Catholicism And Doctrinal Changes

[Nick_Jones]

I said:

The problem with your explanation is that the writers of the bible didn’t take the view that the “simple and unlearned” should be denied access to the scriptures. It is all the more troubling when you find that searching the scriptures is actually the very best antidote against heresy.

Actually, that’s not true. In 2 Peter 3:16 it says, “He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain *things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” *

I don’t see anything here that suggests that Paul thinks that the solution to this problem is to separate “the ignorant” from the scriptures. When I receive JW vistors at my door, who distort the Scriptures to their own destruction, I apply the best remedy–the bible, to show them their error.

 

[Nick_Jones]

I already gave you the answer. Find Peter. There is the Church.

RC’s generally point to this passage to prove that Peter was made the first pope:

Matthew 16:13-20

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

---

There are two other passages in which Jesus reveals His identity (the primacy of Jesus as Messiah):

Mark 8:27-30

27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”
28They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Christ.”
30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Luke 9:18-21

18Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?”
19They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.”
20"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”
21Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

---

It is interesting that in order for the CC to “discover” a secret teaching of the primacy of Peter, the other two passages must be ignored. RC’s are busy “finding Peter” when Christ is really the focal point of these passages… and of the whole bible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

RC’s generally point to this passage to prove that Peter was made the first pope:

Matthew 16:13-20

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

---

There are two other passages in which Jesus reveals His identity (the primacy of Jesus as Messiah):

Mark 8:27-30

27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”
28They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Christ.”
30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Luke 9:18-21

18Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?”
19They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.”
20"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”
21Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

---

It is interesting that in order for the CC to “discover” a secret teaching of the primacy of Peter, the other two passages must be ignored. RC’s are busy “finding Peter” when Christ is really the focal point of these passages… and of the whole bible.

You claim a dichotomy where none exists.

We know Jesus is God. We know He is the focal point of all creation - the Bible and the Church included.

We also know He left Peter in charge of what He himself said He would call “[his] church”.

Peter was made the shepherd of that Church. Therefore, little sheep, find Peter. He will feed you and take care of you as Jesus instructed him to do. He will lead you to Jesus.

 

[Veritas41]

I don’t see anything here that suggests that Paul thinks that the solution to this problem is to separate “the ignorant” from the scriptures. When I receive JW vistors at my door, who distort the Scriptures to their own destruction, I apply the best remedy–the bible, to show them their error.

Nobody is “separating” the Bible from the ignorant – it’s a matter of leaving ignorant people completely on their own to try to understand and interpret the Bible. Why can’t the Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to your door just read the Bible on their own and discover their error – why do they need you to explain it to them? Shouldn’t the Holy Spirit be able to show them their error without your help?

 

[Veritas41]

[Matthew 16:13-20

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
I’m so glad you cited this verse --it is chock full of evidence for Peter’s primacy and the papacy. What’s the first thing Jesus says to Peter? “Blessed are you.” Why is Peter blessed? Jesus goes on to explain…the Father revealed Jesus to Peter and…“you are Peter [rock]” and “on this rock” I will build my church. Do you remember that Peter’s name was originally Simon until Jesus changed it to Peter (rock-- “Kepha” in Aramaic). Only a handful of people have had their names changed by God: Abraham and Sarah, and Jacob. If you’ve studied the Bible, then you know that in the ancient world names meant something and said something about the person who had the name. In changing their names, God is changing the status of the people . Each of those people played very vital roles in God’s plan of salvation – Abraham became the biological and spiritual father of the Hebrew nation (and Sarah the mother) and Jacob became the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, God’s covenant people. So back to Peter: Jesus is God, and He has changed Peter’s name, so this is not an empty, meaningless gesture. Peter means “rock” and Jesus says Peter is the “rock” upon which He will build His church. Go back to Isaiah 51:1-2: Abraham is referred to as the “rock” from which the OT people, the Jews were “hewn.” See a parallel? (And the place where Jesus spoke these words to Peter, Caesarea Philippi, has a massive rock, some 50-100 ft high and 200 ft long, so Jesus is talking about a big, immovable rock ) We have a person who is a “rock” for each covenant people. Now on to the “keys to the kingdom”: In the OT, the king had a royal steward who was given the “keys to the kingdom” as a symbol of governing authority – authority to rule in the king’s absence (Isaiah 22 has an example). Jesus gives *only *Peter the “keys” to the kingdom – authority to rule in His absence (after His ascension). The OT royal steward was a hereditary office, so it had successors. Peter, as royal steward for King Jesus, would have successors, the popes who came after him. Then Jesus gives Peter the authority to “bind and loose” (and later gives the other apostles a share in that authority in Matt. 18:18) – a rabbinical term referring to making judgments in discipline and teaching. And Jesus tells Peter that whatever he “binds” or “looses” on earth will be reciprocated in heaven. Notice the binding and loosing occurs on earth first, then ratified in heaven. Now, I ask you – can God ratify error? Even before I became Catholic I recognized in this verse that Jesus was giving Peter the ability to make infallible decisions. And this isn’t all the Scriptural evidence for Peter’s primacy. I will continue with more in my next post because it will be too much for this one.

 

[Veritas41]

I disagree. Jesus was not teaching that hypocrisy is not a problem! Take a look at Gal. 2:11-14 and tell me if Paul teaches contrary to Jesus.

I didn’t say Jesus said hypocrisy wasn’t a problem – He blasted the Pharisees for the hypocrisy, but this was right after telling His listeners to *obey *the teaching of the Pharisees even though they were hypocrites. He told them not to follow the *example *of thePharisees (in their hypocrisy). Their hypocrisy didn’t nullify their teaching authority. And this would have been a great occasion for Jesus to tell His listeners just to go grab their Scriptures and read them for themselves and totally ignore the hypocritical Pharisees, but that’s *not *what He does!

 

[Veritas41]

Now for further NT evidence for Peter’s primacy:

Luke 22:31-32. Jesus tells Peter that Satan has asked to sift him like wheat, but that He, Jesus, has already prayed for Peter so that his faith will not fail and he can then, in turn, “strengthen the brethren.” Two important things here: Satan has made Peter a particular target of his – why? It makes sense if Peter is the “rock” upon whom Christ has built His Church, but doesn’t make much sense otherwise. And Jesus expects Peter to go and strengthen the other apostles and disciples. Why only Peter if Peter has no different authority or role than the other apostles? It seems like after his denial of the Lord, that it would be *Peter *who would need strengthening. But Jesus’ words to Peter make perfect sense if Peter is the head shepherd of the Church – the one responsible for all the others.

John 21:15-17 Again Jesus singles out Peter to “feed My sheep” and “feed My lambs.” Jesus is again telling Peter that he is responsible for all the other followers of Christ, including the other apostles.

Acts 15 – the first Council of the Church. Debate and discussion go on about whether or not Gentiles had to follow the ceremonial Law of Moses. Peter gets up and speaks (with authority) and all discussion ends. Matter settled. James makes some concluding remarks, but the discussion ended after Peter spoke. This has been the pattern ever since for Church Councils – the bishops (successors of the apostles) meet and deliberate and then the Council, if it is ratified by the pope, the successor of Peter, it becomes binding on the whole Church.

There’s more:
Peter often spoke for the other apostles (Matt. 19:27, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:69)

Apostles referred to as “Peter and his companions”: Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7, Acts 2:37)

Peter plays an important role in all the Church’s “firsts”:

Peter led the meeting which chose the first successor to an apostle (Acts 1:13-26)

Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14)

Peter received the first converts (Acts 2:41)

Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7)

Peter inflicted the punishment upon Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11)

Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon the Magician (Acts 8:21)

Peter is the first apostle to raise someone from the dead (Acts 9:36-41)

Peter was the first to receive the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16) and commanded the first Gentiles be baptized (Acts 10:44-48) See a pattern here??

In Galatians 1:15-19 Paul recalls that after his conversion he didn’t see anyone for three years, and after that the first apostle he goes to visit is Peter, and he stays with him for 15 days. The only other apostle he sees is James, the Lord’s relative. Interesting that he singles out Peter to visit. It makes perfect sense in light of all the other passages showing Peter’s primacy and authority.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Nobody is “separating” the Bible from the ignorant – it’s a matter of leaving ignorant people completely on their own to try to understand and interpret the Bible.

I haven’t just made this up! It was the CC that tried to keep the bible out of the reach of common folks.

Why can’t the Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to your door just read the Bible on their own and discover their error – why do they need you to explain it to them? Shouldn’t the Holy Spirit be able to show them their error without your help?

The bible says I should be willing to provide reasons for my faith. The apostles did so too. And if you are asking me if the Holy Spirit is able to show them their error without my help, the answer is yes. The Holy Spirit dosn’t need me at all.

 

[Veritas41]

I haven’t just made this up! It was the CC that tried to keep the bible out of the reach of common folks.
I’m not saying you’re making anything up, but I am questioning your sources, which I suspect are Protestant and anti-Catholic. Do you read the posts I have made? I cited many Protestant scholars who even acknowledge that there were many vernacular Bibles in circulation before the Reformation. The only ones that were suppressed were the heretical versions (like the JW Bible).
The bible says I should be willing to provide reasons for my faith. The apostles did so too. And if you are asking me if the Holy Spirit is able to show them their error without my help, the answer is yes. The Holy Spirit dosn’t need me at all.
But since you claim we can just read the Bible and come to a proper interpretation of it, then why would it be necessary at all for anyone to explain the Bible to the JWs?

 

[Nick_Jones]

Jesus gives *only *Peter the “keys” to the kingdom – authority to rule in His absence (after His ascension).

See Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 where you will see that the keys were given to the aposles, and not only to Peter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I haven’t just made this up! It was the CC that tried to keep the bible out of the reach of common folks.

We know you’re not making it up. You’re just parroting the same, tired anti-Catholic nonsense that someone else told you. We’re just trying to clean up the mess one believer at a time.

Yes, the Catholic Church chained Bibles to the Pulpit - because they were so rare and valuable that they might have been stolen otherwise. Chaining them made them available to anyone who wanted to come and read them.

Yes, the Catholic Church burned some bibles from time to time. They were found to have typographical errors that could not be accepted. The Church of England did the same thing when some errors were discovered in the King James Version.

Publishers today shred books that are flawed, but no one tries to make theological hay out of that fact!

The bible says I should be willing to provide reasons for my faith. The apostles did so too. And if you are asking me if the Holy Spirit is able to show them their error without my help, the answer is yes. The Holy Spirit dosn’t need me at all.

Need? Nope. Desire? Apparently so. The NT is chock full of encouragements and commands about preaching and proclaiming and so forth. The problem is that people who claim to be “bible only” Christians don’t have any real authority to interpret the meaning of scripture, so we see 20,000+ Protestant denominations teaching different (and opposing) doctrines while each claims to be following the “Bible Alone”. Not exactly what God had in mind when He formed His Church.

Of course, you can rely on the fallible teachings of men if you want to…

 

[Nick_Jones]

But since you claim we can just read the Bible and come to a proper interpretation of it, then why would it be necessary at all for anyone to explain the Bible to the JWs?

I have never said that everyone who reads the Bible will come to a proper interpretation of it. In fact, no one who is unwilling to trust in Jesus (and Him alone) for salvation will come to a proper interpretation of it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have never said that everyone who reads the Bible will come to a proper interpretation of it. In fact, no one who is unwilling to trust in Jesus (and Him alone) for salvation will come to a proper interpretation of it.

So instead of being a “Bible Alone” Christian, you are a “Jesus Alone” Christian?

 

[Nick_Jones]

I’m so glad you cited this verse --it is chock full of evidence for Peter’s primacy and the papacy. What’s the first thing Jesus says to Peter? “Blessed are you.” Why is Peter blessed? Jesus goes on to explain…the Father revealed Jesus to Peter and…“you are Peter [rock]” and “on this rock” I will build my church. Do you remember that Peter’s name was originally Simon until Jesus changed it to Peter (rock-- “Kepha” in Aramaic). Only a handful of people have had their names changed by God: Abraham and Sarah, and Jacob. If you’ve studied the Bible, then you know that in the ancient world names meant something and said something about the person who had the name. In changing their names, God is changing the status of the people . Each of those people played very vital roles in God’s plan of salvation – Abraham became the biological and spiritual father of the Hebrew nation (and Sarah the mother) and Jacob became the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, God’s covenant people. So back to Peter: Jesus is God, and He has changed Peter’s name, so this is not an empty, meaningless gesture. Peter means “rock” and Jesus says Peter is the “rock” upon which He will build His church. Go back to Isaiah 51:1-2: Abraham is referred to as the “rock” from which the OT people, the Jews were “hewn.” See a parallel? (And the place where Jesus spoke these words to Peter, Caesarea Philippi, has a massive rock, some 50-100 ft high and 200 ft long, so Jesus is talking about a big, immovable rock ) We have a person who is a “rock” for each covenant people. Now on to the “keys to the kingdom”: In the OT, the king had a royal steward who was given the “keys to the kingdom” as a symbol of governing authority – authority to rule in the king’s absence (Isaiah 22 has an example). Jesus gives *only *Peter the “keys” to the kingdom – authority to rule in His absence (after His ascension). The OT royal steward was a hereditary office, so it had successors. Peter, as royal steward for King Jesus, would have successors, the popes who came after him. Then Jesus gives Peter the authority to “bind and loose” (and later gives the other apostles a share in that authority in Matt. 18:18) – a rabbinical term referring to making judgments in discipline and teaching. And Jesus tells Peter that whatever he “binds” or “looses” on earth will be reciprocated in heaven. Notice the binding and loosing occurs on earth first, then ratified in heaven. Now, I ask you – can God ratify error? Even before I became Catholic I recognized in this verse that Jesus was giving Peter the ability to make infallible decisions. And this isn’t all the Scriptural evidence for Peter’s primacy. I will continue with more in my next post because it will be too much for this one.

It sounds to me as though you are reading things into the text that are simply not there. This is how we got the newly discovered right to abortion. Some very clever people were determined to find it in the U.S. Constitution. But the writers of the other books (Mark and Luke) didn’t seem to find anything in those stories to exalt Peter’s standing. This is absolutely devastating for the CC because the papacy is never mentioned, and Peter was never given authority over the church.

Here again, are the two other passages in which the primacy of Jesus is confessed by Peter:

Mark 8:27-30

27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”
28They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Christ.”
30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Luke 9:18-21

18Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?”
19They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.”
20"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”
21Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

 

[Nick_Jones]

The problem with your understanding is that Jesus didn’t leave us a book - he left us a Church - and He never commanded the Apostles to write books, either. The Great Commission talks about preaching and baptizing, not writing.

Actually God left both His church and His written word. It was under the perfect guidance of the Holy Spirit that the books of the NT were written because it was God’s will that the church should be given all that it needs to carry out the great commission. What kind of church would we have without the written word of God as our authority? How would we resolve disputes over doctrine?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually God left both His church and His written word. It was under the perfect guidance of the Holy Spirit that the books of the NT were written because it was God’s will that the church should be given all that it needs to carry out the great commission. What kind of church would we have without the written word of God as our authority? How would we resolve disputes over doctrine?

And what kind of Bible would we have if not for the Church that recognized which books belong in the Canon (and which do not) and interprets them correctly?

The Church, using both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (which together make up the Deposit of Faith) helps us to resolve doctrinal disputes. This is exactly why God has given us an infallible Church and the inerrant Word of God. Left to our own interpretations, we would be, well, like a sheep without a shepherd.

This is an excellent post, Nick! You are close to the Catholic position here.

 

[CANman]

RC’s generally point to this passage to prove that Peter was made the first pope:

Matthew 16:13-20

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

---

There are two other passages in which Jesus reveals His identity (the primacy of Jesus as Messiah):

Mark 8:27-30

27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”
28They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Christ.”
30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Luke 9:18-21

18Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?”
19They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.”
20"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”
21Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

---

It is interesting that in order for the CC to “discover” a secret teaching of the primacy of Peter, the other two passages must be ignored. RC’s are busy “finding Peter” when Christ is really the focal point of these passages… and of the whole bible.

So let me see, Nick, how many times does something need to be stated in the Bible for you to believe? Or do you commonly overturn the clear meaning of one passage with one or two others (that do not even hint at contradicting the plain meaning of the first)? “All Scripture is inspired” Nick. We need to understand how it all fits together like a puzzle. You can never EVER say that any passage of Scripture is in error! The two quotes you provided does not negate the Truth of Matt 16. Throughout this whole discussion, Catholic apologists have been fitting all the relevant passages (ignoring none) together into a beautiful tapestry of God’s love and care for His Church. You, meanwhile, have been artfully dodging, or negating the clear meaning of certain texts of Gods Holy Word by proposing another text that you think negates it. Sorry Nick, but you need to take ALL of Scripture, or take none of it . . .your choice

 

[Veritas41]

Actually God left both His church and His written word. It was under the perfect guidance of the Holy Spirit that the books of the NT were written because it was God’s will that the church should be given all that it needs to carry out the great commission. What kind of church would we have without the written word of God as our authority? How would we resolve disputes over doctrine?

That’s a very good question – one that I asked you in a previous post that you never answered. What did the early Christians have as the authoritative Word of God before the NT was written? At least 25-30 years went by between Christ’s Resurrection and the appearance of the first book of NT Scripture. Were Christians without an authoritative, infallible Word of God all those years? Of course not – even the NT mentions the existence of oral teaching and holds it in equal authority to the written Word. (Were the apostles only infallible as they wrote Scripture, or were they also infallible as they taught the Word of God before it was written down?)

You are willing to admit God can make men infallible as they write His Word, but you either don’t believe He can or has chosen not to make men infallible as they interpret and teach His Word. Why would He do one without the other? What good is having an infallible Word without an infallible means of teaching that Word?

 

[Mannyfit75]

It sounds to me as though you are reading things into the text that are simply not there. This is how we got the newly discovered right to abortion. Some very clever people were determined to find it in the U.S. Constitution. But the writers of the other books (Mark and Luke) didn’t seem to find anything in those stories to exalt Peter’s standing. This is absolutely devastating for the CC because the papacy is never mentioned, and Peter was never given authority over the church.

Here again, are the two other passages in which the primacy of Jesus is confessed by Peter:

Mark 8:27-30

27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”
28They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Christ.”
30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Luke 9:18-21

18Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?”
19They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.”
20"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”
21Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

I disagree in your statement that

absolutely devastating for the CC because the papacy is never mentioned, and Peter was never given authority over the church.

There are accounts in the Scripture that Jesus in Matthew 16 gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. In John, Jesus tell Peter to feed his sheep, in Acts, Peter is the first who gather the Apostles to replace Judas, and he is the first to preach the Good News to the People of Jerusalem. He is also the one who speak in support that Gentile should not be circumcise when they convert.

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ

 

[guanophore]

It is interesting that you first say, “the RCC is not anyone’s master.”

Then you try to establish reasons why the RCC is our master! You say:

“Without the Church, no one would know about Christ.
Without the Church, there would be no Bible.
Without the Church, there is no salvation.”

Instead, why not give credit where it is due:

Without the work of the Holy Spirit, no one would know about Christ.
Without the work of the Holy Spirit, there would be no Bible.
Without the work of the Holy Spirit, there is no salvation."

Without giving God alone the glory, there would only be idol worship (the glorification of things or people).

How does carrying the revelation of God make anyone a “master” over others? To me, it is one beggar telling another beggar where to find the bread.

God does not want the glory “alone”. This “aloneness” is a Reformation error. God wishes to be glorified in His saints. He has made us an integral part of His plan of salvation, because this is His desire.

There are indeed instances in which doctrine develops over time, but the CC has actually changed some of its teachings in such a way as to contradict what it had taught earlier. The CC position on “no salvation outside of the [RC] Church” is just one example of this. To justify itself, Rome tries to say that Protestants are Catholics too! Protestants are “separated bretheran” but not really outside of the Roman Church!

Man’s understanding of doctrine develops over time. For example, we don’t see the word “Trinity” in the NT, but we can see the theology there. It is not the doctrine that changes, but the minds of men to understand it better. The Roman church has had a great deal of exclusive language, and fortunately is getting over that. But the basis for the doctrine has never changed. There is only ONE Church, One Body, therefore, all persons who are validly baptized are members of that ONE BODY. We are all brethren in Christ. Those who are separated from the full revelation of God by willful rejection or by ignorance are still members of the Body, but improperly joined. We can see this in the NT as well.

I only wish that the CC would make it more obvious that her whole mission is the honor and glory of God. Instead, it usually seems that CC apologetics is really more focused on defending, honoring, and glorifying itself.

I must confess that I do not know what you mean, but I will read the rest of the thread, and maybe I will. Jesus does not distinguish HImself from the Church. He is the Head. He is not amputated. There are members of the body that, by disobedience, choose to cut themselves off, but all who are in unity with the Head are One with Him.

What about the criminal (one of two) who was crucified along with Jesus and who, by trusting in Jesus, went to heaven? Was he saved through the RCC?

He was saved by grace, through faith, just as everyone is. Catholics believe that the Church was born in the water and blood that flowed from the side of Christ. The Church was empowered on Pentecost, and since that time, God has chosen to work through the grace of the Church to reconcile the world to HImself. It would be difficult to ascribe this to the Roman Rite, however, since it did not yet exist at that time.

What does it mean to be “saved by invincible ignorance”? Are you suggesting that ignorance is some sort of virtue?

It is certainly more virtuous than being told repeatedly (as you have been) what the Church actually teaches, and that the Teaching is in direct opposition to the errors that one appears to stubbornly hold. This is apparently the fruit of prejudice and anti-Catholic bigotry.

In that case, this little bit of history would have been a non-issue if the CC had a correct understanding of theology:

It isn’t religion that saves and it isn’t the wrong religion or even a lack of religion that condemns. It isn’t “the Christian religion” that has saved my soul; it is the grace of God which manifests itself by my God-given trust in Jesus (and in Him alone) that has saved me from my sins.

If you are willing to open your mind to the facts, and relinquish you preconceived ideas, you will find that this is the Catholic Teaching about salvation. This is one of the Catholic doctrines that was kept by the Reformers, and that is why we call them separated brethren.

This makes it sound as though Rome’s teachings of “no salvation outside the Church” were not intended to be what they were–Rome claiming exclusive authority over all of humanity; not just all of Christianity. Remember what Jesus said:

“I am the way”

Here is what Rome says:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

There is no contradiction between this and the later formulations, which make better sense to those in modern society. Please be aware that the characterization of all saved persons having to be Roman is just as offensive to non-Roman Catholics as it is to protestants. There are 23 Rites in the Catholic Church, and only one of them is Roman. It happens to be the larges, and the most common in the West. I think the characterization of God’s Church as “Roman” is a reflection of cultural bias and insular thinking. However, we are all in agreement that there is only One Body, One Church, therefore, all who are properly baptized are members of her.