, indication of hierarchical structure, special place of Peter specifically (that's where "rock" comes from, the Greek Petros or Aramaic Cephas), and these critically important keys constitute one point of Scriptural basis for the papacy.
This verse is referencing , which is describing a Pope (a "Papa", a Father over Jerusalem, over the house of Juda), a Father who receives keys, just as Peter does from Christ, for Peter is to be the first in a chain of Fathers, or popes, to take a hierarchical place in the Church Christ has established. And it is a Churhc with hierarchy, as is unambiguously clear from Scripture, so all of the "bishopless" denominations are immediately suspect. Meeting in a gymnasium to talk about the Bible is nice, but it's not the liturgical celebration and sacrifice that Christ envisioned, nor does it constitute the hierarchical structure He intended.
establishes the sacrament of Confession, which Protestants today regard as some nonsensical Catholic invention. It's right there in Scripture, a gift (holy order) bestowed upon the disciples, that is, Christ's priesthood.
shows how "me and my Bible" does not a Christianity make, for here we have a layperson crying out, within Scripture, about how he needs someone to interpret God's Word for him, and who, if not a disciple of Christ. That is, a hierarchical member of Christ's Church. The Bible must not be taken outside of the Church, it must not be subjected to individualistic, to personal hermeneutics - it must be read with the Church's hermeneutic, and no other.
establishes plainly the Eucharistic doctrine of real presence that all Protestants deny. Christ is not speaking merely symbolically here (though symbolic interpretations can be meaningfully applied), for He is clear to emphasize in verse 56 that His flesh is food indeed and His blood is drink *indeed, and what Jesus Christ speaks, is - period. When His disciples depart from Him upon declaring this doctrine "hard to hear" (verse 61), does Christ reassure them that He was being metaphorical? Nay! He turns to the Twelve instead and asks if they too will leave - so crucial is the Eucharistic doctrine, which all Protestants have renounced in renouncing Christ's Church.
Finally, and importantly, are two quotations that make clear that we ought not to presume that Scripture alone ("sola Scriptura" as the Protestants say) is our source of knowledge about the truths of faith. points out that Christ taught His disciples separately from the crowds, explaining and elaborating on His teachings and parables so that they might have a deeper understanding. This meshes well with the plainly hierarchical structure He established in His Church (in which God wills there be no division, per , which is not readily achieved when leaving the Church by which we are meant to be unified. And if one thinks that "loving Christ" is sufficient terms for unification, just look at the diversity of belief that arises from this and ask if all can truly be said to be loving the "same" Christ).
Lastly we have , which is just one example of the Apostles beseeching all Christians to hold on to the whole faith, as passed one by both WORD and epistle. Epistles are letters; word here refers to oral teaching, that is tradition. That which the Christians taught to one another, both in doctrinal teaching and in liturgical practice, falls under the aspects of the faith that Christians are meant to keep - whether or not those details are contained in Scripture explicitly or not. (Also note that at the Last Supper, Christ says "Do this in memory of me", not "write this down in memory of me"). The verse does not say by word and epistle (by which some kind of logical AND might be inferred, such that oral teachings that are also fully contained in Scripture might be all that is being referenced - but no, we have an OR, and so this, with Mark 4:34, makes clear that there are teachings that are not necessarily written down in full, which we are nonetheless expected to hold on to and pass on through the generations. This is what the Church has done; by leaving it, some Christians have forsaken these traditions. Until the 14th century every Christian in the world believed that the Eucharist was the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, really and truly - and by deviating from that universal tradition, always and everywhere, Protestants really think they are keeping the fullness of the faith?
Can Protestants answer in the affirmative with Timothy, (): "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith", or St. Paul: "For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received" ()? Have those who have left the Church faithfully preserved what Christ passed on to His disciples, and what they passed on to us? Or have they merely preserved what their parents passed on to them, parents who themselves turned away from the faith that was deposited to the disciples - the full faith of word and epistle?
And since we have shown how Scripture itself affirms Tradition as well as what is written down, why not look at what some of the earliest Christians had to say about the Catholic faith?
St. Irenaeus, AD 130 - 202:
"One should not seek among others the truth that can be easily gotten from the Church. For in her, as in a rich treasury, the apostles have placed all that pertains to truth, so that everyone can drink this beverage of life. She is the door of life."
What Church does he mean we ought to "seek out" for truth? The abstract collection of all Bible owners? Or the hierarchical structure of which he was part as a Catholic bishop?
Or: "Even if the apostles had not left their Writings to us, ought we not to follow the rule of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches? Many barbarian peoples who believed in Christ follow this rule, having [the message of their] salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper and ink."
Or: "For when the mixed cup and the bread that has been prepared receive the Word of God, and become the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, and by these our flesh grows and is confirmed, how can they say that flesh cannot receive the free gift of God, which is eternal life since it is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and made a member of him? As the blessed Paul says in the Epistle to the Ephesians, that we are members of his body, of his flesh and his bones."
This guy knew the Apostle John, and you're just going to call him a heretic? A maker-up-of-things-of-the-faith??
How about Origen, AD 184 - 253: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit"
Or: "Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition."
IN NO WAY DEVIATES. Boom.
Or the great St. Augustine himself (AD 384 - 430)? Here's a spicy one: "I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not bid me to do so." What? Why would that be?? Because Augustine understood that belief in the infallibility of Scripture is only rational on the basis of miraculous testimony contained in Tradition and preserved by the Church (the Church which established the canon of Scripture in the first place - that is, what books belong in your Bible. Of course Luther removed some, willy-nilly - on whose authority, I wonder?).
And: "What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond."
So I would think twice of just casually asserting that the entire Catholic faith is just some sloppily thrown together extra-biblical heresy cult, and instead think twice about what the actual foundation of the Church is - Jesus Christ, and His intention of passing His teachings on through a hierarchical structure against which the gates of hell will not prevail.
May all those who have been misled about what the Church teaches, and who are ignorant of Christian history, be shown the light of Christ's face. Amen.
Well you laid out a well thought out argument. Will stop with the name calling and rude behavior.
I consider myself agnochristo. Agnostic but with Christian morals... I don't want any part of sand nigger abhramic religion.
But you showed great restraint and showed respect. Thanks for the reply it was a good read I think we will have to agree to disagree
Would you tell chiro I cant message anymore as I get nuked again by that faggot? I can read his messages fine, I just cant send. Appreciate it. Maybe he can message me a burner or find me over at voat.
Sure thing. He mentioned looping you into our emails.
When did the jews stop being polygamists and can i have multiple wives is really my only conflict w Catholicism.
Well I'm sold
Is the pope infallible? Peter was confrontedby Paul to his face for hypocrisy so no? Why were there competing popes in history? Is Mary the queen of heaven? Do you pray to her? Why is she still considered a virgin when she had other children? What about indulgences? Why did the catholic church burn people like Husk? Why are there so many pedos and faggot priests? Why is the catholic church so rich but it never spends these riches on the poor? Do you believe in transubstantiation?
The pope can exercise an infallible office under very specific circumstances. He has to be speaking on matters of faith and morals, has to be addressing the entire Church specifically, and has to be teaching with the explicit statement that the teaching is doctrinal and to be believed by all the faithful. Obviously these conditions are not explicitly stated in Scripture, but hopefully after my above message you can appreciate how a Tradition, parallel with Scripture, could contain such elements, in addition to the consequences of a living and visible Church established with the temporal authority to "bind and loose" per Matthew 16. The point is not replacing God, but God choosing someone to serve as a temporal head or vicar, in Christ's place, deferrent to Christ, the true Head, and for Christ's sake - for the sake of maintaining unity and preserving the faith. Christ established a hierarchical structure to facilitate such unity and clarity in the faith; having one vicar above the other bishops for maximum clarity is Scripturally based and a sign of Christ's wisdom in providing for His Church, for as the Lord says, "What more is there to do for my vineyard, that I have not already done?" ( - in other words, Christ did not fail to provide a clear authority for preserving His faith and teachings throughout the ages, and infallibility under the right circumstances, and guided by the Holy Spirit, is a part of the provision.
The matter that Peter was confronted by Paul for was not an infallible teaching. It is acceptable to resist the pontiff on non-infallible matters, for as a man, the pope is a sinner like any other, and can be mistaken - outside of his infallible office.
Sometimes there are periods of confusion as to who the pope is at a given time of transition, though these instances are the vast minority of cases, and in retrospect the pontiff can always be recognized by virtue of his basically universal recognition. The reasons given for false pope claims can be analyzed, and it is almost always only a small sect that tends to support the false popes, for this reason.
Yes, Mary was crowned Queen of Heaven by Jesus Christ. The Book of Revelation refers to Mary as crowned with twelve stars, so this dogma is not entirely without Scriptural basis. Further, we know how important Mary was in God's plan for our salvation - it was from her Jesus received the flesh that He offered up for us all, after all - and so to honour her whom He so loved by crowning her as Queen of Heaven is not so surprising a suggestion.
Mary did not have other children. It was common among Jews to refer to cousins as kin, like brothers or sisters, and so when Scripture does so for Jesus, this is what it means. Remember that the disciples knew Mary and lived with her after Christ ascended into heaven - do you think they would have not asked her, or would have been mistaken about whether Jesus has literal brothers or sisters? James and John were sometimes referred to as Jesus' brothers, and they were instrumental in founding the Church. Do you think so early on this "fact" could have been forgotten by the Church, if it were the case? There are several historical sources from was early as the second century suggesting Mary's virginity - how could the Church have forgotten what James and John would have known, so soon, unless the Church never actually believed Mary had other children?
Indulgences are only understandable in the context of Purgatory - temporal punishment for sin being remitted by pious actions in this life. It has nothing to do with salvation itself, since one has already been judged before entering Purgatory.
As for burnings, this does not directly pertain to the truth or non-truth of the faith itself. It is a moral consideration, which can be defended or apologized for at different levels.
There are sinners among all sects and faiths. The Catholic Church is large and its scandals are readily publicized. A pedo preacher in a small town in America with a congregation of 20 people will not get the same international coverage as a "coveted priest of the Catholic Church." That's one consideration. Second is the effect of the sexual revolution of the 60s on the clergy, and men instrumental to the sexual revolution specifically targetting clergy with the "new ideas" that were a part of that movement.
The Church has invested more in the poor than any other organization. Hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens of all sorts throughout all ages and in all places - compare the quality of life among the poor in England prior to the Reformation, to after it. Before the Reformation, Church property was spent on feeding the poor, housing wanderers, and helping people in various ways. When the English Reformation took place, men like Henry VIII and other nobles stole Church wealth and used it to enrich themselves. Why not question why they didn't invest in the poor? And let's not forgot the groups like those started by Mother Theresa, dedicated to helping the poor. They exist all over the world. It is profoundly ignorant to suggest the Church invests nothing in the poor. And as for expensive cathedrals, honouring God is very important also. Remember the Scripture, recounted in all four Gospels, where the woman pours the expensive oil over Jesus' head, and the disciples complain that the oil could have been sold and given to the poor, but Jesus commends the women for honouring God? It is the same with building cathedrals and investing in making the faith as beautiful as it deserves to be.
Yes, I believe in transubstantiation. I discussed the Scriptural basis for the Eucharist in John 6 in my reply above. All Christians believed in it for 15 centuries. I would be wary of anyone telling me to forsake such an old Christian doctrine - especially one as important as that.
(post is archived)