:21
Romans 5:9
Purgatory is not necessary if Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient enough. The teachings of Purgatory deny Christ’s sacrifice was enough to take away the punishment of sin.
Priesthood
Priests also intercede for us on our behalf. But Jesus is our only high priest forever more, and we no longer require earthly ones.
Hebrews 9:11
Hebrews 3:1
Hebrews 4:14
Hebrews 6:20
Hebrews 8:1[/quote]
See above.
See above, and let’s think logically. Do you believe that you (or anyone) commits sins? I’m going to assume you answered yes. And if you believe the Bible, yes; we are all sinners. Do you believe that anything unpure can enter Heaven? If you believe the Bible, the answer is no. When you die are you still a sinner in some sense if even minor? Yes. So sometime after you die but before you get to Heaven you have to be purified? Yes. Catholics call this period Purgatory. It might be ever so temporal, but it must occur. And look it is Biblically based.
Yo! Peter. You are My Rock, and upon you I’m going to build My Church. And you know what, anything you bind down here, I will bind up there, and anything you forgive down here, I will forgive up there. Sound cool? Check you later. [Jesus establishing the Priesthood if he was a rapper circa 1985] Even though you know we no longer need earthly ones, I guess Jesus was just screwing with Peter.
[/quote]
I don’t get the “see above comments made”. You mean above my original post, yours, or Pat’s?
We all commit sins and will until the day we die. For one, there is a difference between practicing sin and accidentally sinning (like calling someone a bad name in a heated argument). Obviously we all do the latter (I would call them slip ups) but people who are not redeemed by the blood of Christ does the former.
Yes, I believe the Bible in all it says, and it says by the blood of Jesus we are forgiven and Christ’s sacrifice paid the FULL price. We cannot enter heaven unpure, but we are purified by Christ’s blood. If something IN ADDITION to Christ’s sacrifice is also required to purify us before God, then Christ’s sacrifice was not enough. This clearly goes against Holy Scriptures.
Jesus said upon this rock I will build my Church, but scriptures clearly state that we must build it using scriptures and not to exceed it. Meaning if anything goes outside of scripture, it is not of Christ.
Meaning if anything goes outside of scripture, it is not of Christ.[/quote]
…in the Catholic Church tradition is not something other than Holy Scripture and added to it, but rather the entire living transmission of the truth, whose central organ is the inspired Scripture. Scripture is not illuminated or completed by tradition as by something foreign to it and superadded. On the contrary, we must insist, Scripture keeps its true and complete sense only when it remains a vital part of that living tradition of the Church in which the inspired writers actually composed it, making it, as it were, the essential deposit of this tradition. The Word of God is communicated to the Church and directs her through Holy Scripture, but through Scripture linked to all those things that make us see it as the deposit of a Word which is and will always be the word of life, which cannot be preserved apart from the life it itself creates and sustains.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Though this is directed to Tirib, there are three teachings in particular of the Roman Catholic Church that I feel are unscriptural:
Praying to the saints and Mary for intercession:
Romans 8:34
Hebrews 7:25
I have read your responses on your beliefs about this. I have to say its not the same thing as having someone else pray for you. When someone prays for me, they are not interceding. They are simply in agreement with what I too am praying for. And when two are three gather, there the Lord Jesus is with them.
Scripture also writes about praying for one another. But scripture does not advocate asking the righteous who sleep in Christ to pray for us, or intercede.
Praying for someone =/= interceding for them. And the scriptures clearly show who the only intercessor is.
[/quote]
Um…what are you talking about interceding, the Saints make intercessions for us, which in fact is by definition “a prayer to God on behalf of another person.”
“'And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is not God of the dead, but of the living . . .â??” (Mark 12:26-27)
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely . . .” (Heb. 12:1).
“And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8).
“[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God” (Rev. 8:3-4).
Yes, he took away the punishment of sin, which, as scripture shows us, is death. He didn’t take away the obligation to clean up our messes, we can see this when we are instructed before we offer our sacrifices at the altar of the Lord to make mends with our brother who we sinned against.
If you spill milk at your mother’s house she instantly forgives you, you say sorry, but hey there is still milk on the kitchen floor, your mother’s forgiveness doesn’t automatically clean up the mess. Purgatory is not punishment, it’s cleaning of the soul and spirit.
“For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin” (2 Macc. 12:44-45).
“Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny” (Matt. 5:25-26).
“Each manâ??s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any manâ??s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:13-15).
“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey . . .” (1 Peter 3:18-20).
“But nothing unclean shall enter it [heaven] . . .” (Rev. 21:27).
[quote]
3) Priesthood
Priests also intercede for us on our behalf. But Jesus is our only high priest forever more, and we no longer require earthly ones.
Hebrews 9:11
Hebrews 3:1
Hebrews 4:14
Hebrews 6:20
Hebrews 8:1[/quote]
The word is “intercession” and not “intercede.”
Well, Jesus was always the High Priest, that is what forever more means (forever goes back and forth), yet the Jews have had high priests and no one throws fits about them having a priesthood, Jesus even mad favorable comments on Mal the High Priest. Theirs is even reserved to one tribe.
First Peter 2:5-9 tells us, “Like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ…But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.”
See we are all called to be priests…so, that means that Jesus’ role as High Priest, forever more, intercessor and mediator is…nullified…by scripture? No.
The New Testament shows us that us being called to be priests does not contradict Yeshua’s role as our unique High Priest/mediator/intercessor, while at the same time showing the biblical truth that Christians can act as priests/mediators/intercessors.
I laugh at people that say that praying to God’s friends…diminishes God…really, because I didn’t know such weak creatures could diminish their creator, but I’ll hold judgement. Christians being priests do not diminish Yeshua’s role as our unique priest, they participate in that priesthood. The mystical union between baptized Christians and Christ that Paul calls it a body (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Rom. 12:5) with Christ as its head (cf. Eph. 1:22-23).
If you attribute something to the hand in the MBOC (I’m a Star Trek fan, so I love saying MBOC!), does not takeaway from the head. Priests does not usurp from priesthood of Christ, because it is Christ who empowers them in His own priesthood. It is Christ (and his priesthood) living in them (cf. Gal. 2:20).
“Further, it is obvious that Hebrews 7:22-25 and 1 Timothy 2:5 are not saying that Christians cannot act as mediators or intercessors in any sense. Paul says, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions” (1 Tim. 2:1-2). This text urges Christians to act as mediators or intercessors. When we understand that Christians can intercede only because they are in the one true mediator/intercessor and that they act as members of his body, the difficulty goes away. Simple enough.” - Tim Staples
[quote]forbes wrote:
pat wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
It may shock some of you people, but I could buy the whole apostolic succession/tradition thing if it weren’t for the utter condemnation of everything Rome has become in the pages of the very scriptures that she did indeed canonize. Oh the irony. It is the church herself that screams at me “SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!” for if not? Look what we get. An endless tsunami of abomination that ranges from simply wrong to flatly blasphemous. One day it just might sink in that I wish there WERE something like the RCC that was indeed the “one true and holy apostolic” church. I do. It’s not that there can’t be a succession of authority from the first century apostles or even that, gasp, there could not ever be additional revelation by a-priori definition. For me it’s not primarily any of that. It’s that if there is? The RCC ain’t it.
Whatever that thing in Rome is it ain’t the body and bride of the Jesus I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.
I have posted volumes of scripture that clearly contradict catholic teaching only to have the Catholics here stare at the screen and wonder what I’m talking about because they’ve been told by a horrifically corrupt and breathtakingly arrogant organization what to believe. It is the most successful deception of absolutely all time that something so manifestly anti Christian could be associated with the holy risen Christ by so much of the world for so long.
No you haven’t. you have never posted any scripture that is contrary to Catholic teaching, because Catholic teaching is based on scripture.
Pick one Catholic teaching and then find the contrary passage in scripture, this ought to be good…Well, we’re waiting…
Though this is directed to Tirib, there are three teachings in particular of the Roman Catholic Church that I feel are unscriptural:
Praying to the saints and Mary for intercession:
[/quote]
Romans 8:34
[34] Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who diedâ??more than that, who was raisedâ??who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
How does that make praying for intercession from those of the purest of spirit unscriptural? It does not, it says Christ intercedes for us, it does not say he alone is to do so…
Hebrews 7:25
Same thing here:
Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
(Hebrews 7:25 ESV)
Problem being is that you extract passages out of context of what is actually being said. The Hebrews passage is asserting that the single sacrifice of Christ is far superior to all the sacrifices of yore, including Abraham. He is not speaking specifically discussing intercession.
Likewise in the Romans passage Paul was talking about God’s everlasting love, not against intercession in the communion of saints.
The Catechism puts it this way in brief:
"960 The Church is a “communion of saints”: this expression refers first to the “holy things” (sancta), above all the Eucharist, by which “the unity of believers, who form one body in Christ, is both represented and brought about” (LG 3).
961 The term “communion of saints” refers also to the communion of “holy persons” (sancti) in Christ who “died for all,” so that what each one does or suffers in and for Christ bears fruit for all.
962 “We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion, the merciful love of God and his saints is always [attentive] to our prayers” (Paul VI, CPG # 30)."
Yes they are. They are praying on your behalf which is an intercession, by definition. If they are praying for you or on your behalf they are interceding. You are praying with you that is not an intercession, but a communion. These people are not dead, but alive anyway. Saints are simply those who are verifiably alive in the light of God
"[Pray for All People]
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
(1 Timothy 2:1 ESV)
2 Macc 12:46.
“Therefore Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”
We are called 'children of God" but we only believe in the one true Son of God right?
[5:1] Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Says nothing about heaven, hell or purgatory.
Romans 4:5
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Same thing, not talking about that.
Romans 9:30
“[30] What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;”
I don’t know what that has to do with purgatory??? Why such passages?
Acts 13:39
And after destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance.
???
Galatians 2:16
yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
1 Peter 2:24
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Romans 5:9
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
But by that logic, we should be able to do what ever because we’re already forgiven and do not need to attone for our sins through penance and prayer? You know that’s not true. In the simplest sense, Purgatory is a second chance for reparation of sin.
The Catechism says this:
'1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven."
Paul says this about what we call purgatory:
Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, strawâ?? [13] each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. [14] If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. [15] If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
(1 Corinthians 3:12-15 ESV)
Jesus refers to a forgiveness of sins in the afterlife here:
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
(Matthew 12:32 ESV)
Hebrews 9:11
[11] But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Hebrews 3:1
Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,
(Hebrews 3:1 ESV)
Hebrews 4:14
Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
Hebrews 6:20
where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
(Hebrews 6:20 ESV)
Hebrews 8:1
Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
(Hebrews 8:1 ESV)
I gotta admit I was a little caught off gaurd. Priest are simply ministers. Are you saying that ministers and ministry is useless and not scriptural? Are you a self study Christian or do you attend a church with a minister?
Paul says this:
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. [2] Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [3] not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. [4] He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, [5] for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?
(1 Timothy 3:1-5 ESV)
This is the birth of the Priesthood. But they are simply minsiters.
Catholic ministry started with Peter:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
(Matthew 16:18-19 ESV)
Then all apostles were charged with the duty:
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
And from there, the apostles ordained ‘oversears’.
Thanks for bringing up real concerns and issues with out the need for berating and name calling that which we hold dear. Decent people can hold decent conversations.
A lot to cover, but I will address what I feel is the most important:
Intersession:
B.C quoted Revelation 5:8 and 8: 3-4
These verses talk about the prayers of the saints, their OWN prayers. Not prayers from others that they are making intercession for. If it was so, it would have said.
The problem I have is that basically, the RC church believes that we require intercessors (the saints) for our intercessor (Jesus) to make intersession to God the Father. Am I wrong in this? If I’m not, then why would this even be necessary.
Thus far no scripture has proven that we should pray to the saints for intercession.
Jesus is our only intercessor and the scriptures would indicate if it was otherwise.
To Pat, Jesus can be a mediator to God even though he himself is God because it is referring to God the Son interceding to God the Father, who are different individuals of the same being. So yes, God can intercede for God when God is comprised of different persons.
Purgatory
B.C, you make it sound like after we are forgiven of sins, we are still filthy from its effects, correct? If so, then that makes no sense. One, sin doesn’t make us filthy in a literal sense. There is nothing to clean up with a swiffer mop. Scripture is utterly clear on this concept:
Man sinned, and the consequence for sin is death (physical and spiritual). God’s perfect holiness requires atonement. It’s either us or something else that must taste the FULL wrath of God for it to be complete. Fortunately God loves us, and did not want to see us suffer. So he sent Jesus to pay the price in FULL.
Jesus was the one and only sacrifice that was needed. His blood purifies us. The fires of purgatory basically say “Jesus, your sacrifice was pretty good, but not good enough. I still have the stink of sin on me”.
In my opinion this is the worst doctrine of the RCC faith.
Priesthood
I will admit you guys got me there in some respects. I will require further reading on this part.
[quote]forbes wrote:
A lot to cover, but I will address what I feel is the most important:
Intersession:
B.C quoted Revelation 5:8 and 8: 3-4
These verses talk about the prayers of the saints, their OWN prayers. Not prayers from others that they are making intercession for. If it was so, it would have said.
[/quote]
Actually both are very clear that they are or include the prayers of the saints on earth.
“prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8), this is a universal precept, not a particular precept. The saints, being all those of the faith, are talked about in this sentence. Now, those in Purgatory can’t pray for themselves, and those in Hell aren’t praying at all, so that allows two groups of people – those in Heaven and those on the earth. So, who and what do you think those in paradiso would pray for? It isn’t after the final judgment so they still have loved ones on earth to worry about, it would make sense that since we’re close with those alive in Christ that they would pray for us and offer up our prayers to God.
“prayers of all saints” (Rev. 8:3), this is no doubt a universal precept. All saints, every one of them.
Yes, you are wrong. The Holy Church does not require intercessors. However, we are in communion with the Saints in Heaven.
Incorrect, so far by your private interpretation and ignorance of the faith, there is no proof.
I already proved that because someone is a priest/mediator/intercessor doesn’t take away from God’s unique role as ours, that is making Jesus’ nature a little weak, that mere humans could take away his role?
No, you’re just making stuff up now.
I’m glad you feel that away about the Bible, I, however, don’t concur.
[quote]
In my opinion this is the worst doctrine of the RCC faith.
Priesthood
I will admit you guys got me there in some respects. I will require further reading on this part.[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It may shock some of you people, but I could buy the whole apostolic succession/tradition thing if it weren’t for the utter condemnation of everything Rome has become in the pages of the very scriptures that she did indeed canonize. Oh the irony. It is the church herself that screams at me “SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!” for if not? Look what we get. An endless tsunami of abomination that ranges from simply wrong to flatly blasphemous. One day it just might sink in that I wish there WERE something like the RCC that was indeed the “one true and holy apostolic” church. I do. It’s not that there can’t be a succession of authority from the first century apostles or even that, gasp, there could not ever be additional revelation by a-priori definition. For me it’s not primarily any of that. It’s that if there is? The RCC ain’t it.
Whatever that thing in Rome is it ain’t the body and bride of the Jesus I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.
I have posted volumes of scripture that clearly contradict catholic teaching only to have the Catholics here stare at the screen and wonder what I’m talking about because they’ve been told by a horrifically corrupt and breathtakingly arrogant organization what to believe. It is the most successful deception of absolutely all time that something so manifestly anti Christian could be associated with the holy risen Christ by so much of the world for so long.[/quote]
I don’t find this shocking at all. Of course you are looking for the one true church, because you believe there is truth, that much I can tell even without tracking down all your posts. >>>[/quote]You may want to track down some more of my posts [quote]jakerz96 wrote:I don’t want to ask too much, but could you tell me three things that you find “simply wrong to flatly blasphemous” about Catholic teaching? >>>[/quote] No =] [quote]jakerz96 wrote:Also, I am assuming you read my above post. What did you think of that? [/quote]I think that the very last entity on this Earth to be mistaken for the body and bride of the risen Christ is the one emanating from the vatican. I’ve been through all this and it seems that no matter how I try I can not seem to keep from being lured back into this debate.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It may shock some of you people, but I could buy the whole apostolic succession/tradition thing if it weren’t for the utter condemnation of everything Rome has become in the pages of the very scriptures that she did indeed canonize. Oh the irony. It is the church herself that screams at me “SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!” for if not? Look what we get. An endless tsunami of abomination that ranges from simply wrong to flatly blasphemous. One day it just might sink in that I wish there WERE something like the RCC that was indeed the “one true and holy apostolic” church. I do. It’s not that there can’t be a succession of authority from the first century apostles or even that, gasp, there could not ever be additional revelation by a-priori definition. For me it’s not primarily any of that. It’s that if there is? The RCC ain’t it.
Whatever that thing in Rome is it ain’t the body and bride of the Jesus I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.
I have posted volumes of scripture that clearly contradict catholic teaching only to have the Catholics here stare at the screen and wonder what I’m talking about because they’ve been told by a horrifically corrupt and breathtakingly arrogant organization what to believe. It is the most successful deception of absolutely all time that something so manifestly anti Christian could be associated with the holy risen Christ by so much of the world for so long.[/quote]
I don’t find this shocking at all. Of course you are looking for the one true church, because you believe there is truth, that much I can tell even without tracking down all your posts. >>>[/quote]You may want to track down some more of my posts [quote]jakerz96 wrote:I don’t want to ask too much, but could you tell me three things that you find “simply wrong to flatly blasphemous” about Catholic teaching? >>>[/quote] No =] [quote]jakerz96 wrote:Also, I am assuming you read my above post. What did you think of that? [/quote]I think that the very last entity on this Earth to be mistaken for the body and bride of the risen Christ is the one emanating from the vatican. I’ve been through all this and it seems that no matter how I try I can not seem to keep from being lured back into this debate.
[/quote]
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to lure you into debate. I just wanted to know what the three most offensive things were, to you, about the Catholic Church. My intent was not to debate them with you. I was curious as to what you thought about the quote I posted above though.
Brother Chris, what about my interpretation of sin and redemption do you not agree with?
As for the "building of the Church on Peter:
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18).
The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.
Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 552).
“By the word “rock” the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for “Peter” and “rock”. His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ.” (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles).
The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).
There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. “…you are Peter (Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?οÏ?, petros) and upon this rock (Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?α, petra) I will build My church…” In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress:” “You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie.” Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine “petra” occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
* Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
* Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
* 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
* 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; “petras” in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Petros: "Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?οÏ?, a stone, distinguished from Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?α
Petra: Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?α , Ion. and Ep. Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?η, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge…Properly, Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?α is a fixed rock, Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?οÏ? a stone."
Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine’s Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell.
PETRA Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?α , (4073)) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved.
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
* Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
* Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
* Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
* Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
* 2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
* Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
* Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
* Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, “but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’.” The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don’t have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don’t possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas,” (which is translated Peter).” The word “Peter” here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
Jesus was the one and only sacrifice that was needed. His blood purifies us. The fires of purgatory basically say “Jesus, your sacrifice was pretty good, but not good enough. I still have the stink of sin on me”.
[/quote]
If anything the Catholic Church recognizes the completeness of Jesus’s sacrifice. Going so far as to make it a sin to be Baptized twice.
You are reading too much into this. Even though Jesus suffered and died for our sins, we are still sinners. Hence we need confession to and purification from God to be in full communion with God. Just as you confess your sins during life, you confess your sins during purgatory.
If you believed your logic, you would never have to confess your sins, be sorry, etc. because Jesus already died for that. Jesus, however, called us to confess our sins and denounce the devil.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to lure you into debate. I just wanted to know what the three most offensive things were, to you, about the Catholic Church. My intent was not to debate them with you. I was curious as to what you thought about the quote I posted above though.[/quote] No, it’s not your fault and there’s no need to apologize. This has been going on for months now. I told you what I thought of the quote above in my last post to you though. I understand the whole deposit of the faith thing. I understand the idea that the scriptures were born from the RCC and that only the RCC is authorized to interpret them. I understand the idea that RCC tradition and scripture together make up the whole of divine revelation and that it was the very tradition I now scorn that gave me the very scriptures I now love.
Why I do not buy any of this is readily available in my dozens of posts over the last several months detailing some of my reasons which would require volumes to adequately convey. In my view any person in whom dwells the living Christ of the New Testament should be revolted by every anti Christian thing the RCC is. You have a sound doctrine of God, theology proper, and it goes wildly careening downhill from there. Close your eyes and point at something else three times and you’ll likely get three things I believe God finds offensive about the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic sacerdotal and orthodox protestant gospels are not the same. They who believe they are are fooling themselves. If Rome is Christ’s church then He is the devil. It is evil.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
He is the devil. It is evil.
[/quote]
Lol, see I knew you thought Jesus was the devil. Basically, what Tirib is saying is he believes Jesus lied to Peter and the Apostles and to all those are in Jesus’ Mystical Body of Christ.
OMG this is bulls!@t. I had a whole post that didn’t show up! I have to do it again.
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18).
The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.
Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 552).
“By the word “rock” the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for “Peter” and “rock”. His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ.” (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles).
The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).
There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. “…you are Peter (Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?οÏ?, petros) and upon this rock (Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?α, petra) I will build My church…” In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress:” “You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie.” Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine “petra” occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
* Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
* Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
* 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
* 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; “petras” in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Petros: "Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?οÏ?, a stone, distinguished from Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?α
Petra: Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?α , Ion. and Ep. Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?η, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge…Properly, Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?α is a fixed rock, Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?οÏ? a stone."
Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine’s Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell.
PETRA Ï?ÎÏ?Ï?α , (4073)) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved.
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
* Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
* Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
* Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
* Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
* 2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
* Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
* Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
* Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, “but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’.” The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don’t have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don’t possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas,” (which is translated Peter).” The word “Peter” here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).