Apologetics, in need of help! ( the Papacy and our Apostolic Succession)

[Thunderbird]

Slight backstory. It just so happens that a person with whom I grew up with also works here. Not only that, but he has become a non-denominational protestant (formerly Baptist) who believes that all denominations are a lie. This guy is a die-hard sola scriptura, and has made it his personal ‘crusade’ to convert me away from my new Catholic traditions.

I’ve been able to refute most of the usual misconceptions and provide scriptural basis for the things that protestants attack the most (such as the whole confession thing), but today he has provided me with a link to a website, created by a fellow by the name of Ethan Longhenry.

This is the link here.

It seems to be attacking the Papacy in particular, and our Apostolic Succession in general. I am unsure of how to fight these accusations, so I’m bringing it here in hopes that my Catholic brethren can help a sister out.

Please help, the sooner the better!

 

[Drawmack]

Slight backstory. It just so happens that a person with whom I grew up with also works here. Not only that, but he has become a non-denominational protestant (formerly Baptist) who believes that all denominations are a lie. This guy is a die-hard sola scriptura, and has made it his personal ‘crusade’ to convert me away from my new Catholic traditions.

I’ve been able to refute most of the usual misconceptions and provide scriptural basis for the things that protestants attack the most (such as the whole confession thing), but today he has provided me with a link to a website, created by a fellow by the name of Ethan Longhenry.

This is the link here.

It seems to be attacking the Papacy in particular, and our Apostolic Succession in general. I am unsure of how to fight these accusations, so I’m bringing it here in hopes that my Catholic brethren can help a sister out.

Please help, the sooner the better!

From just the first paragraph, look into this: christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun2.html

The first time the word Catholic was used to refer to the Church was actually in like 180. Okay now I’ll read the entire thing and see if I come up with anything else.

 

[PJM]

Frankly trying to convience anyone who actually buys the idea of Scripture Onlyis likely going to take a direct intervention from God; possible, but not common.

I say this because John 21:25 clearly explains that “not everything” [simple logic her, this was before tape recorders and video cameras.] is detailed in the bible. Not to be gross, but to try to make a point, the bible never says when Jesus went to the bathroom, what he ate at every meal, what time he went to bed, nor does it list every minute of everyday, everyone Jesus talked to, likely NOT even all of the miracles. It is a sadly obstinate position that refuses even basic logic, and even it is contradicted in saying ONLY WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE, AND THEN PICK AND CHOOSE ONLY WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE THAT SUITS THE STORY THEY HAVE BROUGHT, AND CAN’t EVEN SUPPORT FROM THE VERY BIBLE. IT’S DUMB!

Additionally other bible verses spefically and clearly articulate the validty of Sacred Traditions.

***2 Thess. 2: 13"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning * to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit * and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." ***

It’s in the bible why don’t they believe it?

All this by way of introduction to you’re question.

A carefull reading of Mt. 16:18-19 and Mt. 18:18 provide the answer.

Jesus did not come to earth, suffer, die and rise from the dead to abandon humanity. His death redeemed us, but he also desires to SAVE us, to offer us salvation.

It takes a complete lack of logic and commonsense to conclude from these verses that Jesus would start a new Religion, a new Church, and allow it it die, if not with His own death, with the death a few years later with Peters also being crucified.

How can an all-knowing, all-wise, all-good, God do such a thing. It’s nonsense! Obstinant foolish.

Evidence of the near lunency of this position is that one can find with little effort, a complete list of Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI. With dates of service. The list shows continunity of belief and it is an unbroken line of succession.

The Catholic Church has been in constant and continual existence for 2.000 years! This could only happen if what we hold true is the TRUTH! A lie. even one, could not survive 2,000 years of, wars, conflicts, persecutions, hersey’s, scandals, and survive, and even grow to become the largest by far Christian religion in the World.

Please see the next post which explains in detail what these Mt. verses mean and why.

Good luck, and pray before you began. Don’t argue, just present the facts and the complete lack of logic and the contradiction of their stated position.

 

[PJM]

Understanding Mt. 16: 18-19, and Mt.18:18

Mt. 16:13"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 **Simon Peter **replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death 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.” ** COLOR]

We began by pointing out that this is God speaking. God cannot lie, and God being God is fully aware who he is, where He is and exactly what He God is doing.

Why Caesarea Philippi? Because there was a large pagan temple there, and the message was to fight this evil.

Notice the use of Singular tense terms"… I… you…Peter …my…church… “you the keys”… kingdom… heaven… bind…loose…

Why? So there could be no intelligent debate of what Jesus intended, and His desire for only ONE Church, and who God choose to put in charge of that One Church.

Next we point out that one must look at who was speaking, and to whom the message was intended. Jesus speaking as Son of God, to Peter, and for the Jewish Community.

What is meant by “the Kingdom?”

Mk. 15: 2 And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man** whom you call the King of the Jews?”** 13 And they cried out again, “Crucify him.”

So Jesus is “the king” and His Kingdom is Heaven. 2 Tim 4: 18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil and save me for his heavenly kingdom.

So the "keys to the "kingdom clearly means access to heaven."

But how can we know that He intended Peter to be the keeper the guardian of the keys"?

In the time of Christ (and even in Jerusalem today) all major cites were walled in and fortified. They really did have a GATE, and the gate, did have a KEY.

Each city had its own King so Jesus was the “king” of the city He was speaking about.

The king, similar to kings and Presidents, don’t actually run “the kingdom” rather THEY RULE the Kingdom, and leave the details, with autonomous control and unlimited authority to His Prime Minister, who answered ONLY to the KING!

It is this role that Jesus assigned to Peter, not as a request, rather as a MANDATE!

Thus Jesus / God intended to give Peter the power to determine who gets into Heaven and who does not.

The terms “binding” and “loosing” were at the time of Jesus, common legally binding Rabbinical Terms, that were enforceable at Law. Jesus Knew exactly what he was doing,
and the people to whom He spoke understood exactly what was meant and being done.

Any understanding other than this one lacks TRUTH !

Love and prayers,

 

[Drawmack]

Slight backstory. It just so happens that a person with whom I grew up with also works here. Not only that, but he has become a non-denominational protestant (formerly Baptist) who believes that all denominations are a lie. This guy is a die-hard sola scriptura, and has made it his personal ‘crusade’ to convert me away from my new Catholic traditions.

I’ve been able to refute most of the usual misconceptions and provide scriptural basis for the things that protestants attack the most (such as the whole confession thing), but today he has provided me with a link to a website, created by a fellow by the name of Ethan Longhenry.

This is the link here.

It seems to be attacking the Papacy in particular, and our Apostolic Succession in general. I am unsure of how to fight these accusations, so I’m bringing it here in hopes that my Catholic brethren can help a sister out.

Please help, the sooner the better!

Okay, I read through some of the article. Here is my recommendation. Simply fact check everything he says. Most of it is blatantly false.

 

[PJM]

Petrine Proofs

“When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ he said to him, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time; ‘Do you love me?’ And he said to him,’ Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep. ” Jn: 21: 15- 17

Mt: 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church;

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men. Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all-biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd gives us other shepherds as well.

**Mt. 16:19 **"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven "
The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah . From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers

Mt: 16:19 “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading , and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles. Matthew even calls him the “first”. Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

Peter alone receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred Jn 1:42

Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself Jn 21:15-17, singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role

Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” Lk 22:32.

Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” Lk 22:32.

Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity Mt 16:16.

Peter is regarded by the Jews Acts 4:1-13 as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

Peter is specified by an angel as the leader ** Mk 16:7.**

Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost Acts 1:15-22.

Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas Acts 1:22.

Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era Acts 2:14-36

Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man Acts 3:6-12

Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God Acts 5:2-11

Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead Acts 9:40.

Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God Acts 10:9-48.

Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church Acts 11:5-17.

Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Acts 12:1-17.

Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it Acts 15:7-11.

Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus Acts 8:14-24.

Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times(162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. **If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to! **

Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost Acts 2:14 contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” - an example of “binding and loosing.”

Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized Acts 10:44-48.

Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings 2 Pet 3:15-1.

‘In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this directive to ‘Feed my sheep.‘